It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
All you got to do is listen to dozens of "experts' on CNBC and read many articles in the last 3 months where they said the same thing. No, it didn't start this week, it's been going on for awhile now.Well to be fair the survey was taken to assess how managers 'intend' to invest moving forward and not how they were positioned. The part FD left off from Yahoo:
"Defensiveness is in style among financial advisers, according to the BofA Securities annual Global Wealth & Investment Management Survey.
Equity allocation (NYSEARCA:SPY) (QQQ) (DIA) (IWM) fell to 57% from 62% in 2022, the lowest level in the short six-year history of the survey. This time around, 372 Merrill financial advisers from around the country responded.
Exposure to bonds (TBT) (TLT) (SHY) (IEI) (HYG) (LQD) rose 3 percentage points to 27%, the highest recorded.
"These shifts may continue: 39% said they are moving more into bonds, vs. 18% for equities, consistent with the average bond allocation from sell-side strategists hitting a 10-year high," strategist Savita Subramanian wrote in the survey note Wednesday. "We see long duration bonds (and long duration growth stocks) as risky given rate sensitivity."
Cash (VMFXX) (SPAXX) allocation rose to 10% from 7%.
"Just 26% plan to buy stocks with excess cash (v. 42% last year), while 29% plan to buy bonds," Subramanian said. "30% are happy to remain in cash. Cash return/dividend strategies are most frequently requested by clients (82%). We concur. We also prefer companies with self-funded growth (cash flow generators) to those that need to borrow to grow.""
FWIW.
I have been posting for years, and rarely my links don't work. Because the link didn't work I am sloppy?...mmm...it tells me a lot about you.Pretty sloppy for a guy who is always not only on top of everything, but actually well ahead of everything... he didn't bother to check his link response, which seems pretty odd considering that he has such superior financial systems. Makes you wonder a bit.
https://wsj.com/articles/welcome-to-the-5-world-where-yield-chases-you-af3df384Until last year, the Fed had kept interest rates near zero for most of the past decade-and-a-half. Investors became desperate for something, anything, that yielded more than 1%. Wall Street spewed forth high-yield debt, energy partnerships, emerging-market bonds, private credit funds, private real-estate trusts, business-development companies, floating-rate bank-loan funds—all sold on the premise that you needed to take extra risk (and pay extra fees) to get extra income.
But a 5% yield on short-term Treasurys is like kryptonite for the purveyors of that propaganda. “Why chase yield if you’re getting decent returns on a diversified, high-quality fixed-income portfolio?” says Julie Virta, a senior financial adviser at Vanguard Personal Advisor Services in Malvern, Pa.
Of course, having a rule that merely allows retirement plan investors the choice of buying an ESG fund is a terrible threat that will destroy America in the lobbyists view. There is no definitive evidence that ESG criteria or funds either outperform or underperform in the aggregate. There are strong ESG fund performers, too, as well as low cost ones. So, why not let investors decide for themselves by giving them the option to buy one? Somehow this is allowed in the rest of the world and a hell mouth hasn’t opened.It’s been a widely accepted trend in financial circles for nearly two decades. But suddenly, Republicans have launched an assault on a philosophy that says that companies should be concerned with not just profits but also how their businesses affect the environment and society.
More than $18 trillion is held in investment funds that follow the investing principle known as E.S.G. — shorthand for prioritizing environmental, social and governance factors — a strategy that has been adopted by major corporations around the globe.
Now, Republicans around the country say Wall Street has taken a sharp left turn, attacking what they term “woke capitalism” and dragging businesses, their onetime allies, into the culture wars.
The rancor escalated on Tuesday as Republicans in Congress used their new majority in the House to vote by a margin of 216 to 204 to repeal a Department of Labor rule that allows retirement funds to consider climate change and other factors when choosing companies in which to invest. In the Senate, Republicans are lining up behind a similar effort that has been joined by Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia.
….It is unclear whether applying environmental and social principles to investing is actually good for business. Some studies have shown that companies that embrace environmental and social goals outperform their peers in the long run. But other studies show the opposite. And as the stock market slumped last year, oil and gas stock prices rose sharply.
…
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, said he believed the Republican position on E.S.G. was more about ginning up outrage than about just how much of a financial risk climate change posed to long term investments.
“They invent culture-war provocations that drive clicks, and woke capitalism is part of that,” he said.
Mr. Whitehouse added that he believed the fossil fuel industry was responsible for funding much of the pushback. Groups like the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which has been opposing climate action around the country, are supported by oil and gas companies. And the oil and gas industry continues to donate to Republicans at a far greater rate than it does to Democrats, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets.
The first is an interesting question, and one that Yogi has addressed, but not the right question for these funds. They are already in a trust - the second line in Shadow's transcription reads: FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST.Can anyone please explain what does reorganizing a mutual fund into a mutual fund trust accomplish? Layman's terms please if you can. Also, is this move good for the shareholders? TIA
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/60734/supreme-court-to-hear-case-that-threatens-consumer-protection-agency-and-other-federal-agenciesThe CFPB is not the only agency funded this way. ... The U.S. Postal Service, the U.S. Mint, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which protects bank depositors, and more, are also not funded by annual congressional appropriations.
The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to take up a case that could threaten the existence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and potentially the status of numerous other federal agencies, including the Federal Reserve.
A panel of three Trump appointees on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last fall that the agency's funding is unconstitutional because the CFPB gets its money from the Federal Reserve, which in turn is funded by bank fees.
Although the agency reports regularly to Congress and is routinely audited, the Fifth Circuit ruled that is not enough. The CFPB's money has to be appropriated annually by Congress or the agency, and everything it does is unconstitutional, the lower courts said.
The CFPB is not the only agency funded this way. The Federal Reserve itself is funded not by Congress but by banking fees. The U.S. Postal Service, the U.S. Mint, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which protects bank depositors, and more, are also not funded by annual congressional appropriations.
In its brief to the Supreme Court, the Biden administration noted that even programs like Social Security and Medicare are paid for by mandatory spending, not annual appropriations.
"This marks the first time in our nation's history that any court has held that Congress violated the Appropriations Clause by enacting a law authorizing spending," wrote the Biden administration's Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.
Conservatives who have long opposed the modern administrative state have previously challenged laws that declared heads of agencies can only be fired for cause. In recent years, the Supreme Court has agreed and struck down many of those provisions. The court has held that administrative agencies are essentially creatures of the Executive Branch, so the president has to be able to fire at-will and not just for cause.
But while those decisions did change the who, in terms of who runs these agencies, they did not take away the agencies' powers. Now comes a lower court decision that essentially invalidates the whole mission of the CFPB.
The CFPB was the brainchild of then White House aide, and now U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren. She issued a statement Monday noting that lower courts have previously and repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of the CFPB.
"If the Supreme Court follows more than a century of law and historical precedent," she said, "it will strike down the Fifth Circuit's decision before it throws our financial market and economy into chaos."
The high court will not hear arguments in the case until next term, so a decision is unlikely until 2024.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla
