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.
  • Janet Yellen supposedly Biden's pick for Treasury Secretary
    "How about moving north? there's a lot of vacant land in the north country."
    We've got to give wxman123 a lot of credit on that one- it's probably the easiest and simplest way to handle the whole thing that we've yet heard.
    After getting the agreement of every nation on the face of the earth, we just start at the equator and move each and every national border line and all interior borders of all political jurisdictions, and finally each and every property line 100 miles north or south, depending upon the hemisphere. As the planet continues to warm, we simply move everything again, as much as needed.
    It's going to be a little tough on island nations, but sometimes you have to take the bad with the good.
    That's going to leave quite a bit of unusable territory near the equator, but we can designate that area as the international dumping ground for plastic waste and other non-recyclable crap.
    I'm certain that other benefits will become obvious once we get started on this fine program.
  • Is Oakmark going to offer a retail bond fund?
    Oakmark has a bond fund in advisor and institutional share classes. No retail as of yet. Here is the December 2020 prospectus.
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/872323/000110465920111005/tm2031542-1_485apos.htm
  • Bond mutual funds analysis act 2 !!
    Talk about the hackneyed “ different strokes for different folks”. The sole purpose of my bond email group in April was the recapture of value play in the beaten down mortgage funds. This was the result of the Black Swan liquidity meltdown. Our selection basis was focusing on the ones who had the WORST peak to trough. So throughout the spring and summer our three main players were BDKAX, IOFIX, and SEMPX - the funds that had the most recapture value. Then eventually based on performance came down to almost solely IOFIX. But basically you could have used any of the many bond categories that were impacted by the March meltdown such as junk corporates, junk munis, and even many investment grades areas.
    Can’t recall his name but one prescient market analyst was spot on when he said in late March/early April this would be a credit story/rally recapture of value play. This recapture of value play has been the steadiest, most persistent rise with nary a down day I have ever seen since my first bond trade in January 1991. Just when you think you have seen it all, along comes this one of a kind rebound. There was a similar credit rebound - and in many cases a greater one percentage wise - among almost all bond categories in 2009. But it hasn’t had the trend persistency exhibited by the mortgage funds.
    Edit: By the way, something I haven’t mentioned here before but in the past month Alphacentric (IOFIX) has finally begun cracking down on in and out traders via a lifetime ban - or at least the ones they deem disruptive to the fund, And they give you no warning notice either - just the ban. It is about time although I would have preferred a 1% or 2% short term redemption fee.
  • shareholder value paramount
    From 13 mos ago, details.
    >> Boeing shortchanged its customers by compromising safety, by hiding information, by marketing the MAX as something it was not.
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/18/the-case-against-boeing

    Some of these top execs just so sorry.
  • Bond mutual funds analysis act 2 !!
    FD:"My calculation for peak to trough...VCFIX -19.7% from M* new charts found (here) from 2/25 (10000) to 3/25 (8027.67). Stockchart gives me -19.85% for VCFAX(link)"
    I used the performance chart system that Yogi sent out via email some time ago. On a YTD basis, VCFIX high was on 2/28 ($10,194) and its low was on 3/27 ($8553) for a difference of $1641.When you divide $1641 by $10194, that gives you 16.09% drop
  • Energy Transition Update: Framing The Investment Universe
    OK, this is funny, I read: “ Robo was named CEO in 2012. A Harvard Business School graduate, he rarely gives interviews. Hay describes him as a quick thinker with an “incredible” memory for details.” And I thought - wait, who is Robo?
  • Bond mutual funds analysis act 2 !!
    My calculation for peak to trough...VCFIX -19.7% from M* new charts found (here) from 2/25 (10000) to 3/25 (8027.67). Stockchart gives me -19.85% for VCFAX(link)
    I agree with you that if you are looking for a securitized bond fund VCFIX is a good one. I actually posted in several sites that I'm selling almost everything at the end of 02/2020 and the rest several days later. I don't feel guilty at all. These sites are just for information and each investor should do their own due diligence but I see your point ;-)
  • Bond mutual funds analysis act 2 !!
    FD: "I'm OK with VCFIX but the meltdown of over 18% was too much, even PIMIX was down less than that around 11%. I don't put a lot of faith in Schwab bond selections."
    We all look at criteria a bit differently in our analysis of bond oef selections. I calculated peak to trough losses in the March crash, and determined that IOFIX had a peak to trough loss of 41%, SEMMX a peak to trough loss of 24.5%, PUCZX a peak to trough loss of 16.8%, VCFIX a peak to trough loss of 16%, JMSIX a peak to trough loss of 14.8%, and PIMIX had a peak to trough loss of 12.8%. If I were looking only at peak to trough losses, I would definitely avoid IOFIX and SEMMX, of the other remaining funds PIMIX looks like the best choice. But I also look at how volatile the rebound performance is after the trough period, and funds like PIMIX and PUCZX, were very choppy and not smooth at all.
    VCFIX peak to trough loss is troublesome, but its performance after the trough loss, has been one of the smoothest of all these funds. I am not all "comfortable" with VCFIX as a "safe" choice now, but it shows some positive, low risk, low volatile after crash performance. It is just a fund worth considering, but everyone has to be comfortable with the criteria they have adopted. I am not recommending VCFIX to anyone, so everyone has to look at it from the perspective of their investing approach. You and I both got criticized significantly after the March crash because we did not do a good job of telling others that we were doing a lot of selling of the funds mentioned above, and as a result I will not tell anyone what I am investing in any longer. I only mentioned VCFIX as a fund worth looking at again based on Schwab recommendations and the smooth rebound performance pattern of VCFIX
  • Janet Yellen supposedly Biden's pick for Treasury Secretary

    >> Covid, and, more accurately stated, the overblown and ineffective response ...
    >> ... the cure cannot be worse than the disease. That clearly has been the case with Covid.
    Say, since you are articulate and appear to give things thought, if you were in charge of both covid policy and energy policy, what would you advise? No changes?
    Serious question. From angry droning old white guy.
    >> still haven't explained what should be done that's preferable to what is already being done
    I missed the carbon tax and emissions and temperature mandates and the new federal land and forest management policies and and even the wee things like national seaweed research ...
    This is a high-level view of the state of play:
    https://www.brookings.edu/2019/03/22/where-does-u-s-climate-policy-stand-in-2019/
    Here is some tired old dated progtard reading, surely superseded (and strengthened by now):
    https://www.nrdc.org/stories/how-you-can-stop-global-warming
    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what-can-we-do-slow-or-stop-global-warming
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/whats-in-a-half-a-degree-2-very-different-future-climates/
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/limiting-warming-to-1-5-celsius-will-require-drastic-action-ipcc-says/
    and mostly this is not out of the UN or the Paris Accords we pulled out of.
  • Bond mutual funds analysis act 2 !!
    dtconroe.
    I'm OK with VCFIX but the meltdown of over 18% was too much, even PIMIX was down less than that around 11%. I don't put a lot of faith in Schwab bond selections. I think Fidelity is better and free to all investors even if you are not a client, right now their selected Multi list(link) is as follows:PTIAX, HSNAX, BMSAX, DINAX, JHFIX (PONAX/PIMIX used to be on this list for years). Fidelity always promote their funds as selected but I disregard it until I verify their superiority and in most cases I can find better choices.
    I think funds like TSIIX,PTIAX are more of a hold than VCFIX.
    As usual, I don't trust any fund/managers, volatility can show up any time and I hope not to be there.
    wxman, GIBLX is still doing well in its category at one month=2.2% and 3 months=1.4% This is still in the top 15% in its M* category. For most investors who are looking for a ballast, performance and longer term hold, it's a great fund.
