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.
  • The Making of Biden's Superfast Push for Clean Electricity
    >> unhappy with me pointing out the inevitability of another ice age
    As if this has anything to do with anything. Jesus. I am guessing you do not have grandchildren. Mine, 3-6-9, are going to live a long time barring mishap, but not 1-2k years. Yours?
    You did not share your thoughts about carbon taxation and econ disincentives affecting aggregate behaviors.
    >> only too eager to look to science so long as it agrees with their preconceived notions, but prefer not to credit it when it happens to work against them.
    What science is it that works "against" warming?
    You sure do have the gift of glib. I for some reason keep thinking you might conceivably have something real to offer here. Prove me right, I dare you.
  • Rob Arnott on Value Investing Comeback of 2021...Or Not
    Arnott isn't the only one who was wrong for years
    1) US stocks are over value, the rest of the world is undervalue. US stocks did better in the last 10 years.
    2) The GMO team and Arnott have been wrong for 10 years.
    3) Gundlach was way wrong when he predicted the 10 year will be at 6% in 2021
    4) Bogle was wrong when he predicted stocks/bonds performance based on the past and averages.
    5) Inflation and interest rates can only go up. Both wrong for years.
    6) inverted yield signals recession = wrong. High PE, PE10 signal the end of the bull market...wrong again for years.
    7) There is no way stocks will have a V recovery in March 2020 based on blah, blah, whatever...and they did.
    8) The economy is bad, unemployment is high, the debt is huge = bad future stock market. The reality? Stocks are still up.
    9) If Trump will be elected, it will be a disaster. Reality? stocks were up
    The truth is the 24/7 media has to write about something for someone to click and read and how they get paid.
    The Fed successfully managed to do all the above and why many "experts" were wrong
    If you didn't get the message already, most investors should do nothing to very little. Predictions area a flipping coin. Some will be correct just because markets go sometimes down
    BTW, I always do something big when I see something crucial happening NOW but I don't recommend it to anybody. I don't mind being wrong because I invest to meet my specific goals.
    Lastly, why Arnott still in business? most of us lose their jobs after just several mistakes so why people who manage money don't.
  • Building Downside Protection For Retirees

    I have been using great risk reward funds since 2000 but in the last several years and especially since retirement I just sell to cash when I see extreme market conditions. It's the only sure way to protect my portfolio. When a black swan shows up is years such as 2008,2009,2020 there is no way to know what will work and what used to work before may not work in the future.

    Thank you, FD1000,
    I agree that each bear market is different and they are less predictable with massive quantities of stimulus. I reduce my exposure to stocks to 25% following Benjamin Graham’s guidelines late in the business cycle. MFO has been great to identify lower risk funds. I am pleased with the low downturns in my portfolio which is rising slow and steady.
    Hello,
    I'm new to this forum and curious which funds do you and others own?
  • The Making of Biden's Superfast Push for Clean Electricity
    @racqueteer
    I've cited three separate paths which WOULD be solutions, but not in 15 years.
    You cited three different solutions--geothermal, tidal and microwaves--and dismissed all of them and complained about how other countries are failing so why should we even try?
    Actually, the solutions were fusion, geothermal, and solar with microwave transmission from SPACE. Tidal isn't a solution, but it would help. There is also OTEC, which I hadn't mentioned. 15 years was Biden's goal; it didn't originate with me. Finally, please quote where I said we shouldn't try to fix the problem.
    I might as well throw out ANOTHER solution you won't like, also doable if we had the will... Start controlling and reducing overpopulation of the planet; with its resultant global warming, pollution, reduction of rain forests, reduction of arable land, and on and on. THAT would ALSO be a solution to the problem.
    I've no particular quarrel with your #1, but it doesn't get us to Biden's goal. On #2, I'll just note that France, for example, is virtually all fission-generated power with its OWN issues, but a 'solution' nonetheless, and Europe generally is HEAVILY dependent on imported oil - much of it from Russia. #3 and #4 are predominately swipes at Republicans in general, so unproductive. So long as we remain divided on the basis of extremist views on BOTH sides, we're in trouble as a nation. Moderates in control would a better alternative.
    I'll just briefly remind you that the op specifically mentioned BIDEN'S grid plan and asked for our reaction to it. I've remained on topic, slandered no one, took no political stance, and provided simple facts... How about you?
  • The Making of Biden's Superfast Push for Clean Electricity
    @racqueteer
    I've cited three separate paths which WOULD be solutions, but not in 15 years.
