I've learned to expand my definition of alternative funds. I look at PVCMX as an alt fund in that it uses cash for defense - in a manner quite different from most other funds (thus the ALT view).
Low SD of 5, with a 7.84% 5 yr return. It's worst quarter in 5 years was -(1.83%).
I had purchased QQMNX recently as well, but that's it for market neutral funds. It will sit alongside HMEZX, RSIVX, WBALX, CBUDX, CBLDX. Low SD grinders that I hope get me close to 7% annually.
Many true ALT funds are finicky.

warning : the potential complexity of most gold ETFs is a mess for taxes.
if not each year, then certainly the manual collection and calculation of data of all years past when you sell. repeat for each subsequent sell, and hope you did it roughly right. there is no hand-holding or even hints in turbotax.
it is for this very reason i abandoned k1s in the past, and will never be adding new buys in this space.

+1 / Sounds like it. Best held in tax exempt / tax sheltered accounts. As Yogi noted above the 28% tax on collectibles does not apply to etfs that invest only in mining companies.

warning : the potential complexity of most gold ETFs is a mess for taxes.
if not each year, then certainly the manual collection and calculation of data of all years past when you sell. repeat for each subsequent sell, and hope you did it roughly right. there is no hand-holding or even hints in turbotax.
it is for this very reason i abandoned k1s in the past, and will never be adding new buys in this space.

Interesting day, as gold (represented by GLD) is higher, but the miners at mid-day (represented by GDX) were down around 4%.
While PRPFX always gets a lot of attention when precious metals are on the rise, its actual allocation to gold and silver (in bullion form) is only 25%. Additionally, PRPFX has a substantial allocation to natural resource stocks which, no doubt, includes some miners.
The mining stocks tend to be much more volatile than the underlying metals. They are affected by many other factors than just the price of metals. (ie energy costs, labor issues, environmental / health & safety issues and regulations, and to some extent FX / geopolitical considerations as many are in foreign countries).
As others have noted, the mining stocks appear undervalued relative to the price of gold. That’s been the case for many years (based on regular reading of Bill Fleckenstein, highly knowledgable long-time gold bull).

I believe RPHYX is no TF at Schwab, but that doesn't help you with the higher than normal ER (1.19%). I don't think to much about the ER since, even being on the high side, the risk reward is so good. FWIW, I've also held FLRN (SPDR Bloomberg Investment Grade Floating Rate) for years as a steady-eddy income fund, though this one has had a couple hiccups along the way.

For the past two months, I have been following two "Market Neutral" funds, QQMNX and VMNFX, which held up very well and provided some protection during recent market downturns. New managers have been at the helm of both funds since 2021.
As MikeM said: "I have to admit, QQMNX is a tempting alternative in this alternative field for a less bumpy ride and, so far, excellent returns."
..............QQMNX....VMNFX
YTD.........15.6%.......8.9%
3 YRS.......14.4........14.8
5 YRS.......10.3..........8.2
2022..........9.5.........13.5
Std. Dev....8.6%.......7.3%
As a retired investor who doesn't need a lot more money, preserving capital is more important to me than seeking sizeable returns on capital. While both funds have excellent risk/reward profiles, I have decided to add QQMNX to my portfolio at this time of fairly high equity valuations.

A couple other market neutral funds you can consider: BDMAX and JMNAX. BDMAX has outperformed QQMNX over the last 1 and 2 year trailing periods, and has a higher Sharpe ratio and lower standard deviation over the last 3 years according to Morningstar data. JMNAX has had lower returns, but has a smooth ride. I use a combination of BDMAX and JMNAX, but I might consider adding QQMNX. Thanks for bringing it up.

