FYI: Tariff headlines have taken a front seat in the past couple of weeks leading stocks to see their worst declines of the year. Not surprisingly, sentiment has begun to reflect price action. One week after coming in at its highest level since October (around the time the S&P 500 hit its previous all-time high), bullish sentiment has fallen off of a cliff this week to 29.82% versus 43.12% last week. From a historical perspective, this is not at any kind of extreme, but it did bring optimism to its lowest level of 2019 and by a pretty wide margin at that. Additionally, this was the largest drop in bullish sentiment since December 13th of last year when it fell 17.04% in a week
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/interactive/posts/think-big-blog/back-to-bearish
AAII Website Investor Sentiment Survey:
https://www.aaii.com/o/sentimentsurvey

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/05/16/cashin-since-sell-off-trumps-taken-less-aggressive-posture-in-trade-talks.html?&qsearchterm=Art Cashin

We enjoyed our best webinar day yet with about 50 participants.
I actually wore a tie (ha!) and displayed our new MFO Coffee Mug (thank you David) to mark the progress we’ve made on the site.
Can’t thank you enough for your continued support!
Please find link to charts here.
Please find link to conference video here.
Feel free to reach-out at any time with questions and suggestions via email: [email protected]. We can even schedule a Zoom teleconference at your convenience.
c

The Best ETFs to Invest in Real Estate
https://money.usnews.com/investing/funds/slideshows/best-etfs-to-invest-in-real-estate
Investors are drawn to real estate investments for different reasons. For some, the investments offer big yield potential as properties generate a steady stream of income for shareholders. For others, real estate assets are a hedge against volatility.
When it comes to real estate stocks, more seem to be popping up every day. Whether you're investing in mortgage lenders or industrial park operators or various real estate investment trusts, there are many options out there to sort through.
If you're having trouble choosing which individual real estate stock to buy, or if you simply prefer the peace of mind that come with diversification, consider these real estate exchange-traded funds instead.
1. Vanguard Real Estate ETF (ticker: VNQ). A $63 billion behemoth, the VNQ fund from Vanguard is one of the most popular ways to invest in real estate via a brokerage account or retirement plan. The portfolio spans all manner of companies that own properties, ranging from health care facilities to hotels to malls.
There are about 200 component stocks that make up this real estate ETF. That's a very diversified list and at a relatively cheap fee structure at just 0.12% annually in expenses. You'll only pay about $12 per year on every $10,000 invested.
2. Schwab U.S. REIT ETF (SCHH). A slightly smaller list of real estate companies makes up the SCHH fund from Schwab, with just under 110 components in this ETF at present and about $5 billion in total assets under management. The fees are a bit smaller too, however, with an expense ratio of just 0.07% annually or $7 each year on every $10,000 you invest. The holdings are big REITs you should know, including mall operator Simon Property Group (SPG) and orange locker operator Public Storage (PSA). – Jeff Reeves

This 466% number includes the additional contributions people have made into these plans over the past decade. Without that inclusion the gains in value would have been lower. I’m wondering, too, if it includes self-directed 401Ks which provide a tax haven to the very rich and have much higher contribution limits. These would have grown disproportionately to the 401Ks most wage earners have. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jrose/2018/07/17/the-1-account-all-wealthy-people-have-that-you-probably-dont/
I think more needs to be done here to try and differentiate how much of this increased wealth went to the small investor (typically working a 9-5 shift) and how much of it actually reflects gains at the upper end of the income level (perhaps the top 10 or 20% of the population). I fear digging deeper might only serve to demonstrate the growing wealth disparity among the population over the past decade.
All that said ... the domestic equity markets are up something like 300-400% since the bottom almost exactly 10 years ago, March 9, 2009. (Seems to me the DJI got close to 6500.) So, assuming all participants remained 100% in equities in their 401 K plans, the numbers have a semblance of reality. I doubt that’s the case however. Most diversify. Some borrow from plans. Some types of investments lag the S&P, etc.
-
@Derf - Good question. Here’s some crude calculations (from a non-math guy): Broad U.S equity markets fell around 50% during the bear market (‘07-‘09). So I’ll start by cutting in half a $100 401K balance. That leaves $50 by the time the bear ended. Than I’ll multiply the remaining balance by 466% to reflect its growth over the next decade. That results in a gain of 233% on the original investment (including new contributions) from just before the crash to roughly the present (a 12 year period). The resultant average gain in value is 19%.( But with compounding factored in it would be less.)

FYI: When insurance company MassMutual spent $150 million to acquire OppenheimerFunds almost 30 years ago, it could not have known how stunningly successful the investment would turn out to be. Now it’s on the verge of executing another transaction — one that reflects the more difficult reality that asset managers are facing today.
Regards,
Ted

Yes, that too, ty, but it is important to understand the evolving and challenging nature of comparative advantage, and first to understand comparative advantage in the first place, which is tricky, to fully assess all of these issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
Especially today, as everything is more complex and interrelated than cloth and wine.
@Lawlar's paragraph is simplistic, unfortunately. The calculus of cheap flatscreens and smartphone for all vs damaged families is immensely complex.
This does not exactly address that, being more about FDI (foreign direct investment) than trade as commonly bruited today by the "president", but is interesting for the weedy, a Q&A on China-US relations from a year ago, I think. ICAS-biased, obvs.

Pertinent among other things about the idiocy of win-loss positing.
@Lawlar, the point about FDI added value at around 12-13' might interest you. It is not as onesided as you appear to believe. USA, USA!
IPR violation at ~17'.
Here's the teaser for one of the courses in this area, from 3y ago, but much has changed in the gaseous-sphere, clearly; this was before the last election:
(sorry, not posting right:
put https:// before this, or not
vimeo.com/153105920

I include it in all of its bogo-drama only because it highlights the issues that need to be delved.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4246436-drops-buy-revisited
The More It Drops, The More I Buy - Revisited
Mar. 6, 2019 9:00 AM ETAMZN, BDC...174 Comments115 Likes
Summary
Once again, REITs recovered the majority of their losses after a painful end of the year 2018.
Historical data suggest that REITs will keep outperformance even in times of increasing interest rates.
Fundamentals are strong today with REITs enjoying solid NOI growth and historically strong balance sheets.
We share 3 Top Holdings of our “Core Portfolio" at High Yield Landlord.
This idea was discussed in more depth with members of my private investing community, High Yield Landlord.

@Catch22- Well, he's been busy here, for one thing:
Trump declares national emergency over telecom threats
"The order, which has been under review for more than a year, is aimed at protecting the supply chain from “foreign adversaries to the nation’s information and communications technology and services supply chain”, said the commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross.
“Under President Trump’s leadership, Americans will be able to trust that our data and infrastructure are secure,” he said."

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/787623/000119312519148019/d751316d497.htm
Update:
497 1 d751316d497.htm TRANSAMERICA MULTI-CAP GROWTH FUND
TRANSAMERICA FUNDS
Supplement to the Currently Effective Prospectuses, Summary Prospectuses and
Statement of Additional Information
Transamerica Multi-Cap Growth
The Board of Trustees has approved a reorganization pursuant to which the assets of Transamerica Multi-Cap Growth (the “Target Fund”), a series of Transamerica Funds, would be acquired, and its liabilities would be assumed, by Transamerica US Growth (the “Acquiring Fund”), a series of Transamerica Funds, in exchange for shares of the Acquiring Fund. The Target Fund would then be liquidated, and shares of the Acquiring Fund would be distributed to the Target Fund shareholders. Under the reorganization, Target Fund shareholders would receive shares of the Acquiring Fund with the same aggregate net asset value as their shares of the Target Fund. It is anticipated that no gain or loss for Federal income tax purposes would be recognized by Target Fund shareholders as a result of the reorganization.
The reorganization does not require shareholder approval, but is subject to the satisfaction of certain closing conditions. An information statement describing the reorganization will be mailed to Target Fund shareholders in advance of the closing of the reorganization. If the closing conditions are satisfied, the reorganization is expected to occur on or about August 2, 2019. Effective on or about July 24, 2019, Transamerica Multi-Cap Growth will be closed to new and/or additional investments.
* * *
Investors Should Retain this Supplement for Future Reference
May 15, 2019

@johnN: I be interested in knowing what the % of rise from just before The market started to TANK !!
S&P 500 Jan1 2000 = 1499
S&P 500 July 1 2007 = 1527
S&P 500 April 1 2009 = 919
S&P 500 Recently = 2856
Close to doubling !
Have a nice day,Derf