    For a much smaller group of investors like me, who rely more on bonds for higher performance and use momentum successfully, I hardly ever use Core and Core Plus funds. I would not recommend this for most investors.
    Junkster, I stayed away from IOFIX for several months after the crash, I made most of my money after that with HY munis. I wanted to see more calm and was glad the Fed actions worked. I sure missed a lot of performance from the bottom but I also missed all the meltdown in March of 2020 (documented in this thread). Every Saturday I write down my portfolio performance for the last week and YTD. I can't complain too much when I'm up 18% in 2020, only one week loss at -0.3%, 5 weeks at zero and the rest are all up.
  • The Technology Olympics - Reaching Quantum Supremacy
    Separately China and Google have reached this computing milestone.
    Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman was the first to suggest that the mind-bending properties of quantum mechanics could be harnessed to make a new kind of computer. Almost 40 years later and after a decade of significant progress -- and after a claim by Google that its computer had reached a milestone known as “quantum supremacy” -- it’s still easier to describe the approach’s potential importance than to describe how it works.
    image
    why-quantum-computers-will-be-super-awesome-someday-quicktake
  • Janet Yellen supposedly Biden's pick for Treasury Secretary
    @wxman123
    As for the coal minor, sure, a comparatively small industry, but one that is directly affected by the new green movement. Every life matters, right?
    Not apparently the thousands--soon to be millions--already displaced as climate refugees from their homes or apparently the sea otter to you. And of course there's the sheer absurdity of your assuming that reducing fossil fuel dependence and carbon emissions only destroys jobs and won't create any simultaneously. Reducing the world's carbon footprint will be an immense task that will create more jobs certainly than it destroys in the already moribund coal industry. But as I said previously and I maintain, none of this really matters to you. You know the science is true and the impact will be severe but just don't care.
    More "meaningless" science-y stuff: https://scientificamerican.com/article/would-a-green-new-deal-add-or-kill-jobs1/
    We estimate that the more conservative $25 carbon tax would boost U.S. employment by 1.4 million jobs each year between 2020 and 2030, which is nearly a 1 percent increase above the reference–case forecast of 160 million jobs in 2030. As the economy expands and the tax increases, job growth from the GND [i.e., Green New Deal] would accelerate, creating, on average, 3.4 million new jobs each year between 2040 and 2050—a nearly 2 percent increase above the 182 million jobs forecast for the U.S. in 2050. Overall, it is estimated that 72 million job years would be created over the three decades with a $25 carbon tax. (Note that if one job continues after one year for another 12 months, it represents two job years.)
    With the more aggressive $60 carbon tax, U.S. employment would still exceed the reference-case forecast, but the increase would be less than that of the $25 tax. The higher tax causes much larger supply-side job losses, but they are still smaller than the gains in energy-efficiency jobs motivated by higher energy prices. Overall, 35 million job years would be created between 2020 and 2050, with net job increases in almost all regions.
    According to the latest data, in 2018 about 9.2 million Americans (5.7 percent of the U.S. workforce of roughly 162 million at the time) were employed in an energy industry. Nearly half of these jobs (about 4.3 million) made up the traditional supply-oriented categories: fuels, including petroleum, natural gas, coal and woody biomass (1.1 million); electric power generation (900,000); and transmission, distribution and storage (2.3 million). The motor-vehicle-related industries employed 2.5 million, and energy efficiency employed 2.4 million.
    The GND would cause traditional supply-oriented jobs to decrease, but energy-efficiency jobs would more than compensate for the losses. New jobs from energy-efficiency investments would be significant, totaling 1.8 million in 2030 and 4.2 million in 2050. These estimates reflect the labor-intensity of jobs in construction, which account for more than half of the energy-efficiency workforce in 2018. Other large gains would be associated with heating, ventilation, air-conditioning and refrigeration systems—the largest share of energy-efficiency investments in the residential and commercial sectors. In industry, the greatest investments estimated would be in energy and environmental management and smart controls, followed by industrial-machinery manufacturing such as that of high-efficiency motors and variable-speed drives. The result would be job growth across all nine Census divisions of the U.S., in all three decades with a $25 carbon tax. The $60 tax would boost job growth in the U.S. overall and across a majority of its nine Census divisions and three decades.
  • Janet Yellen supposedly Biden's pick for Treasury Secretary
    How many people did the U.S. coal mining industry employ in 2019? 53,000. https://statista.com/statistics/215790/coal-mining-employment-in-the-us/
    How many people are employed in the retail service sector: 9.8 million.
    https://census.gov/library/stories/2020/09/profile-of-the-retail-workforce.html
    Yet guys like wxman123 and our soon to be ex-president wax poetic about the poor coal miners while millions in retail are struggling to stay afloat because of Amazon and covid. You know what the difference is? This is who the retail sector employs--not the Fox News demographic--according to the Census bureau:
    Retail workers are younger. Over half of all retail workers were ages 16 to 34.
    Women were more likely to work in retail jobs. About 56.5% of retail workers were women, compared with 43.5% who were men.
    Blacks and Hispanics were overrepresented in retail work. Blacks comprised 12.5% of the retail workforce compared to 11.4% of the total workforce; Hispanics were 18.7% and 17.5%, respectively.
    But oh, the poor coal miners! The symbolism is perfect to stoke that tribalistic white nationalist animosity because 91% of coal miners are white males, and only 0.9% are black: https://bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18.htm They are being replaced by technology regardless whether we have a green new deal or not. Meanwhile, the retail workforce is being decimated by Covid: https://cnbc.com/2020/07/22/coronavirus-retail-workforce-faces-permanent-decline.html
    We finally agree on something. Covid, and, more accurately stated, the overblown and ineffective response, is decimating not only the retail industry, but also travel, food and beverage, personal care, etc. As is my point on climate, the cure cannot be worse than the disease. That clearly has been the case with Covid. As for the coal minor, sure, a comparatively small industry, but one that is directly affected by the new green movement. Every life matters, right? That said, if I bought your premise that shutting down American energy independence is needed to save the planet, I can get on board with that. But it probably isn't and won't even if it is.
  • Janet Yellen supposedly Biden's pick for Treasury Secretary
    >> What sacrifices do we need to make to save that half a degree?
    You write as though you keep up, but it is clear you do not, not really. There is a lot of work out there, hardcore practical effective proposals, a lot of them by your mocked academics, covering what is entailed to effect such a huge course alteration as a half a degree.
    You must have read, while worrying about working coalminers (of whom there are very very few), and about John Kerry's lifestyle indicating what, hypocrisy? seriously? Kerry?, about the temperature point (which is close, meaning not that far off) at which human life becomes nearly impossible.
    >> How about moving north?
    Oh, go for it.
    Eventually, and not so far off either, those forests will burn every summer too.
    Or ... get hep to renewables and feasible policy:
    https://blogs.imf.org/2020/10/07/finding-the-right-policy-mix-to-safeguard-our-climate/
    I am fascinated that someone literate and thoughtful-sounding falls back on the tiredest of Fox editorials:
    \\\ ... causing substantial damage to the environment and people in other respects? This is the real and fair debate among knowledgeable people,

    Yes, there absolutely is real discussion of trades. Moneys for retraining. Serious moneys. Disaster relief. Can you cite the debates you think are most informed or fairminded or interesting or promising?
    \\\ and to deny it makes you the ignorant one.
    You probably had best not go there, honestly, and not just with LB.
    \\\ Some honest and good people do care about an entire industry and its workers being told to shut down. If your brother, son, daughter or best friend made their living as a coal minor or working an oil rig I think you would see this point.
    Again, best not to personalize or go to anecdote.
