Resting 500s starter position in AMLP filled this afternoon. Happy to add more as appropriate.

That fund and related holdings have had a nice run over the last 4 years. Quite the chart. I've got to think the trend is your friend absent a black swan event which would crater demand for energy from those sources.

I don't see pipelines being a problem anytime soon, trend notwithstanding .. especially those with an emphasis on natgas. I hold large multidecade quantities already in a few names.
I sold my Canadian pipelines earlier this week on tariff concerns, but would love to buy 'em back sometime.

Resting 500s starter position in AMLP filled this afternoon. Happy to add more as appropriate.

That fund and related holdings have had a nice run over the last 4 years. Quite the chart. I've got to think the trend is your friend absent a black swan event which would crater demand for energy from those sources.

I’m in a one-year subscription. Was advised by many here it’s free at various sites. Color me dumb. There are periods, like the past 3 or 4 weeks, when I use M* 10-25 times in a day. More than most I’d guess. I use the performance numbers in inverse manner - looking for things with potential that haven’t appreciated a lot in recent years. Then try and determine whether that’s systematic or merely related to short-term macro forces. The holdings charts are good. I don’t like a lot of lower rated bonds and find their bond representations of great help.
The one thing that comes with a subscription is the lengthy (but heavily redundant) written “Analysis”. Somewhat useful, although I’ve determined it’s too trendy. When LCORX (one instance) falls from “gold” all the way down to “neutral” inside of a year’s time, to me that reflects problems with their rating methodology and not the fund. While they occasionally rate individual stocks, coverage of CEFs is lacking.
I’m getting my $$ worth based on the number of hits. No decision whether to continue. And the technical shutdowns (often on weekends) are a big concern. When you need data, it ought to be available. As I’ve said before, the portfolio trackers available at app stores for a couple bucks a month are vastly superior to anything web-based I’ve seen. Learning the new ropes, however, can be frustrating.
PS - Before I subscribed to M* I used a Lipper site. But I began getting blocked, as the site required a subscription to worthless MarketWatch. Even took out an online subscription to Reuters News thinking free Lipper access would come along. It didn’t. If anyone has a 100% foolproof link to a free Lipper site (or an inexpensive subscription with access to such) I’d appreciate it. Might drop M* in such case.

Comparisons are hard to come by owing to the recency of ETFs that replicate (or approximate) a longer standing OEF. One target that sheds a little light on the subject might be the Leuthhold core investment funds. Over 3 years (according to Morningstar) LCR has returned 4.97% Vs 4.71% for its older sibling LCORX. To me, the listed portfolios appear nearly identical. This would support ETF proponents’ claims that the lower fee translates into higher return.
Color me skeptical. One example is hardly conclusive evidence. Three years is a previous short time to draw conclusions. What will happen over longer market cycles (periods of heavy fund outflows, liquidity crunches, recessions, investor panics, etc.) is still largely unknown.
Taxes? I’d venture to guess 70%+ of the invested funds discussed here (this site) are under some sort of tax sheltered umbrella (IRA, 401K, similar). TMK there’s never been a poll. There are a lot of retirees. If that’s the case, then the tax issue is not on the table for the majority of us. But, yes, tax savings are important to a substantial number of participants. ETFs win on the tax front from everything I’ve read - but am not expert. On occasions when I’ve held significant non-sheltered assets, I’ve simply placed them into munis - side-stepping the issue.

@Level5, When buying callable Agencies, I ask myself if I would be OK with the interest rate if the bond is never called.
20 years is too far out - I may not be alive and I do not know if 5.5 to 6% yield is enough for something that far out, unless it is US Treasuries.
Re the 2036 due issue, Fidelity shows Yield to worst at 5.267% - that does not sound right. In any case, I only buy new issue to avoid having to deal with bid-ask spreads of secondary purchases and pay commissions.

”Investors plowed more than $1 trillion into U.S.-based exchange-traded funds in 2024, shattering the previous record set three years ago and raising Wall Street hopes for an even bigger year ahead. Longer-term trends also played a role as investors extended a yearslong practice of swapping their mutual funds for the greater tax advantages and easy trading of ETFs. Total assets in U.S.-based ETFs reached a record $10.6 trillion at the end of November, according to monthly ETFGI data, an increase of more than 30% from the start of 2024.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/bc87aa1f-2106-3dc9-9dd4-533c498e5ead/a-record-shattering-1.html
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence
(Robert Frost)

Citigroup has had a nice run over the last 2 years as Jane Frasier's realignment of the firm is bearing fruit. I sold my IRA position in C and will be adding JAAA at month end. Citigroup maintains its position in my taxable account.

:)
me too
have (barely) enough in retirement (expensive state and town), not all that many years left (mid-70s), concur in all the takes re ultrahigh P/Es, etc.
my greed needs to be strongly managed, though

I did some dip-buying recently (JQUA, TCAF, SPHQ) and now that I have made a few thou from them I may bail out of everything tomorrow or Fri, meaning that the only equity I will hold will be the accursed CCOR.
I am not expecting 800-pt days after Monday, he foolishly predicted.
Also sold out of total loser (years) bond funds; ~4.2% at ML and Fido looks good to me for now.

@Observant1 What drives you to purchase addition share of this fund? A quick look on yahoo fin. shows it to be running "way behind" in the category over 1 & 3 years!

If I may opine here, when I look to buy a new car, computer, piece of furniture I don’t just focus on the ones that have risen the most in price over the last 3 years. I sometimes apply the same logic to buying financial products, But perhaps I have it all backwards,

@stillers,
Please indulges us with your "pay no tax" strategies.
With your RMDs being 16 years away and retirement starting in 2012 or at age 45, I am all ears.
Congratulations.

