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.
  • Fidelity Checks / Mail Delivery Speed / Security?
    I have written, every few months as necessary including within family since Bank of America has limits on electronic transfers, ancient Fidelity checks going back 15 or 20 years, dried and curled-up edges, without any problem whatsoever
  • the July MFO is live
    From Professor Snowball's write on Matthews Asia and its returning CEO, MarK Headley:
    Can Mr. Headley fix it? He thinks so. His simplest metric: if Matthews can reach around $12 billion AUM within three years, they’ve won.
    I don't have 3 years to wait around for the Second Coming.
    I especially appreciated Lynn Bolin's "Protecting Against Tariff-Induced Inflation."
  • Fidelity Checks / Mail Delivery Speed / Security?
    The checks arrived today, 2 weeks after purportedly being shipped. Thanks all for the wise advice and support. I haven’t opened the parcel yet but there appear to be enough checks in it to last 25 years or longer.
  • WSJ: Vanguard’s Die-Hard Customers Have a Message for New CEO: ‘The Service Is Abysmal’
    @Vegomatic, do you have some link?
    Most of Vanguard's equity ETFs have been passive and those do require daily disclosures. Why would that be an issue for indexed ETFs?
    On the other hand, active equity ETFs are newer and daily disclosures had been a big issue. But after the SEC opened the floodgates a few years ago, , there are now nontransparent, semitransparent and transparent ETFs now.
    Vanguard is starting to move into active ETFs.
  • Dividend Payers
    for me its about liking the type of stocks that pay a dividend vs investing in them BECAUSE of the dividend. the dividend is just the natural outcome of investing in older stable companies. reinvest them if you don't want them.
    it was also a much larger deal 50 years ago when IRA's, 401k's weren't the primary investment vehicle. today having heavy dividends doesn't matter because you aren't paying taxes each year on that income whether you reinvest or not. I like dividend payers as a portion of my investing (largely index funds for large cap) because of what they do. not because of the dividend. Luckily most of that happens in my 401k/IRA. I'd rather make my own income decisions.
  • 25 best mutual funds of all time Oct 2019
    "if it gets folks on the road to saving and investing, that's a good thing"
    Absolutely. In our case it was an advisor who made his living peddling American Funds, which at the time had a hefty front load. However, his knowledge and advice went well beyond just American Funds ….
    Same here. One day during my 2nd year on the job I was chatting with one of the older guys - about nothing really - when it dawned on me to ask him if there was anything else I should be doing for long term financial planning beyond mandatory contributions to the pension system. He said “yes” and gave me the name of a fella who sold Templeton funds at a “discounted” 4.17% load. Knowing nothing about investing I called the guy and he got me started contributing. Not a lot really. But that was more than 55 years ago. Einstein is said to have called compounding “The Eighth Wonder of the World.”
    Dick Strong (of ill repute) also had a positive influence on me (in the mid 90s) Strong talked a good game. Based in neighboring Wisconsin I felt some familiarity. First heard the expression “Pay yourself first” from Strong. I think it might have been a company motto. Your first task every payday should be to invest something for your future. Unfortunately, Strong took it a bit too far and was found to have had his fingers in the cookie jar. :)
  • Fidelity Checks / Mail Delivery Speed / Security?
    Thanks for the added information Yogi. I’m thinking checks may have become more digitized today than most of us realize. The image of some astute clerk sitting behind a desk with thick spectacles carefully comparing the signature on file with that scribbled on the check (maybe 50 years ago) is likely out the door however comforting the thought might be to some. Likely these checks are processed by robots. However, I have no doubt a robot very capable. Look at how good they’ve gotten at facial recognition.
    One concern of mine is that if the checks fail to arrive soon I’d be loath to use one of the existing blank checks until the issue was somehow resolved. Thus the ability to pay off the invoice could be compromised / delayed even though no detectable fraud had occurred. In other words, it could muck things up.
    Footnote: Still no checks as of July 9. Fidelity said they were mailed out June 20 June 26. E-Gads!
  • Fidelity Checks / Mail Delivery Speed / Security?
    Great questions. I read Larry’s post in OT and the situation sounds like insanity. But I left Citi 15-20 years ago. It seemed then they were more interested in trying to (aggressively) sell me things than servicing the credit card account I had with them. I find Elan Financial more user friendly.
    I come at the issue of credit from a different perspective than most. Years ago i got overextended with credit and it scared the *#A## out of me. So part of “recovery” was swearing off all credit. Interestingly, it was the same time that I began saving, running an annual budget and taking a real interest in investing. So even today I’m loath to use credit cards. Cash rewards don’t thrill me. I figure those are offset by a natural propensity to spend more when using credit rather than paying in cash or on a debit card.
    Except for travel I don’t like to use credit cards. However, after I’d already committed to a large home infrastructure project a year ago I received an offer of 18 months interest free credit on a new card thru Fidelity / Elan. The contractor was willing to put the job on a credit card with no fee. Rather than pull the project money from investments all at once (as first planned) it seemed to make sense to fund the project with this interest free line of credit and then repay it over time. It worked this time as my investments have done very well over that time frame. And, now a year later, I’m about to pay the entire sum off.
    I’ve always felt checks were very safe. Never ever had a problem with one. However in recent years, for better or worse, I’ve begun paying bills thru direct debit from my bank account. I was, however, a victim of identity theft 15-20 years ago and it may have been related to a newspaper subscription allowed to access my bank account. I’ll never know for sure. Law enforcement looked into it and believed it was a Russian based hacking operation. All they got was a few hundred dollars from one local bank checking account by running 3 or 4 bogus withdrawals. The bank made me whole. To @Old_Joe’s question - Yes, I do view checks as safer than authorizing direct withdrawals. But the difference isn’t great enough to dissuade me from using the latter.
    After the above affair I subscribed to Identity Guard . They are excellent. I have a reasonably priced annual plan (pay once yearly). They are very good at notifying me of any suspicious activity, changes in credit rating, credit inquiries, newly opened lines of credit, etc.
    Re “What's your perspective on the danger of hacking vs stolen checks?” I don’t have an intelligent answer. Two different birds. Neither is enticing. A “hack” implies a successful operation. But a stolen / lost check is only a first step. Any culprit still needs to make a withdrawal using such to be successful.
  • 25 best mutual funds of all time Oct 2019
    "if it gets folks on the road to saving and investing, that's a good thing"
    Absolutely. In our case it was an advisor who made his living peddling American Funds, which at the time had a hefty front load. However, his knowledge and advice went well beyond just American Funds, and as our investments built, that load gradually got lower and after a few years went away. Today we're in pretty good shape, with a lot of credit to that man.
    If Kiplinger helps in the same way, that's very good also. Whatever it takes.
  • 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?