@Junkster: While I have your attention. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say some time back, that if the S&P 500 hit 3,000 by year end, you would roll a peanut down Walls Street with you nose. Guess what, get ready to roll !
Regards,
Ted :)

Ha ha, no, but I did say I would bow down to you from afar.

@ MFO Members: Here is the difference in yield between Morgan Stanley's Sweeps account and several of their Money Market Funds. Proceeds from sells, dividends, or interest are automatically transferred to Bank Sweeps account. In my case the difference is .50% in the Bank account and 1.84% in MVRXX. The move to the MM fund is not automatic, I must call the broker and direct him to do so.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morganstanley.com/wealth-investmentstrategies/ratemonitor

@Junkster: While I have your attention. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say some time back, that if the S&P 500 hit 3,000 by year end, you would roll a peanut down Walls Street with you nose. Guess what, get ready to roll !
Regards,
Ted :)

There's a new (to me, anyway) fund "presentation," as the IOFIX guys call it, up on the site, dated July. Just about everything you ever wanted to know about it, all there in living color ...
Here's a tidbit I'd forgotten: the holdings are almost entirely floating rate (95% in this report).
The one thing I can't find is the current price to par of the holdings (M*'s 68.31 is at least five months stale, and my default position these days is not to trust any M* data without some sort of corroboration). There's a nice graph of purchase price to par on p. 16 of the IOFIX presentation, the average being 67.50, which imho is still pretty decent considering the AUM runup.
P.S. Good info on the manager call, Junkster.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4146697-perfect-mutual-fund-volatile-times
Thanks Andy. The crew at Garrison Point Capital have always been very detailed in their presentations. As you allude to, a wealth of information. Above is a link that I don’t believe has been previously posted here on their strategy. I thought Charles had a more thorough analysis. But what I like about this one is the analogy with the old geezer and his bankrupt railroad bonds and the discounted legacy non agencies IOFIX specializes in. Yes, I know, comparing apples to oranges but you get the drift.
By the way, here is the analysis by Charles
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2018/02/lightning-in-a-bottle-alphacentric-income-opportunities-fund-iofix-february-2018/

My question is: if investors do not weigh losses more heavily than gains (i.e. are averse to losses), then why do so many people here keep looking at Sortino ratios and maximum draw downs? Why don't we have maximum gain data as well?
@msf - great question
It might be (in studying potential downside) that people are seeking to rationalize the risks they take - in effect, to convince themselves that the risks are small compared to the gains they expect.
We don’t have maximum gain data. How could you? :) But after a 10-year bull market most risk-asset numbers look rosey. By contrast, after a bear market where 40-50% losses were experienced, the reverse might be the case. People might need convincing that “The sun will come out tomorrow.”
There’s a reason the play Annie is set in the Great Depression years. Here’s some well done clips from live stage. Gotta love it.

@MFO Members: Speaking of high-yield, on 2/8/17 I bought 50 Hertz 7.375% B3 1/15/21 bonds at slight discount of $98.12. The bonds closed yesterday @ 100.750. So far so good.
Regards,
Ted

Just migrated MFO Premium to DreamHost from SiteGround, which has hosted the site since launch in November 2015. The reason for the change is that Paypal recently started enforcing more up-to-date versions of TLS (Transport Layer Security) than were available on SiteGround’s server, so it stopped handshaking with our subscriber management software, called UserBase. That meant we had to manually approve subscribers after they paid on PayPal. That issue should be fixed now.
We apologize for any hassle!
The site appears fully functional and the transition should be transparent, but if you see anything amiss (for example, missing newer WatchLists), please email ([email protected]) and we will address soonest.
As always.

FYI: New York City has stringent anti-idling laws for parked vehicles. The City even pays bounties for citizens who send in video evidence of people sitting in their cars with their motors running. The spirit of the law is to prevent wasting gas and to improve community conditions.
Leaving cash in your brokerage account is akin to burning fuel without getting anywhere. It’s not productive for you or your long-term investment goals. I’m anti-idling for the long-term investor. Cash is basically a zero-expected return asset class. But the reality is that there’s always going to be some cash in your brokerage account. Cash generally comes from deposits you make, proceeds from selling your investments and dividends. And some investors simply prefer having some portion of a portfolio in the safety and surety of cash.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.blackrockblog.com/2018/08/15/avoid-idle-cash/?utm_source=blog&utm_medium=hero&utm_campaign=hero

I am waiting for Fidelity to reduce trading fees to $2.95.

There's a new (to me, anyway) fund "presentation," as the IOFIX guys call it, up on the site, dated July. Just about everything you ever wanted to know about it, all there in living color ...
Here's a tidbit I'd forgotten: the holdings are almost entirely floating rate (95% in this report).
The one thing I can't find is the current price to par of the holdings (M*'s 68.31 is at least five months stale, and my default position these days is not to trust any M* data without some sort of corroboration). There's a nice graph of purchase price to par on p. 16 of the IOFIX presentation, the average being 67.50, which imho is still pretty decent considering the AUM runup.
P.S. Good info on the manager call, Junkster.

This thread is a followup to a bullpen post:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/40777/is-loss-aversion-a-myth
That post links to a column that in turn cites the paper that the Scientific American piece linked here is summarizing. How's that for circular references :-)
That column argues that loss aversion is still real, though it suggests a refinement to the concept.
My question is: if investors do not weigh losses more heavily than gains (i.e. are averse to losses), then why do so many people here keep looking at Sortino ratios and maximum draw downs? Why don't we have maximum gain data as well?
That's not a joke. I'm as concerned when a fund I have performs way out of line with my expectations on the upside as when it underperforms.
I owned a legacy fund that had originally been an income oriented sector fund that evolved into a respectable broad based large cap value fund. I had been considering selling it for a variety of reasons. What finally made me pull the trigger was one year when it wound up as the top performing LCV fund (can't verify, but M* says it was in the top 1%).
The fund was so volatile that even with top quartile returns for the past 3, 5, and 10 years, it had a 1* rating. Yet the last straw for me was the upside risk.
So, why all these biased metrics? Junk statistics, or do investors really care more about their risk of loss then their risk of gain?

Who else could make a go of this business model? T. Rowe Price? It recently upped its min in proprietary funds from $100K to $250 for a free M* membership. Would its customers spring for $1M to invest in outside funds w/o a fee? Or could they make a go of it with a min below $1M?

Agree that TRP is moving in the direction not so friendly for small investors with less than $250K in asset. M* X-ray is a useful tool in analyzing one's portfolio when it was available for TRP investors.

@slick thanks for sharing. Yes it appears challenging to find a good small cap fund thats still open. Is there a way of purchasing AOFAX without paying the 5% sales load? Looks like a very strong fund.

Through today YTD the average high yield junk bond fund is up 1.05%. Some of the better managed ones of course are outperforming the average. But overall I would say “barely” continuing its winning ways. Been a lot better places to be in Bondland in 2018.

If we were talking about the current Fed policy of raising interest rates, could we disregard the report that the President over the weekend once again questioned Mr. Powell's actions?

@BenWP - Absolutely - You just need to think outside the box. No need to link words or actions to any particular politician. That’s the whole reason Merriam Webster invented the indefinite and third person personal pronouns - to protect politicians against criticism for what they say or do.
Here’s a “sanitized” version of a Reuters report on today’s utterances - which may hopefully serve as a suitable model for future posts on the matter.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - (Someone) said on Monday (he / she) was “not thrilled” with Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell for raising interest rates and accused China and Europe of manipulating their respective currencies. ...
The independence of the Fed is seen as important for economic stability. U.S. stocks dipped after the comments to and the dollar .DXY edged down against a basket of currencies.
“I’m not thrilled with his raising of interest rates, no. I’m not thrilled,” (he / she) said in the interview, referring to Powell. ... “We’re negotiating very powerfully and strongly with other nations. We’re going to win. But during this period of time I should be given some help by the Fed. The other countries are accommodated.”
The Fed has raised rates twice this year and is expected to do so again next month.

