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.
  • 25 best mutual funds of all time Oct 2019
    Just thought I'd chime in with support for Kiplinger. I've been getting this magazine for probably 50 years ever since my dad got a subscription for me after starting my first real job where I had some disposable income to invest. After he passed, my sister continued that tradition.
    I enjoy reading the articles still.
    Keep is mind that the organization has an objective...per Wiki, "It claims to be the first American personal finance magazine and to deliver "sound, unbiased advice in clear, concise language". It offers advice on managing money and achieving financial security, saving, investing, planning for retirement, paying for college, and major purchases like automobiles and homes."
    It's a great mag for folks starting out and those who want some current information about topics of interest. It's not the most complete or esoteric in terms of investments, but if it gets folks on the road to saving and investing, that's a good thing.
  • 25 best mutual funds of all time Oct 2019
    "in 2004 they released their Kiplinger 25. their top 25 mutual funds. they update it from time to time. only 1 bond fund still is in the list from 2004. none of the other 24 survived. most funds don't even last 5 years on the list. how useful is that list really to a buy and hold investor?"
    Although I don't track the Kip 25 closely, I've noticed there is a lot of turnover within the ranks.
    The list's turnover diminishes its utility for long-term investors.
    I subscribed to Kilpinger's many years ago.
    The magazine's quality has really deteriorated over the past 10 or 15 years.
    re the Kiplinger 25. in 20 years there have been 121 mutual funds listed in the kiplinger top 25. the avg life of a fund in the list is 4 years. 28 funds didn't last a year on the list.
    you are right, the quality of the product has gone down IMO and when my FIL passes away i will likely never renew. he likes getting it for me so i don't tell him to stop. I also think about the book "Dow 36000" by Glassman everytime i turn the page and see his face and article.
  • Tariffs
    The goalpost just got moved to August 2nd from July 9th. So much wins if so many deals are being made! Where is BS1000?
    Did you think the resolution would be quick? Only if you are naive. It's a process that will take months-years; after all, changing the world takes time.
    Any time we get more, it's a win; it doesn't matter if it's 5% or 20%.
    Just like Amazon and Apple. If you want to sell your products on their widely used platforms, you pay something. The US markets are similar.
  • Fidelity Checks / Mail Delivery Speed / Security?
    This is one reason why I do not like linked CMA accounts, and especially do not like debit cards linked to a brokerage account. ...
    Fidelity allows you to "freeze" your brokerage accounts to stop all transfers. It is easily reversible
    Can you "freeze your CMA the same way?
    We use a local B and M bank ( also locally owned) for all our checks and bill payments. They pay almost zero interest, but we don't keep much in there at anyone time. ...
    A CMA account is just another brokerage account, albeit with a different fee structure. So it gets frozen along with all your other brokerage accounts when you freeze them (I asked Fidelity a couple of weeks ago.) You can also write checks against any Fidelity brokerage account, it doesn't have to be a CMA account. So one can have checkbooks at different Fidelity accounts just in case one runs out of checks with one account.
    Years ago, Fidelity offered a free Amex Gold card for Premium (and Private Client) customers. It could be used as an ATM card, but with an important difference. It was not a debit card. It was a charge card. When used as an ATM card Fidelity would automatically pay off the ATM charge nightly. So it received charge card protection. At least that was my understanding.
    With bill pay (from both "regular" and CMA brokerage accounts) I don't find much need to write "real" checks anymore. We got a reorder of checks 17 years ago and still have around 150 checks to go. (One doctor of mine charges for credit cards but accepts checks and cash(!).)
    Finally, Fidelity doesn't raise an eyebrow at any sort of movements that "mere mortals" make. Perhaps they might wonder about an 8 or 9 figure transaction; maybe even that much wouldn't show up on their radar.
  • Tariffs
    This fixation on the trade deficit is bizarre. The notion that we a "sending our money" elsewhere, ignores what we have gotten out of that - an unbelievable deal on products that the people want and/or need. If I want to buy a product made in another country, with the money that I have earned, who should be trying to make that more costly or difficult? The GOP led government? Once again this is "command economy" BS telling me where and how to spend MY earnings. Where to direct my business.
    We have a healthy consumer, we buy things, that is not a problem. An iPhone made here may (or may not) be as good as the one's we purchase now (same with a TV or anything else), but we ALL know that it will cost three times as much. This means that you buy the U.S. made iPhone and don't have the other $1500 to spend on anything else. It all goes to Apple.
    The onset of globalization has been extremely beneficial for our economy, since it began. Turning back the clock on that is likely to be harmful, not helpful to the average family.
    No one is "better off" because the things that they buy are three times as expensive. We already have problems finding enough workers. The one's who aren't working are doing so for a variety of reasons, none of which is an overall shortage of jobs. Many places are growth restrained due to labor shortages. Indiana is a fine example, they have been under 5% unemployment for most of the last 20 years, often under 4%. They are in the 3's now.
    We do not have the workforce for this nonsense. The whole thing appears fantasy driven.
  • Stagflation
    A tighter labor market, tariffs on $3.4 trillion of imports, tax cut stimulus, and a high level of government spending are all happening. This is not even questionable.
    The question is not whether or not these are all inflationary pressures. They are classic inflationary pressures. The question is how much inflation they produce. The FEDs hands will be tied. In a tight labor market unemployment will not necessarily rise severely, but wages will go up as businesses compete for scarce resources. The FED may actually have to raise rates, unless they kowtow to political pressure and let inflation run which would be disastrous.
    The FED may be unable to ride to the rescue, with unemployment only incrementally higher & inflation rising, if GDP slows as it is projected to do by nearly every source.
    From the linked article: "The economy is likely to enter a period of slow growth in the 1% to 2% range. Inflation will hover between 3% to 4%, and unemployment will rise to 4.5% to 5%. While these economic conditions don’t match the double-digit interest rates and inflation and chronically high unemployment of the 70s, the stagflation-lite economic framework will still shock consumers.
    Yes, the economy is likely to experience a sugar high following the coming tax cuts, which will temporarily send growth to 3% or higher. But the combination of new tariffs, tighter immigration policies, and sustained annual budget deficits will soon act as a drain on private sector investment as firms and households are priced out of the market."
    This implies that there may still money to be made in the 3Q of 2025. But that the whole shebang will coalesce into bad juju at some point not too far off. If inflation hits, GDP falls and the FED raises rates, I would assume that both stocks and bonds take a hit. Cash and cash equivalents may still be a good bet.
    Some relevant comments from Roubini in this article:
    https://www.bitget.com/news/detail/12560604851369
    Roubini has been one of the worst economic predictors, costing investors a lot of performance. See quote below from wiki (link).
    This is why he is among the "best" market predictors (here).
    Lastly, in 1-2 years from now we will revisit this thread.
    However, financial journalist Justin Fox observed in the Harvard Business Review in 2010 that "In fact, Roubini didn't exactly predict the crisis that began in mid-2007... Roubini spent several years predicting a very different sort of crisis — one in which foreign central banks diversifying their holdings out of Treasuries sparked a run on the dollar — only to turn in late 2006 to warning of a U.S. housing bust and a global 'hard landing'. He still didn't give a perfectly clear or (in retrospect) accurate vision of how exactly this would play out... I'm more than a little weirded out by the status of prophet that he has been accorded since."[27][28][29] Others noted that: "The problem is that even though he was spectacularly right on this one, he went on to predict time and time again, as the markets and the economy recovered in the years following the collapse, that there would be a follow-up crisis and that more extreme crashes were inevitable. His calls, after his initial pronouncement, were consistently wrong. Indeed, if you had listened to him, and many investors did, you would have missed the longest bull market run in US market history."[30][31][32][33] Another observed: "For a prophet, he's wrong an awful lot of the time."[34] Tony Robbins wrote: "Roubini warned of a recession in 2004 (wrongly), 2005 (wrongly), 2006 (wrongly), and 2007 (wrongly)" ... and he "predicted (wrongly) that there'd be a 'significant' stock market correction in 2013."[35] Speaking about Roubini, economist Anirvan Banerji told The New York Times: "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day," and said: "The average time between recessions is about five years ... So, if you forecast a recession one year and it doesn't happen, and you repeat your forecast year after year ... at some point the recession will arrive."[36][10] Economist Nariman Behravesh said: "Nouriel Roubini has been singing the doom-and-gloom story for 10 years. Eventually something was going to be right."[17]
    In January 2009, Roubini predicted that oil prices would stay below $40 for all of 2009. By the end of 2009, however, oil prices were at $80.[34][37] In March 2009, he predicted the S&P 500 would fall below 600 that year, and possibly plummet to 200.[38] It closed at over 1,115 however, up 24%, the largest single-year gain since 2003. CNBC's Jim Cramer wrote that Roubini was "intoxicated" with his own "prescience and vision," and should realize that things are better than he predicted; Roubini called Cramer a "buffoon," and told him to "just shut up".[34][39] Although in April 2009, Roubini prophesied that the United States economy would decline in the final two quarters of 2009, and that the US economy would increase just 0.5% to 1% in 2010, in fact the U.S. economy in each of those six quarters increased at a 2.5% average annual rate.[40] Then in June 2009 he predicted that what he called a "perfect storm" was just around the corner, but no such perfect storm ever appeared.[41][40] In 2009 he also predicted that the US government would take over and nationalize a number of large banks; it did not happen.[42][43] In October 2009 he predicted that the price of gold "can go above $1,000, but it can't move up 20-30%"; he was wrong, as the price of gold rose over the next 18 months, breaking through the $1,000 barrier to over $1,400.[43]
    Although in May 2010 he predicted a 20% decline in the stock market, the S&P actually rose about 20% over the course of the next year (even excluding returns from dividends).[44] In 2012, Roubini predicted that Greece would be ejected from the Eurozone, but that did not happen.[45] The Financial Times observed that in 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic arrived, he said that policymakers would not mount a large fiscal response. However—they did.[46] Also in 2020, he predicted that a US-Iran war was likely.[46]
  • 25 best mutual funds of all time Oct 2019
    My parents first bought into FCNTX about 35 years ago and have been happy with the returns. They didn’t get exorbitantly wealthy but it has provided a nice cushion for their retirement. The star manager (Will Danoff) seems to be relinquishing some of his responsibilities nowadays, so we’ll see what the future holds. But it’s been a good fund for a long time.