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/05/15/cashin-traders-think-president-got-mondays-market-message.html?&qsearchterm=Art Cashin

Hi @Ted: Thanks for posting the Bespoke Trend Analyzer updates. Good information. Old Skeet's market barometer, based upon its metrics, scores the S&P 500 Index (SPY) at fair value with a reading of 154. This is just short of entering undervalue on the barometer's scale.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-average-401-k-soared-466-over-the-past-10-years-194608825.html
Fidelity’s latest quarterly retirement savings update had something special to celebrate the 10-year anniversary of “the bottom.”
Keep buying...

What is truly important is not the bluster (LSummers counsels exhaling, or something like it).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/theres-a-revealing-puzzle-in-the-china-tariffs/2019/05/14/75df04de-7675-11e9-b3f5-5673edf2d127_story.html
... even when nations have objectives that are in conflict, it is important to seek compromise, to avoid inflammatory rhetoric and to confine rather than enlarge the areas where demands are being made.

Please correct me for any of this write.
--- My brief overview of the tariffs.
1. Item "x" arrives from China and has a 25% tariff applied and paid for by the importer.
2. The tariff duty is paid to the Customs Dept., a sub bureau of the Dept. of Commerce. This money finds its way to the Treasury/general fund. This money is apparently available for whatever use.
3. Item "x" may be a finished product such as a plastic toy; and may be a machine part such as a ball bearing or an assembled bearing set that is part of a front wheel spindle set for a John Deere grass mower built in the U.S.
4. At some point, the importer has a few choices. Eat all of the higher cost and impair their profit margin; eat some of the cost and hope to retain enough of a profit to continue their business model or pass through the higher cost to whomever purchases the item.
5. If the majority of the higher cost is passed to the next purchase level, at some point these folks will have to determine how much of this cost is passed along and eventually becomes a new, higher cost item at the consumer retail level.
Another consideration based upon a 25% or whatever price markup, is a consumer will pay more in excise, possible other federal, state and local taxation on the new retail price. The new, higher price has now risen a bit more.
In spite of the verbal crap being spewed; the end user/consumer will pay the tariff.
I'm sure I'll think of something else as soon as I return to yard work. Oh, well.
Your thoughts please.
Take care,
Catch

Thank you @davfor
I recall this tariff implementation with President Reagan's actions to save a dying Harley Davidson in 1983. HD in the '70's had become known for quality problems and were having their butt's kicked by quality bikes from Japan.
A snippet from the NYT article, and the full article, should be readable from this link.
--- The action, which becomes effective in 15 days, affects large highway motorcycles with an engine displacement of more than 700 cubic inches,the only market in which Harley-Davidson now manufactures. It would raise the current tariff of 4.4 percent to 49.4 percent in the first year of the five-year program. ---
THIS tariff is of the type that had the common usage of protecting a company, no matter the reason. One might look at this as the old fashioned tariff practice.
More later........chores call on a warm, sunny spring day in Michigan.

From that article:
Last year, the U.S. government established a program meant to provide economic support to farmers affected by the trade war. A spokesman for the Agriculture Department confirmed the total amount paid out by that program as of Monday was $8.52 billion, with payments most heavily going to producers of soybeans, corn, wheat, cotton and sorghum.
But here we see the calculus laid bare: Farmers get $8.52 billion of the $18 billion paid in tariffs by consumers through April.
Seems pretty straightforward. So where's the BS?

Here is a little info from "Trump is taxing Americans to support farmers struggling from his trade war" that may serve to generalize a couple of the comments:

....here we see the calculus laid bare: Farmers get $8.52 billion of the $18 billion paid in tariffs by consumers through April...It’s important to remember that farmers are central to Trump’s political rhetoric and a key part of his base.

Hopefully this link works for those who do not subscribe to the Washington Post:
https://washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/14/trump-is-taxing-americans-support-farmers-struggling-his-trade-war/?utm_term=.56ac1cc45d2a

Well, after all, Uncle Sam needs income from whatever source possible to send money to @Ted for not growing stuff. $15 billion here, $15 billion there... pretty soon this starts to add up.