Thanks!
Let me correct your dates. Sorry if my post was confusing on that!:
Retired in 2012 at Age 56
RMDs will start in 2029 at Age 73 (unless gov't pushes back further)
Paid ZERO FIT 2013-2024 (12 years)
Plan to (and very likely will) pay ZERO FIT/SIT 2025-2028 (4 years)
Total ZERO FIT/SIT period (16 years)
Strategy was pretty simple (but takes a while to explain!):
Starting with first professional employments in 1980, got as much $ as humanly possible into tax-deferred accounts. We were DINKS, Double Income, No Kids.
ONLY worked for companies that had defined benefit pension plans as a bene. Collectively had four professional jobs and four defined benefit pension plans between the two of us between 1980-2012. Annually maxed out 401k's and 403b's and all other investable monies went to Roth IRAs.
Rolled all possible Pension monies to IRAs upon termination of service to control when we receive income. Final employers provided lovely parting gifts of Retiree Health Insurance, Retiree Dental Insurance and a RHSA (Retiree Health Savings Account). Retired with just enough $ outside the umbrella (in taxable a/c's) to bridge income gap in years until early SS began for both at Age 62 in 2018.
Started taking (effectively) tax-free IRA w/d's in 2013 to fully defray annual income gaps and/or maximize tax savings. Currently, SS and remaining pensions (that could not be rolled) cover all but a couple grand of annual living expenses.
98% of liquid net worth is still in IRAs and only 2% is in taxable accounts. We have generated negligible taxable income other than early SS starting in 2018 and remaining Pensions that weren't rolled starting in 2013. We have ALWAYS since 2013 kept total taxable income UNDER the taxable MFJ threshold.
And to answer question by @derf:
No formal employment since both retired in 2012. We do however have some friends and relatives throw at us a little cash, dinners, event tix and the like for our otherwise gratuitous mgmt of their ports. I have also done some yard work for some neighbors to keep busy and active for a ridiculously smallish hourly fee. Currently down to just one neighbor as I've tired somewhat of all that.

@Old_Joe, I first came across it on Apple News that I subscribe to. It explains the bond world in details with relevant graphs on each points. The rise of long treasuries (10 years treasury for example) since last October to near 5% today has negatively impacted the equities and bonds. It also presented the “ excess CAPE yield” at historical high, suggesting below average future returns on stock market in an already rich valuation environment.
Our local library subscribers to many newspapers. Generally searching by the title would find it.

I always forget about my library card.
Tip of the cap to @Observant1 for finding the MSN link.

@Observant1 What drives you to purchase addition share of this fund? A quick look on yahoo fin. shows it to be running "way behind" in the category over 1 & 3 years!

I had savings and checking at Capone but several years ago I did away with the savings account and now keep excess cash in a Vanguard MM. It's just a couple clicks to move money between them. At one time they were competitive but that went away pretty fast when rates started going up.

@Old_Joe, I first came across it on Apple News that I subscribe to. It explains the bond world in details with relevant graphs on each points. The rise of long treasuries (10 years treasury for example) since last October to near 5% today has negatively impacted the equities and bonds. It also presented the “ excess CAPE yield” at historical high, suggesting below average future returns on stock market in an already rich valuation environment.
Our local library subscribers to many newspapers. Generally searching by the title would find it.

I was taking RMD on Jan 2 or 3. But in 2020, the pandemic year, the RMDs were waived - first for those who took it after February or March, and finally for all around mid-2020. So, I was kicking myself for 5-6 months in 2020 for taking RMDs too early. Now I take them in mid/late-year.

Different strokes for different folks.
We plan on making QCDs when we're finally subject to RMDs. So had we been subject to RMDs by 2020, we would not have been very upset at having taken a distribution that wasn't required. The money would have gone to some good causes (at least we think so).
We make partial Roth conversions annually. Since those are generally best done early in the year, and since they cannot be done prior to taking RMDs, we plan on taking RMDs (for QCDs) early each year.
In 2009, RMDs were also waived. But this was announced at the end of 2008. So there was no confusion about what to do with 2009 RMDs already taken. Only two waivers in 50 years (RMDs started in 1974 with ERISA), and only one of those without advance warning. Those are pretty good odds of it not happening again in our lifetimes.

@WABAC
On the Osterweis (OSTIX) quarterly webinar today, they mentioned staying short, 1.5 years because they’re not being sufficiently rewarded for taking on additional duration risk.

Thanks for the info. We have that in my wife's IRA.
Not just higher for longer, but shorter for longer too.

@bee
RMDs are taking as early as possible to potentially provide a LT capital gain (from the RMD WD date + 1 year) AKA "Capital Gains Years". Conversely, In years where these RMDs suffered a loss, one would sell (by Dec 31st of that year) to harvest a tax loss which would help offset future gains in "Capital Gains Years".
I don't believe TLH is legal in IRA. Maybe I'm missing the boat?

I took a somewhat different approach. I converted quite a bit to Roth while staying in the lowest tax bracket. Yes, I paid some taxes but the Roth grows tax free forever. The earnings/growth on the funds I converted many moons ago (retired 17+ years) more than make up any taxes I've paid and are still growing tax free forever (if they don't change the Roth laws ). Who knows which way is best as I'm not going to do all that math. Let's just say they both work out exactly the same and call it a day. As they say: "there are more than one way to skin the cat."

@WABAC
On the Osterweis (OSTIX) quarterly webinar today, they mentioned staying short, 1.5 years because they’re not being sufficiently rewarded for taking on additional duration risk.