    There is no helping coalminers or rig workers no matter what anyone does or what policies are adopted. Everybody but you and the most extreme of rightwingers know that --- National Review, the industries themselves, any of the candidates except for the departing pantsloaded infant. 'See this point'? What point would that be? Have you followed (e.g.) coal trends and the data over the last decades ?
    These are old and tired arguments, from the 1970s, as though you are 95yo and just waking up and never read the number-crunching.
    \\\ I doubt you know any of those types.
    oh, here we go. You probably also do not want to turn this into some blue-collar cred thing either, not if you want to present as thoughtful. It's not like a Clifford Odets play from 1934.

    You are one angry man. Retraining? You go for that. Your long drone did not identify a single thing to save that half a degree nor explain how deals drawn up by elite hypocrites in Europe are going to prevent those in the rapidly expanding developing world from spewing smoke and driving in their gas-powered vehicles for years to come, and it's a good thing too or else they might burn up on the spot according to you. It's cool and all to have new age green ideas, even for a probable old white guy like you, but you still haven't explained what should be done that's preferable to what is already being done, like better emission controls, clean coal, etc. I simply don't agree that extreme measures like banning fracking and giving up American energy independence will benefit our country and, despite hopes and dreams, will not even save that half a degree.
  • Janet Yellen supposedly Biden's pick for Treasury Secretary
    How many people did the U.S. coal mining industry employ in 2019? 53,000. https://statista.com/statistics/215790/coal-mining-employment-in-the-us/
    How many people are employed in the retail service sector: 9.8 million.
    https://census.gov/library/stories/2020/09/profile-of-the-retail-workforce.html
    Yet guys like wxman123 and our soon to be ex-president wax poetic about the poor coal miners while millions in retail are struggling to stay afloat because of Amazon and covid. You know what the difference is? This is who the retail sector employs--not the Fox News demographic--according to the Census bureau:
    Retail workers are younger. Over half of all retail workers were ages 16 to 34.
    Women were more likely to work in retail jobs. About 56.5% of retail workers were women, compared with 43.5% who were men.
    Blacks and Hispanics were overrepresented in retail work. Blacks comprised 12.5% of the retail workforce compared to 11.4% of the total workforce; Hispanics were 18.7% and 17.5%, respectively.
    But oh, the poor coal miners! The symbolism is perfect to stoke that tribalistic white nationalist animosity because 91% of coal miners are white males, and only 0.9% are black: https://bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18.htm They are being replaced by technology regardless whether we have a green new deal or not. Meanwhile, the retail workforce is being decimated by Covid: https://cnbc.com/2020/07/22/coronavirus-retail-workforce-faces-permanent-decline.html
  • Janet Yellen supposedly Biden's pick for Treasury Secretary
    >> What sacrifices do we need to make to save that half a degree?
    You write as though you keep up, but it is clear you do not, not really. There is a lot of work out there, hardcore practical effective proposals, a lot of them by your mocked academics, covering what is entailed to effect such a huge course alteration as a half a degree.
    You must have read, while worrying about working coalminers (of whom there are very very few), and about John Kerry's lifestyle indicating what, hypocrisy? seriously? Kerry?, about the temperature point (which is close, meaning not that far off) at which human life becomes nearly impossible.
    >> How about moving north?
    Oh, go for it.
    Eventually, and not so far off either, those forests will burn every summer too.
    Or ... get hep to renewables and feasible policy:
    https://blogs.imf.org/2020/10/07/finding-the-right-policy-mix-to-safeguard-our-climate/
    I am fascinated that someone literate and thoughtful-sounding falls back on the tiredest of Fox editorials:
    \\\ ... causing substantial damage to the environment and people in other respects? This is the real and fair debate among knowledgeable people,

    Yes, there absolutely is real discussion of trades. Moneys for retraining. Serious moneys. Disaster relief. Can you cite the debates you think are most informed or fairminded or interesting or promising?
    \\\ and to deny it makes you the ignorant one.
    You probably had best not go there, honestly, and not just with LB.
    \\\ Some honest and good people do care about an entire industry and its workers being told to shut down. If your brother, son, daughter or best friend made their living as a coal minor or working an oil rig I think you would see this point.
    Again, best not to personalize or go to anecdote.
    There is no helping coalminers or rig workers no matter what anyone does or what policies are adopted. Everybody but you and the most extreme of rightwingers know that --- National Review, the industries themselves, any of the candidates except for the departing pantsloaded infant. 'See this point'? What point would that be? Have you followed (e.g.) coal trends and the data over the last decades ?
    These are old and tired arguments, from the 1970s, as though you are 95yo and just waking up and never read the number-crunching.
    \\\ I doubt you know any of those types.
    oh, here we go. You probably also do not want to turn this into some blue-collar cred thing either, not if you want to present as thoughtful. It's not like a Clifford Odets play from 1934.
  • Bond mutual funds analysis act 2 !!
    FD: "But I understand what you do and it suits your style"
    I did quite a bit of trading this year, but limited my trading to more risk averse trades, consistent with my rather conservative Retirement objectives--bought GIBLX in a trade this year and was very pleased with its performance until it cooled off. I hope to return to my preferred investing approach for the remainder of 2020 and 2021--trying to select solid bond oefs, that I hope to hold for longer periods. IOFIX and SEMMX may be good for traders, but they would not fit my more risk averse fund selection criteria. I am trusting that VCFIX will return to its lower risk days going forward, but that is just my optimistic projection, based on what I have seen from it in the last 6 months. Schwab's embracing of it in their Select Fund lists, is reassuring to me and my approach to fund selection. I wish you continued success with your trading and look forward to following how that is working out for you.
  • Janet Yellen supposedly Biden's pick for Treasury Secretary
    @wxman123 The "strawmen" are John Kerry and Al Gore whose individual hypocrisies have nothing to do with the factual accuracy of climate science or the threat level climate change poses. In fact, any hypocrisies they reveal make a stronger case for government regulation to reduce emissions, not a weaker one. Human beings are flawed hypocritical animals that break unwritten rules all the time unless there are laws governing them that are enforced. 80% of evangelicals voted for a president that has broken almost every biblical commandment. And how many rightwing preachers and GOP politicians flout their own religious and government rules all the time, getting divorced, having affairs, cheating on taxes, claiming to hate socialism while accepting government bailouts, etc.? In other words, the planet's rapidly warming climate doesn't care whether John Kerry is a hypocrite or not. Laws must be put in place to make sure that emissions are reduced, including Kerry's.
    Regarding "despite dire predictions the earth's climate has over the past century warmed less than 2 degrees (probably closer to one degree)" You act like these are small numbers, but in the realm of climate science they are huge. From the previous article "We now know that 2 degrees would be calamitous: Major cities in the equatorial band of the planet will become unlivable.” In the Paris Agreement of 2015, 1.5 degrees was deemed a safer limit. At 2 degrees of warming, one study estimates, 150 million more people would die from air pollution alone than they would after 1.5 degrees." And while that is prediction of the future, the current change has already had a major impact, already creating thousands of climate refugees from places with flooding or droughts and famine and in the U.S wildfires: https://npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/06/20/621782275/the-refugees-that-the-world-barely-pays-attention-to
    But the fact is, I believe you know already the science is true and that the future impact will be major, and not just on "sea otters." You just don't care. This is not new untested science. There are now many decades of proof behind it.
    You keep focusing on the extent of the issue, but what of the solution? What sacrifices do we need to make to save that half a degree? How about moving north? there's a lot of vacant land in the north country. Earlier today I happened upon this piece in a weather-related forum that I frequent https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cities-future-usa/future-cool-minnesota-city-ponders-new-boom-as-a-climate-migrant-destination-idUSKBN1WV1DS
    See, maybe not so bad!