  • 25 best mutual funds of all time Oct 2019
    Kiplinger's Income Investor is a pretty good newsletter dedicated to income. It tends to ignore total return, which I find odd. Many years a number of their picks loose money.
    Still for someone who needs income and diversifies adequately it does OK. However it only recently noticed CBLDX and RPHIX and tends to include a number of CEFs
  • How the Largest Bond Funds Did in Q2 2025
    The Johnson tax cuts multiplied the budget deficit by a 6x compared to two years earlier. taxes were raised again in 1969, by Nixon, which led to the last budget surplus until Clinton in 1998. The top income bracket was 90% before Johnson lowered it to 70% - a far different situation, than we are in now. Balance is often the key, either too much or too little is what can cause problems. Similar to rate hikes.
    Often people forget that party ideals change. Lincoln was a "Republican", who fought the South over issues such as slavery. But, in that scenario, the Republican Party was clearly the more liberal party at that time. The "Conservative" Party wanted to keep humans as property. The name is not as relevant as policy.
    By modern standards both Kennedy and Johnson had many conservative attributes. This is another topic where " a little knowledge" is dangerous and potentially misleading.
  • 25 best mutual funds of all time Oct 2019
    "in 2004 they released their Kiplinger 25. their top 25 mutual funds. they update it from time to time. only 1 bond fund still is in the list from 2004. none of the other 24 survived. most funds don't even last 5 years on the list. how useful is that list really to a buy and hold investor?"
    Although I don't track the Kip 25 closely, I've noticed there is a lot of turnover within the ranks.
    The list's turnover diminishes its utility for long-term investors.
    I subscribed to Kilpinger's many years ago.
    The magazine's quality has really deteriorated over the past 10 or 15 years.
  • 25 best mutual funds of all time Oct 2019
    when this article came out, someone brought it up in a investing facebook group i'm a part of. the person was like why not just invest in a group of these! a few months ago in the same group someone queried if they had. they had and they basically were like I chose 10 of them and only like 3 of them actually did any good. after a 5 year stint they punted recently. considering the alternative offered was to just invest in the market, i quickly uploaded the article to a AI Agent I made and asked how many of these funds have outperformed the market since the date of that article. it said 1 no longer exists and 9 of the 25 have outperformed. obviously that says nothing in regards to their place in their category (which is the more appropriate measurement) and also its been 5 years, but I thought that was interesting.
    I've had a subscription to kiplingers for 22 years. My FIL renews it for me. It is super light reading but is a nice quick glance while on the throne. I don't take much of it seriously, in 2004 they released their Kiplinger 25. their top 25 mutual funds. they update it from time to time. only 1 bond fund still is in the list from 2004. none of the other 24 survived. most funds don't even last 5 years on the list. how useful is that list really to a buy and hold investor?
  • Stagflation
    hank: What many today overlook, I think, is the compounding effect of inflation. So after 5 years of 7.5% annual inflation things aren’t 7.5% higher. They’re closer to 40% higher than they were at the start of the period.
    FD: I can't find 40% in the last 5 years, but I see 25-26%.
    From 01/2020 to 01/2024 = Biden 4 years. I see about a 23% CPI increase. The fastest 4 years since 1990.
    See the CPI at
    https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/consumer-price-index-cpi
    =========================
    Since 01/2025, we have seen hundreds of predictions, mainly by (dem) economists, about inflation, stagflation, recession, depression, and other horrific stuff within 6-12 months.
    This means 01/2026.
    Can you take these seriously? I don't.
    Don't worry, I will be around in 01/2026 to report about it.