(Edited) excerpts from : https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-fed-exclusive/exclusive-trump-says-not-thrilled-with-feds-powell-for-raising-rates-idUSKCN1L5207?ref=hvper.com&utm_source=hvper.com&utm_medium=website

@BrianW, the Wilshire 5000 Index has 3500 companies...because there are only 3500 "public" companies. Consuelo Mack weekend guest, Joel Greenbatt, mentioned that it cost $2-3 million a year to meet regulatory paperwork to be a "public" company and so many companies stay "private" or go "private".
Great interview if you missed it:
consuelo-mack-s-wealthtrack-encore-guest-joel-greenblatt-overcoming-destructive-investor-behavior

I was just listening to Liz Claman (commenting on this issue) and she made the comment that the number of companies traded publicly have been cut in half during her career from around 7k to 3.5k. Honestly, I had never paid attention to it. Made me go looking for information and I found this article on Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-04-09/where-have-all-the-u-s-public-companies-gone

Over the past couple of decades, there have been a few $0 TF services. Not surprisingly virtually all have fallen by the wayside. Mutual funds are generally not sold short, so there's no money to be made in lending the shares. Unlike Fidelity offering up a couple of loss leaders (losing but a few basis points) to draw profitable business traffic, providing a full menu of competing products below cost won't drive customers to proprietary products and services.
A good reference for 2001 brokerages and rates (I take 0 TF funds offered to mean all are NTF):
https://www.aaii.com/journal/article/discount-broker-shopping-guide-mutual-fund-supermarkets
At the time, Baker & Co, NetVest, Scottrade, and York Securities sold all the funds they offered without a transaction fee. I've never heard of the first two. Scottrade offered all funds NTF from roughly 2001 (based on skimming Wayback Machine pages) to the end of 2004.
I do recognize the name York Securities, but never tracked it. It's still around, though no longer selling all its fund offerings without commissions.
FWIW, here's Baker & Co's site (I think). Finding NetVest is trickier. The website listed with NetVest in 2001 takes you to an investing app startup. Possibly NetVest became NetVest Financial. In any case, Baker and NetVest Financial are now focused on financial services, not low cost brokerage services.
Apparently, Firstrade also offered all the funds it sold without commissions in the early 2000's (though not in 2001). That rings a faint bell with me.
Other financial institutions have tried to offer all funds without transaction but only to investors keeping significant assets with them:
WellsTrade required you to keep a PMA account ($25K+) with Wells Fargo to get 100 trades/year. Grandfathered accounts, no new ones for the past several years.
Scudder Preferred Investment Plus ($100K+ in assets) - 1998-1999 unlimited trades
Vanguard: 25 free trades/year for Flagship customers ($1M+ in Vanguard funds), 100 trades/year for Flagship Select customers ($5M+ in Vanguard funds).
Vanguard looks to be in it for the long term, but think about how they're doing it. You must funnel seven figures to their money managers, not just into their brokerage account. Fidelity may offer some good funds, but I don't see their customers having the same loyalty to their proprietary funds. Their customers are not likely to commit $1M to Fidelity funds just to be able to trade non-Fidelity funds without a fee.
Who else could make a go of this business model? T. Rowe Price? It recently upped its min in proprietary funds from $100K to $250 for a free M* membership. Would its customers spring for $1M to invest in outside funds w/o a fee? Or could they make a go of it with a min below $1M?

Tanks @Ted...great read. My favorite comment:

Saut: I have said for months now that the economy is stronger than a garlic milkshake, and I'll continue to make that statement.

As for Small Cap suggestions...
the Pudd AKA @Puddnhead always like DISSX, a Small Cap Index fund, that seems to show up regularly on my personal screener which searches for funds with low ER, high alpha, low beta, and 1,3,5 year out- performance compared to its peers.