    You cited three different solutions--geothermal, tidal and microwaves--and dismissed all of them and complained about how other countries are failing so why should we even try? No politician probably in the history of politicians has probably set a timetable for a goal and expected it to be 100% achieved by then. So let's say we reach 50% of the goal, 75% in 15 years. That would still be valuable. The U.S. I believe has four possible choices:
    1. Lead in the fight against climate change while others follow us- The moonshot goal, what America was once famous for. Would be great for America's image.
    2. Follow other countries that are actively fighting climate change like Germany and other Western European ones. OK, acceptable, better than nothing.
    3. Do nothing and deny anthropogenic climate change is real and that we have any way to influence it and waste time complaining "whatabout" China, etc.. This is the traditional GOP response. It's bad, very bad.
    4. Actually go backwards, roll back environmental regulations already in place, drill baby bill and spend needless hours trying to "make libtards cry" while the planet dies. This is where we are with the current president who has rolled back environmental regs and did everything possible to sabotage environmental movements. It is absolutely dreadful.
    You seem to be saying Biden's plan isn't feasible in 15 years. So what? Something in the right direction is better than where we are now and moaning about other countries' behavior. And if we support addressing climate change via solar, I'm sure scientists will consider other avenues along the way. Regulations must change as well, not just tech innovation. It needs to be more expensive to produce carbon emissions and consume plastic. There are many avenues for attacking the problem. But moaning about what other countries are doing or not doing as an excuse to do nothing is no longer acceptable.
  • The Making of Biden's Superfast Push for Clean Electricity
    Ok, last try for me... The issue is 15 years; what can be accomplished in that time. I don't think that we're likely to have any kind of solution in that timeframe. I've cited three separate paths which WOULD be solutions, but not in 15 years. The people who have been responding negatively to me have proposed ZERO 15-year (or longer) solutions. I remain willing to listen to some substantive plan for accomplishing this admittedly worthwhile goal. I have a decent idea what is going to be ATTEMPTED, and note that it ISN'T one of the actually DOABLE routes I listed, but the old standby: Earth-based solar power; something that has serious technological drawbacks unless we can get them into space; maybe at a LaGrange point. For me, just "doing something" in the hope that it'll work out is inefficient and a waste or resources as well as energy.
  • Vanguard Treasury Money Market Fund lowers initial minimum
    Thanks msf, very well thought out and I agree. Still, there is that nagging thought I have that "only cash is cash." My concern would be something totally unforeseen that causes a permanent and substantial loss of capital. I guess that's not really a real concern with a fund dating back to 1977 with no down years, but I still need to get past that mental block. ZIRP is getting me there.
  • The Making of Biden's Superfast Push for Clean Electricity
    "Clean" WHERE? This usually means solar power, and while a laudable idea, you have to have large tracts of surface available, good weather most of the time, and you need to manufacture the stuff (polluting THERE) in order to build the panels. This stuff doesn't magically produce and transport itself; nor transport its output magically either (wiring, etc). Geothermal would be great, but a major implementation problem. Tidal power, sure, but you have to produce the materials, transport them, install them, run wiring, etc. Off-loading all this construction and manufacture into space and transmitting microwaves back? Yeah, THAT might be a 'solution' EVENTUALLY, but 15 years (or 25)? Fusion power could do it, but not in that time period. Not bloody likely we're getting THERE from HERE!
    And while we're making that viable, what is everyone ELSE doing? We become even MORE economically handicapped, lose MORE jobs to cheap labor elsewhere, and THEIR pollution simply blows HERE? And is it moral to simply export our environmental problems? We don't have the technology, international consensus, or financial wherewithal to actually FIX this problem, and we shouldn't delude ourselves that we DO.

    Confused. So what? Just shrug? Do you have a point other than a kvetch about what you think is delusion? This is not even at the level the perfect defeating the good. What do you propose? What would you advise? I cannot tell if you actually keep up, what with your credentials.
  • The Making of Biden's Superfast Push for Clean Electricity
    So, LewisBraham, the sum total of what you've got is: "We can do it", followed by the notion that we can do it ON OUR OWN, 'somehow'? Hmmm... You claim you "cant understand my commentary"? Admittedly, I used a couple big words, and didn't adhere to some preconceived notion you might have, but I think it was clear enough, and you STILL haven't supplied anything of substance - Good you have that "can do" attitude though! So what's your "can do" plan for doing ANY of this which doesn't violate the Laws of Thermodynamics, physics, or finance? Fusion would do it - eventually. So would geothermal - eventually. Solar will NOT unless we get it off-planet and it ain't going to happen in 15 years. You disagree? Then back it up with facts and plans; not hope and wishes.