  • Stagflation
    I was just starting out in a career in secondary education. My second year into it (1970) I landed a great job in a rapidly growing Detroit suburban system. Being on the second salary tier (based on experience) I earned whopping $7,200 for a year’s work, which seemed like an enormous sum of money then. The most memorable aspect of inflation was walking into grocery stores on the way home from work during the 70s and seeing one or two workers in every aisle marking up the individual prices on products - from jars of pickles to bars or soap. Everything was jumping in price from week to week. It was a full-time job, and back before bar code scanners were in use. The checkout clerk needed to punch in the actual product price after looking at an item. How “lame” that seems today!
    What many today overlook, I think, is the compounding effect of inflation. So after 5 years of 7.5% annual inflation things aren’t 7.5% higher. They’re closer to 40% higher than they were at the start of the period.
  • Stagflation
    Yes. The term Stagflation gets tossed around indiscriminately today. While 3-6% inflation (depending who you listen to or believe) is nothing to sneeze at, it is nothing like the double-digit inflation of the late 70s. And there was slow growth in addition. In the 3 years from ‘78 thru ‘80 annual inflation was running between 9 and 13.3%. And in the 4th year (‘81) it was still elevated at 8.9%. Volker did a “job” and inflation was curbed at the expense of a severe recession.
    Source
  • Stagflation
    “Fifty years ago, the U.S. economy was plagued with stagflation—a stubborn combination of low growth,
    high unemployment, and elevated inflation. It was a true shock driven by oil embargoes in the Middle East:
    Gas prices tripled, inflation hit 14%, and unemployment soared toward 9%.”

    “While the prospect of galloping, 1970s-style inflation remains low,
    today’s rising prices are troubling to the younger generations of Americans
    who were reared on the low inflation and interest rates of the ‘90s and 2000s.
    When combined with a predicted slowing of the economy and a softening labor market,
    today’s economy has the makings of what I call 'stagflation lite.'”

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/this-new-stagflation-coming-won-t-feel-like-the-70s/ar-AA1HLBg5
  • CORRECTION: Protecting Against Tariff Induced Inflation
    @yogibearbull, thanks for your insights on inflation protected bonds. I have a couple questions or comments. My bond ladder currently consists of Treasuries, Agency, and investment grade bonds. My objective is to simplify and not buy any more individual securities.
    Vanguard short-term inflation protected bond fund (VTAPX) has 20% of its bonds with maturities of 0-1 year. It follows an indexing strategy of buying bonds each quarter so that some mature each quarter. While I did not find any mention in the literature of holding until maturity, I presume that a bond that matures this quarter is held until maturity.
    https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/mutual-funds/profile/vtabx#portfolio-composition
    Regardless, short-term inflation protected bonds have performed much better than short-term Treasuries over the past five years.
    https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2025/07/protecting-against-tariff-induced-inflation/
    The BlackRock iShares iBonds ETFs buy inflation protected bonds to replicate a rung on a bond ladder so individual inflation protected bonds mature at a specific date and the investment is returned at a specific date. For example, iShares iBonds Oct 2030 Term Tips ETF (IBIG) holds three inflation protected bonds with maturities between January and July 2030 and the fund is terminated in October 2030. For me, the simplicity outweighs disadvantages.
    https://www.ishares.com/us/products/333128/ishares-ibonds-oct-2030-term-tips-etf/
    Regards
  • How the Largest Bond Funds Did in Q2 2025
    During the past 45 years, Congressional Republicans were fiscally conservative
    only when Democrats controlled the executive branch.
    Oh, how they wailed obsessingly about fiscal rectitude!
  • Economic Effects of ICE and HR1
    I'm "impressed."
    Many said similar stuff about Trump first term and the economy was pretty good for years until covid.
    Who can forget Nobel Prize Krugman "great" forecast in 2016.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/krugman-trump-global-recession-2016-231055
  • How the Largest Bond Funds Did in Q2 2025
    This clip is especially noteworthy with the designated talking heads out in public with knives out for the CBO. The contention that the Damnable Ugly Bill won't raise the debt is total insanity; who could really believe that crap?
    Because the Trump administration and House Republicans have savaged the C.B.O.’s analysis, it is worth adding that Phillip Swagel, who heads the office, is a Republican reappointed at the behest of House Republicans just two years ago. At the time, they praised his “objectivity and integrity.” The C.B.O.’s analysis closely resembles independent assessments by the Penn Wharton Budget Model, the Yale Budget Lab and the Tax Foundation.
  • Vanguard High-Yield Active ETF in registration
    Not too surprising. VEIRIX has been whupping VYM for years.
    Mistook a bond fund for an equity fund. I was under the weather that day.