And thanks for bringing up BDMAX and JMNAX, much appreciated.
Unfortunately, BDMAX has a 5.25% load at my brokerage firm. But, another share class, BDMIX, may be available in an IRA with no minimum investment limit. Still checking it out.
However, JMNAX looks very promising and, as you said, it offers a "smooth ride" with a very low standard deviation of 4.35%. It's available NTF (No Transaction Fee) and offered load-waived.
I will continue to monitor both funds. I am currently fully invested, but some of my CDs are maturing early next year and will make some investable cash available.
Thanks again, Chinfist.

for me at schwab, i can place an order for anything even if i don't have the funds to pay for it immediately. i am told, before placing the order, that i'll need to have the necessary funds in my account within two or three days (can't remember which). never have to sell MM funds before buying or anything like that. same thing doesn't work at fidelity, at least not for me.

Years ago it was 3 days (T+3). Until recently it was 2 days (T+2). Now it's just a day (

T+1).
Fidelity automatically sells your MMFs as needed, as though they were your core (transaction) account. Or you could think of them as "overdraft protection". AFAIK, no one else does this.

Sweep is the term, right? Fidelity lets MMF etc. be so used, yes. ML otoh specifically says 'this is not a sweep fund.' However, and this appears to be new, if you do the 'buy stock before MMF sale' thing, they do NOT hit your margin account but let everything go through normally and settle belatedly. When I called to ask (apologetically) about that, the nice c/s person said it was a courtesy to (certain) customers, please don't do it again or at least don't make a habit of it, but no prob this time yada yada. I believe this was not the case say a year ago.

One of the stunning numbers in the Score Card is the FirstHand fund family. Its three funds have an average ER of -1.12.
The culprit is a CEF Firsthand Technology Value Fund SVVC with an ER of -7.21.
I checked with Lipper and their folks say it's correct, referencing this 10K filing.
To my knowledge, the fund appears to have lost nearly all its AUM since launching in 2011.
Still can't quite get my head around this.
Here's an excerpt:

NOTE 4. INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT FEE
The Company has entered into an investment management agreement (the “Investment Management Agreement”) with FCM pursuant to which the Company will pay FCM a fee for providing investment management services consisting of two components—a base management fee and an incentive fee.
The base management fee will be calculated at an annual rate of 2.00% of our gross assets. For services rendered under the Investment Management Agreement, the base management fee will be payable quarterly in arrears. The base management fee will be calculated based on the average of (1) the value of our gross assets at the end of the current calendar quarter and (2) the value of the Company’s gross assets at the end of the preceding calendar quarter; and will be appropriately adjusted for any share issuances or repurchases during the current calendar quarter. Base management fees for any partial month or quarter will be pro-rated.
The incentive fee is determined and payable in arrears as of the end of each calendar year (or upon termination of the Investment Management Agreement, as of the termination date), commencing on April 15, 2011, and equals 20% of the Company’s realized capital gains, if any, on a cumulative basis from inception through the end of each calendar year, computed net of all realized capital losses and unrealized capital depreciation on a cumulative basis, less the aggregate amount of any previously paid incentive fees, provided that the incentive fee determined as of December 31, 2023, will be calculated for a period of shorter than twelve calendar months to take into account any realized gains computed net of all realized capital losses and unrealized capital depreciation from inception. For the year ended December 31, 2023, there were no Incentive fee adjustments. For the year ended December 31, 2022, there were no incentive fee adjustments. For the year ended December 31, 2021, there were no incentive fee adjustments.
Effective September 30, 2023, the Company has entered into a fee waiver agreement with FCM (the “Fee Waiver Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms of the Fee Waiver Agreement, FCM agrees to (1) waive future accruals of the base management fee starting October 1, 2023, through December 31, 2024, with future recoupment to the extent permitted by the Investment Management Agreement, and (2) waive $2.5 million of base management fee that has been accrued but unpaid prior to but unpaid as of September 30, 2023. Any accrued base management fee waived under section (2) may be recouped by FCM within ten years.

I do not think I was thick skinned when I was unemployed a few years at a time or when I was employed for that matter. If I were thick skinned, perhaps, I would not have been as unemployed as I was. Once I decided I am not going to look for a job anymore, which effectively means once I retired, I was able to look back and see where I went wrong in not being able to optimize my effort or maximize the output to input ratio in my work life. It turns out, when it comes to life, I am a slow learner! I do have fond memories of people who went out of their way to be helpful with my career. I had tones of help outside my family - I wish I made the most of it and was not so thin skinned.

+1.
I very much respect such candor. Thank you. My own career started late. I preferred school, for as long as it did not require actual work. I enjoyed what I was studying. The jobs I took lasted a few years each, with 12-18 month interruptions. I suppose I was aiming for 20 years "in," but lasted 19. I got the Big Fish in the Small Pond angry at me. Then, I said, "forget this! Not again!"

I do not think I was thick skinned when I was unemployed a few years at a time or when I was employed for that matter. If I were thick skinned, perhaps, I would not have been as unemployed as I was. Once I decided I am not going to look for a job anymore, which effectively means once I retired, I was able to look back and see where I went wrong in not being able to optimize my effort or maximize the output to input ratio in my work life. It turns out, when it comes to life, I am a slow learner! I do have fond memories of people who went out of their way to be helpful with my career. I had tones of help outside my family - I wish I made the most of it and was not so thin skinned.

Yep. I added more last week. I am probably down about 5% in the current foray into this stock - third time in four years. I started the first time during Covid at near $100. I will hate to give back any profits I already took on BA stock. Each time I buy, I think it is a forever holding but I end up selling for one reason or the other. This time I bought it in a taxable account.
P.s.: corporate wide layoffs are a nice event to get rid of a lot of fat (e.g., redundant management) in the system. Some managers also relish these events to get rid of employees who produce less but take up too much of team resources, including management time, but which employees are otherwise pain to get rid of because of various entrenched corporate idiosyncrasies (e.g., power hogging HR). In all my work, for sometime after each mass layoff, the productivity of my group increased. Some tech companies layoff 5% of their work force every year - does not mean they do not grow. I know it sucks to be unemployed but I can be objective about it because I was unemployed as many years as I was employed.

I wish I'd been as thick-skinned as you, about being unemployed. Only a prostate exam is worse.

Hi @BaluBalu
A potential report 'end date' will always be an open consideration.
As to TMF and EDV; well, we're seldom sure of what the 'pro' traders are attempting to do, eh? We've had about 2% of our portfolio in TMF for a few years, awaiting yield changes that would promote a decent price gain. TMF has travelled a rough chart during this period; as does its alter ego of TBT (the short position). These have always been 'hot potatoes'; but while we await pricing gains, we do have a tiny offset of a 3.33% yield. Generally, we do not enter an investment with only a 2% position, as this is not meaningful to any real support for an overall portfolio; but we took a fling and will patiently wait.
The recent good economic news and ongoing rising inflation potentials, as well as the looming election results are likely placing more pressure on the long duration bonds. Only my 'best guess'.

I'm totally ignorant about what you are trying to do with these moves. What do you aim for that couldn't be hit with some other type of investment?

Hi @BaluBalu
A potential report 'end date' will always be an open consideration.
As to TMF and EDV; well, we're seldom sure of what the 'pro' traders are attempting to do, eh? We've had about 2% of our portfolio in TMF for a few years, awaiting yield changes that would promote a decent price gain. TMF has travelled a rough chart during this period; as does its alter ego of TBT (the short position). These have always been 'hot potatoes'; but while we await pricing gains, we do have a tiny offset of a 3.33% yield. Generally, we do not enter an investment with only a 2% position, as this is not meaningful to any real support for an overall portfolio; but we took a fling and will patiently wait.
The recent good economic news and ongoing rising inflation potentials, as well as the looming election results are likely placing more pressure on the long duration bonds. Only my 'best guess'.

Yep. I added more last week. I am probably down about 5% in the current foray into this stock - third time in four years. I started the first time during Covid at near $100. I will hate to give back any profits I already took on BA stock. Each time I buy, I think it is a forever holding but I end up selling for one reason or the other. This time I bought it in a taxable account.
P.s.: corporate wide layoffs are a nice event to get rid of a lot of fat (e.g., redundant management) in the system. Some managers also relish these events to get rid of employees who produce less but take up too much of team resources, including management time, but which employees are otherwise pain to get rid of because of various entrenched corporate idiosyncrasies (e.g., power hogging HR). In all my work, for sometime after each mass layoff, the productivity of my group increased. Some tech companies layoff 5% of their work force every year - does not mean they do not grow. I know it sucks to be unemployed but I can be objective about it because I was unemployed as many years as I was employed.

Seems like overlapping regulatory bodies with neither of them being held accountable for the ultimate outcome. When parents bicker, kids take advantage, which is what BA is doing. May be the bigger problem is our non-functioning / non-effective Government and not Boeing.
Six years after those crashes, I do not see any real progress. Break it up. It has a rotten culture and it needs to start as a different company.
Disclosure: I own BA.
BTW, RTX had some product problems in the past 12 months and it fixed the issues enough that its stock recovered very well. If a company has a good culture, it can recover well from mistakes.
I agree with Old Joe about ascribing the issue to the supplier and not to BA in that one instance. Thanks to him for the detailed and objective reporting.

@Crash- Yes, Boeing bought (re-acquired) Spirit in July.
The FAA has been under significant regulatory capture for many years, much to the continuing irritation of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), who are the U.S. primary investigators of aircraft accidents. Over the years there have been quite a number of situations where the NTSB has issued recommendations after an investigation, only to have those recommendations watered down or even ignored by the FAA.
It has not been uncommon for the FAA to issue regulatory safety measures only after being forced to by critical publicity after repeated problems of a particular type, and well after prior NTSB recommendations on the problem.
Have you ever seen the size of the FAA building in D.C.? It's hard to understand what all those people are doing if they "don't have enough resources".

2011 was a long time ago.
Post-GFC, gold rallied hard and both gold and gold-miners peaked in 2011. Yep, people who bought then are still looking to get even.
Then both were trashed.
For years, it looked as if 2,000-2,100 was a ceiling for gold, but it broke out of that in March 2024. Factors contributing to the gold rally include Middle East tensions, Russia-Ukraine war, global moves away from dollar due to aggressive US dollar-diplomacy, central bank gold purchases, rapidly rising US debt, etc.
But as gold has rallied to new highs, gold-miners are still priced as if gold was around 2,000 - check 2010-11, 2020 and 2022.
So, either gold-bullion is overvalued now, or gold-miners are undervalued. I am betting on the latter. Watch $XAU around 164 bow; its 2010-11 peak was 225+.

@yogibearbull- I've never been interested in gold, but your comment about miners vs gold has been noted for many years.

Nope. I own some gold coins for tough times.
In 1984 my father took 10 Krugerrands for payment. Gold was about $600/OZ then. Now its $2600 40 years later.

Several years ago, in a discussion of those two types of bond div accounting, Yogi coined "accrual" vs. "NAV flow" as handles for them, which has always seemed pretty transparent language to me.

If we want to get accounting geeky, both are accruals: one to your account and the other to the NAV. The primary difference is where it is reflected.
The secondary difference perhaps is if you sold (before ex-date) a fund whose NAV is pregnant with accrued dividend, you are treating the accrued dividend as capital in nature whereas if you sold the same fund on ex-div date then the accrued dividend will be paid to you (with an equivalent drop in NAV) and is ordinary income in nature (barring limited exceptions). The reverse also applies when you are buying into the fund. If you buy a fund whose NAV is pregnant with dividend, then you are paying to get some of it back as a dividend (ordinary income). These differences are magnified if the dividend is paid quarterly or annually, rather than monthly. You will also notice the difference if your holding in the fund is in seven figures or more. This time of transaction distinction does not apply to funds that accrue div to your account and not to the NAV. This tax chatter may be useful only if you hold the fund in a taxable account. However, it may not be wise to delay your sale for tax reasons.
The third and minor difference is if you are transferring a fund from one brokerage to the other, more likely the fund that accrues div to the NAV transfers cleanly. But this is not a good reason to choose which fund one should invest in.
The above is not an exhaustive listing or discussion.
@Mona, please see this post as well.