  • The Making of Biden's Superfast Push for Clean Electricity
    @racqueteer is a very thoughtful poster for years on M*, even if new here.
    Biting “my tongue,” so-to-speak, and not trying to be inflammatory, but this is a discussion board, with viewpoints from all sides. Disagreeing posts/ideas shouldn’t be dismissed and relegated as small-minded zealots of the opposite party. That is the purpose of the “Off Topic” board :)
  • Rob Arnott on Value Investing Comeback of 2021...Or Not
    Arnott's star in the finp0rn pundocracy faded several years ago, in my view. But Josh Brown is still a rock star worth listening to.
  • "They had B@lls of Steel.."
    April 20, 2020 Oil (WTI) hit a 138 year low price of (-$39).
    At the start of 2020 the big industrial economies were healthy, investors were optimistic, and West Texas Intermediate was trading at about $60 a barrel. Prices began to fall in February after the first reports of the coronavirus. That accelerated as the outbreak turned into a pandemic. By the end of March, WTI futures were at $20, the lowest they’d been since after Sept. 11. Then, after tense negotiations, the big oil producers—led by Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S.—agreed to reduce production by 10% to try to stabilize prices.
    Then on April 20th, 2020 oil prices sank.
    Here’s how it works: Imagine a trader sees that WTI is at $10 and predicts it’s going to end the day at $5. To capitalize, he buys 50,000 barrels in the TAS market, agreeing to purchase oil at wherever the price ends up by 2:30 p.m. At the same time, he starts selling regular WTI futures: 10,000 barrels for $10 and then, if the market is falling as predicted, 10,000 more at $9, and again at $8. As the settlement window approaches, the trader accelerates his selling, offloading a further 10,000 contracts at $7, then another chunk at $6, helping push the price lower until, sure enough, it settles at $5. By now he is “flat,” meaning he’s sold as many barrels as he’s bought and isn’t obliged to take delivery of any actual oil.
    The trader’s bet has come off. His profit is $150,000, the difference between what he sold oil for (50,000 barrels at prices ranging from $10 to $6, for a total of $400,000) and what he bought it for in TAS contracts (50,000 barrels at $5 a barrel, or $250,000). All of this is perfectly legal, providing the trader doesn’t deliberately try to push the closing price down to an artificial level to maximize his profits, which constitutes market manipulation under U.S. law. Manipulation can result in civil penalties such as fines or bans, or even criminal charges carrying a potential prison sentence of up to 10 years. It’s also illegal in the U.S. to place trades during or before the settlement with “intentional or reckless disregard” for the impact.
    Story Here:
    stock-market-when-oil-went-negative-these-essex-traders-pounced
  • The Making of Biden's Superfast Push for Clean Electricity
    "Clean" WHERE? This usually means solar power, and while a laudable idea, you have to have large tracts of surface available, good weather most of the time, and you need to manufacture the stuff (polluting THERE) in order to build the panels. This stuff doesn't magically produce and transport itself; nor transport its output magically either (wiring, etc). Geothermal would be great, but a major implementation problem. Tidal power, sure, but you have to produce the materials, transport them, install them, run wiring, etc. Off-loading all this construction and manufacture into space and transmitting microwaves back? Yeah, THAT might be a 'solution' EVENTUALLY, but 15 years (or 25)? Fusion power could do it, but not in that time period. Not bloody likely we're getting THERE from HERE!
    And while we're making that viable, what is everyone ELSE doing? We become even MORE economically handicapped, lose MORE jobs to cheap labor elsewhere, and THEIR pollution simply blows HERE? And is it moral to simply export our environmental problems? We don't have the technology, international consensus, or financial wherewithal to actually FIX this problem, and we shouldn't delude ourselves that we DO.
  • The Making of Biden's Superfast Push for Clean Electricity
    Quick read that looks at some of the challenges surrounding Biden's 15 year plan...
    Joe Biden put a 100% clean grid at the core of his climate agenda. Even more remarkable was his proposed timeline: 15 years.
    Can anyone build a clean grid that fast? And for that matter, where did an idea this big come from in the first place?
    https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/the-making-of-bidens-superfast-push-for-clean-electricity
  • Building Downside Protection For Retirees

    I have been using great risk reward funds since 2000 but in the last several years and especially since retirement I just sell to cash when I see extreme market conditions. It's the only sure way to protect my portfolio. When a black swan shows up is years such as 2008,2009,2020 there is no way to know what will work and what used to work before may not work in the future.
    Thank you, FD1000,
    I agree that each bear market is different and they are less predictable with massive quantities of stimulus. I reduce my exposure to stocks to 25% following Benjamin Graham’s guidelines late in the business cycle. MFO has been great to identify lower risk funds. I am pleased with the low downturns in my portfolio which is rising slow and steady.
  • Building Downside Protection For Retirees
    Hi Lynn, great article.
    I have been using great risk reward funds since 2000 but in the last several years and especially since retirement I just sell to cash when I see extreme market conditions. It's the only sure way to protect my portfolio. When a black swan shows up is years such as 2008,2009,2020 there is no way to know what will work and what used to work before may not work in the future.
    I have several criteria but the easiest one is the VIX, when...VIX>30 get ready...VIX>35 start selling...VIX>40 rapid selling. The catch of course is not to stay out for longer term. I have been out of the market about 3% of the times in the last 10 years.
    As you said correctly: "All Weather" Permanent Portfolio created by Harry Brown in 1980's. It was made of four equal weighted assets of gold, cash, stocks, and long term treasuries. It's performance has worked well in some environments and not others. This portfolio performance was poor since 2010 (PRPFX isn't exactly it but close enough) compared to VBINX(60/40) and VWINX(40/60) see (link).
  • Is Oakmark going to offer a retail bond fund?
    I appreciate all the comments and observations about how OAKBX has altered its portfolio (both in allocation and in types of bonds) over the past several years. This seems to be in response to the changing fixed income market (interest rates low and presumably bottoming out though not rising).
    Interestingly, OAKBX is the only Oakmark fund that M* does not like (rated neutral). So while M* does not see significant changes happening on the equity side, somethings must have changed to cause the equity funds to degrade so much.
    (M* still loves long time managers Nygren at 2*, gold-rated, OAKMX; Herro at 2% gold-rated OAKIX and 1* bronze-rated OAKEX; McGregor at 2*, silver-rated OAKGX.)
  • Building Downside Protection For Retirees
    I too want to thank you for all your hard work and interesting ideas. As a recent retiree I am concerned about the potential for significant losses early in retirement that will never be made up, having lived through 1974 and later bear markets. Many other portfolio recommendations ( ie AAII) claim that there has never been a five year period of negative returns on various indices so if you just can leave your equity position alone and have a 5 year supply of resources, don't worry.
    My math show the negative period is in fact longer but it really depends on "hanging on" as you see your net worth drop by 30 or 50%. This works far better at age 25 or 35 than 65, believe me, and almost all of the previous periods did not start from such insane valuations.
    The only concern I have with your suggestions is Hussman. Many of us were quite convinced Hussman knew what he was doing with HSGFX in the run up the 2008 but his fund did especially poorly since, and I can't say I feel comfortable believing him now. There is very little recent data ( since June) on HSTRX even on his web page. The data on M* is equally unhelpful.
    As for Gold, I have owned a small % for years as inflation hedge. Seems to work OK although some mining stocks would pay a dividend
  • Perpetrators of huge distributions
    It looks like HFCSX has a history of not being tax efficient. Its tax cost ratio, not counting the current distribution (figures are through Nov. 30th) is 2.29% for one year and 2.18% for three years. Though funds in its category, MCG, are typically not tax efficient. On average they lost 1.85% to taxes annually over the past three years.
    Last year HFCSX distributed about 10% of its NAV (click on 2019 box here). 2020 was a great year for growth funds, so one would not be surprised to see cap gains distributions double or triple that of last year's.
    For example, one of the handful of other mid cap growth funds with mid cap blend portfolios, HMDYX, had a cap gains distribution in 2019 of 2.28%, while its estimate for 2020 is 10.62%.
    "They don't deserve to have my funds."
    Is it because of their cap gains distribution this year, though last year's 10% was tolerable? Or is it at least in part because of the fund's recent anemic performance of 4.45% YTD? None of the MCG funds with MC blend portfolios did better than average for the category; still HFCSX's performance was way under that of its peers.
    "I'll be liquidating in 30 days."
    If you're worried about wash sales, your net gain (or loss) will come out the same regardless since you're liquidating. Or are you thinking about postponing any remaining gain in your shares until 2021? (That would be 23-24 days.)
  • Is Oakmark going to offer a retail bond fund?
    I owned OAKBX for about 10 years in my IRA, and it generally performed better than average. I sold it several years ago because it was changing in ways that didn’t suit my purposes. It started holding higher percentages in stacks, its volatility increased, and its bond sleeve seemed to underperform. It no longer had the excellent downside performance that attracted me in the first place. I replaced it by increasing stakes in funds I already owned — FBALX, PRBLX, TWEIX— that had good downside performances. I also added money to good performing bond funds to achieve a comparable stock/bond allocation.