It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
It's documented in this thread(link)+1 Yes-maybe FD1000 should start his own hedge fund and reap the benefits of the 2/20 fee structure.
Correct, my portfolio just passed 35 times our annual expense, and we didn't start taking our SS. The results in the last 3 years were beyond anything I anticipated.davidrmoran: with his reported performance, again and again, he has no need of 2/20
Yes. I believe it well at some point. But the timing is uncertain. Once the genie is out of the bottle there will be hell to pay. You can’t just pull a lever and turn inflation off. I’m cursed with a good memory. Still recall what prices were when I retired in the late 90s. To me, there’s been a lot of inflation over those 20+ years. An early addition I had added to the house back than would easily cost 2 (if not 3) times as much today.Wouldn't you think that all of the money Congress is pumping out (which I'm totally in favor of, BTW) would do the trick?
Generally, it's correct. If you do a bit more analysis you knew that the biggest high tech companies are the most dominated forThe lesson: The stock market doesn’t follow a predictable playbook. Even when it seems to follow a pattern, that pattern is subject to change without notice. Result: Efforts to outsmart the market often turn into exercises in frustration. In my view, though, this is actually a benefit: It means that you don’t need to spend much time, if any, trying to stay ahead of the market.
I have been saying it for years disregard the economy, unemployment, hundreds of articles and "experts" I only look at what’s happening right now by using charts and trend. The price is your best indicator real time, it is what sellers and buyers agreed on and definitely don't invest based on predictions since many are wrong and/or months/years away.Investment legend Peter Lynch said it best: “I think if you spent over 13 minutes a year on economics, you’ve wasted over 10 minutes. I mean, it’s not helpful. Everybody wants to predict the future, and I’ve tried to call the 1-800 psychic hotlines. It hasn’t helped. The only thing I would look at is what’s happening right now.”
I'm a trader and why I pay a lot more attention and YTD made more trades than my usual, getting out before the crash, trading stocks/ETF/CEFs in March and back to bond funds in April.These "experts" missed the fact that the Fed is controlling these markets since 2009 and conventional ideas are not working.
Basically, I disregard all "experts" and articles, their job is to sell you something and/or can't predict the future and definitely can't predict what will happen in the next several months ;-)
I'ld set the clock back to Greenspan. But that's just quibbling
Under the circumstances I find I pay less attention to my portfolio than I have in years.
I'ld set the clock back to Greenspan. But that's just quibblingThese "experts" missed the fact that the Fed is controlling these markets since 2009 and conventional ideas are not working.
Basically, I disregard all "experts" and articles, their job is to sell you something and/or can't predict the future and definitely can't predict what will happen in the next several months ;-)
+1 I keep hearing for years the followingOld_Joe: I'm a value investor, but Value has been taking it on the chin for quite a while.
https://www.ipe.com/enhanced-cash-and-the-naming-problem/25602.articleUsing asset-backed securities in enhanced cash funds has a number of advantages. The interest rate risk or duration is similar to a money market instrument. The volatility of returns from interest rate moves should be fairly low, but a yield premium is available over money market assets.
IMHO the whole concept is an arbitrary numbers game. While I tend to agree with you about having an interest in 2008 performance, I'm more interested in 1994, when bonds lost almost 3% and stocks barely broke even. That's a real test.In "the never had a losing year contest" it's not meaningful to consider funds that did not exist prior to 2008 IMO.
Personal comments-Onetime photography leader is shifting into production of drug ingredients using a loan provided under the Defense Production Act
Eastman Kodak Co. has won a $765 million government loan under the Defense Production Act, the first of its kind. The purpose: to help expedite domestic production of drugs that can treat a variety of medical conditions and loosen the U.S. reliance on foreign sources. Kodak’s loan has terms similar to a commercial loan and must be repaid over 25 years.
The loan is from the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, a government agency akin to a bank, the officials said. The loan is the first of its kind under the Defense Production Act, which the Trump administration has previously invoked to speed the production of Covid-19 related supplies such as ventilators.
The onetime leader in photography sales is gearing up to produce ingredients for a number of generic drugs, including the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine that President Trump has touted in the treatment of coronavirus. Meanwhile, the U.S. is aiming to shift from relying on countries such as China and India, Kodak Chief Executive Jim Continenza and U.S. officials said. Mr. Trump in May issued an order allowing the DFC to financially support the “domestic production of strategic resources” for the coronavirus pandemic and “to strengthen any relevant domestic supply chains.”
Kodak will produce “starter materials” and “active pharmaceutical ingredients” used to produce generic medicines. “We have a long, long history in chemical and advanced materials—well over 100 years,” Mr. Continenza said. He added that Kodak’s existing infrastructure allows the company “to get up and running quickly.” Kodak is effectively changing gears, expecting its pharmaceutical ingredients to make up 30% to 40% of its business over time, and expects the loan to create around 300 jobs in Rochester, and 30 to 50 jobs in Minnesota.
For the U.S., the benefit of providing the loan to Kodak is to reduce reliance on other countries, particularly China, for drugs, DFC head Adam Boehler said: “We don’t ever want to be in a position, because of a pandemic, because of any reason,” that a foreign entity could upend U.S. access to medicines or pharmaceutical products".
China is the world’s biggest supplier of the raw materials—known as active pharmaceutical ingredients—that form the basis of medicines. That dependence on China makes shortages more likely should Chinese manufacturing be shaken, according to a 2019 U.S. government report. China’s dominance is growing: The U.S. imported $3.9 billion worth of pharmaceutical raw material from China in 2017, an increase of nearly one-quarter from the prior year, according to IHS Markit.
Rear Adm. John Polowczyk, who heads the White House’s supply-chain task force, said domestic drug production began shifting away from the U.S. in the 1970s, largely for reasons related to cost savings.
Peter Navarro, the White House trade adviser, said “This is not about China or India or any one country. It’s about America losing its pharmaceutical supply chains to the sweat shops, pollution havens, and tax havens around the world that cheat America out of its pharmaceutical independence.”
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla