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.
  • Continue to Buy Bonds With Positive Yields: Janus Henderson
    https://finance.yahoo.com/video/continue-buy-bonds-positive-yields-153141810.html
    Continue to Buy Bonds With Positive Yields: Janus Henderson
    ?? buying more bonds? bonds...recession coming?
    canada
    new zealand
    usa
  • The World’s Wealthiest Family Gets $4 Million Richer Every Hour
    FYI: The 25 wealthiest dynasties on the planet control $1.4 trillion.
    The numbers are mind-boggling: $70,000 per minute, $4 million per hour, $100 million per day.
    That’s how quickly the fortune of the Waltons, the clan behind Walmart Inc., has been growing since last year’s Bloomberg ranking of the world’s richest families.
    At that rate, their wealth would’ve expanded about $23,000 since you began reading this. A new Walmart associate in the U.S. would’ve made about 6 cents in that time, on the way to an $11 hourly minimum.
    Even in this era of extreme wealth and brutal inequality, the contrast is jarring. The heirs of Sam Walton, Walmart’s notoriously frugal founder, are amassing wealth on a near-unprecedented scale — and they’re hardly alone.
    The Walton fortune has swelled by $39 billion, to $191 billion, since topping the June 2018 ranking of the world’s richest families.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.bloomberg.com/features/richest-families-in-the-world/
  • Hasenstab Loses $1.8bn In Single Day As Big Bet Blows Up: (FEMGX) - (TPINX)
    FYI: Fixed income star Michael Hasenstab lost $1.8 billion in a single day’s trading this month as a series of big bets on Argentine assets crashed following a primary election which shook political forecasts, according to the Financial Times.
    The Argentine peso dropped as much as 20% and bond yields rocketed as markets absorbed the consequences of an unexpectedly strong showing by in the presidential race by the populist Alberto Fernández who has selected former incumbent Cristina Fernández de Kirchner as his running mate.
    Hasenstab’s $11.3 billion Templeton Emerging Markets Bond fund tumbled 3.5% on Monday, equivalent to a $440 million loss, according to a FT analysis of Morningstar data.
    His $33.1 billion Templeton Global Bond fund shed 1.8%, or around $592 million. Three other mandates saw accumulative losses of $362 million. Approached by the FT, Franklin Templeton declined to comment.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://citywireamericas.com/news/hasenstab-loses-1-8bn-in-single-day-as-argentine-bet-blows-up/a1259676?ref=international-americas-latest-news-list
    Investment News.Com:
    https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=uThUXbLPJZTJtQbez77AAQ&q=ranklin+Templeton+fund+biggest+loser+as+Argentine+assets+plummet+11:15+am&oq=ranklin+Templeton+fund+biggest+loser+as+Argentine+assets+plummet+11:15+am&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3509.3509..5283...0.0..0.109.155.1j1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.meys7v5iBoM&ved=0ahUKEwjyj7n05YLkAhWUZM0KHd6nDxgQ4dUDCAc&uact=5
    M* Snapshot FEMGX:
    https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/femgx/quote
    M* Snapshot TPINX:
    https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/tpinx/quote
  • PIMCO income A expense ratio

    Hrm. Maybe I mis-read things at the time, which was entirely possible then.
    Memories fade. Sometimes we remember what we want to remember.
    My own memory says that PIMCO funds were generally expensive, though I believe that there was a period of time when they actually got cheap. I think at one time Bill Gross said something about making fees more reasonable. But that's my fuzzy memory, and it's harder to find records of such pronouncements than it is to dig up old filings:
    PIMIX current expenses (July 31, 2019 summary prospectus):
    Management Fees: 0.50%
    12b-1 Fees: N/A
    Other Expenses: 0.55% (all of which is interest expense, per footnote)
    Fee Waiver: N/A
    Total ER: 1.05%
    PIMIX expenses 10 years ago (July 31, 2009 prospectus):
    Management Fees: 0.45%
    12b-1 Fees: N/A
    Other Expenses: 0.61% ("reflect interest expense", per footnote)
    Expense Reduction (0.05%)
    Total ER: 1.01%
  • PIMCO income A expense ratio
    Memories fade. Sometimes we remember what we want to remember.
    My own memory says that PIMCO funds were generally expensive, though I believe that there was a period of time when they actually got cheap. I think at one time Bill Gross said something about making fees more reasonable. But that's my fuzzy memory, and it's harder to find records of such pronouncements than it is to dig up old filings:
    PIMIX current expenses (July 31, 2019 summary prospectus):
    Management Fees: 0.50%
    12b-1 Fees: N/A
    Other Expenses: 0.55% (all of which is interest expense, per footnote)
    Fee Waiver: N/A
    Total ER: 1.05%
    PIMIX expenses 10 years ago (July 31, 2009 prospectus):
    Management Fees: 0.45%
    12b-1 Fees: N/A
    Other Expenses: 0.61% ("reflect interest expense", per footnote)
    Expense Reduction (0.05%)
    Total ER: 1.01%
  • The bond market is screaming
    It takes Krugman 529 words to say that none of us understands wtf is going on with interest rates?
    Edit: Kinda busy today. Some chopped up observations ... I don’t think Krugman’s wrong. He just tosses out a number of possibilities - already widely understood.
    What I suspect may be the unmentioned elephant in the room is (broadly defined) global demographics. Many nations are experiencing declines in working age populations and increases in the elderly. And, the elderly are living longer. A lot of the change relates to the devastation / loss of life stemming from WWII. Babies born shortly after the war ended are now 70-75 years old.
    That demographic shift puts enormous pressure on income producing instruments because the elderly have shorter anticipated time horizons over which to invest and lower risk tolerance in general. Bonds, including those held via various insurance products, become an investment of choice for a growing sector of the populations in the more advanced (wealthier) global economies. This drives rates downward.
    So, what accounts for the seemingly unstoppable gains in equities? That’s more complicated. But I suspect a few factors: (1) the loss of defined benefit retirement plans has driven many inexperienced investors into the equity markets leading to more exaggerated boom & bust cycles; (2) money has been driven into equities the low and lower interest rates, (3) global productivity has increased due to the technology revolution. (4) To some extent, the advent of “instant feedback” brought about by the web has prompted more risk taking by market participants than when we relied mainly on time-lagged print sources for news and information. (Think of the “casino effect” on human behavior.)
  • Two Steaming Piles Of 403B.S.

    Unbelievable. But yet totally believable, given Wall Street.[1]
    I opted for the 403(b) over the pension system at my state uni system precisely to afford me flexibility in investments. If I made (or lost) money, I wanted to be the one doing it, not some faceless state pension board with who knows what level of investing competence. Thankfully we have about 25 or so uber-low-cost funds/annuities/TDFs in our basic account package- but if things changed for the worse, I'd move everything out of that account and into the 403b's brokerage window to invest in what I find attractive.
    [1] Reading the article I'm reminded of this quote from Steve Carrell's character in 'The Big Short'
    "The banks have given us 25% interest rates on credit cards. They have screwed us on student loans that we can never get out from under. Then this guy walks into my office and says those same banks got greedy, they lost track of the market, and I can profit off of their stupidity? F--k, yeah, I want him to be right!"
  • For Charles: IOFIX
    Junkster - all in (or even 55%) in IOFIX is way over my head. But, I did get my small piece thanks to your writings. I owe you some hiking gear.
  • Two Steaming Piles Of 403B.S.
    Just opened a Fidelity brokerage today. Not even funded yet. That's a great decision by someone, to attract new clients: no minimum. And I like the low online trade fee of $4.95. I'm no trader, just wanted to finally get a brokerage acct. in order to make literally one or two trades per year. Most of our stuff is with TRP, and I checked into their brokerage. TRP Website utterly broken!
  • For Charles: IOFIX
    Hi @Junkster
    I recall the August moves you mention with IOFIX.
    Those of us who have been around long enough to know how our minds function with various situations have these moments indeed. I do my best to attempt to continue to adjust my quasi habits with investing.
    I know from portfolio adjustments (where the monies are invested) that over time I find the results indicate that I am still learning and becoming better.
    The downside is that too soon in the near future I/we will likely abandon self directed investments and place the majority of the money into a form of a balanced fund or a 50/50 split between equity and bonds to form our own balanced fund. Obviously, this is not a pure hands off; but I/we are attempting an unwind from the active role.
    Habits are hard and will be hard to break when standing on the sidelines, noting what actions could have been taken.
    I'm somewhat saddened by this thought as I write, but the clock hand of time won't slow for me.
    Take care of yourself,
    Catch
  • For Charles: IOFIX
    An experienced trader can always tell the frauds and Pretenders from the real deals. The Pretenders have this need to always prove their brilliance by never being wrong and never admitting mistakes. One way to do this is always post your winning trades after the fact but never ever mention your losers.
    But I digress. Speaking of making mistakes, I just made one of my biggest blunders in many, many a moon. My affinity for IOFIX is well documented above in this thread. Can’t think of a better bond fund technically and even more so fundamentally - the ever shrinking legacy rmbs market. Best of all it is not a groupthink fund. IOFIX is also a pattern trader’s dream and for reasons I won’t go into here. Also look at its performance in August 2017 and 2018. I was fully expecting a day like today this August. Mentioned it to a poster here in one of our many messages. I was locked and loaded with 89% in IOFIX. Yet last week went from 89% to 55%. Dumb me! That cost me five figures in additional profits today. As for being petty and complaining about an otherwise great day, real traders are also never satisfied and always striving for perfection. Trading was my profession and how I built my nest egg and old mindsets are hard to break.
  • The bond market is screaming
    The following commentary by Paul Krugman is from a current column in the New York Times. It has not been abridged.
    An old line about war says that amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics. A similar line about the economy would be that amateurs talk about stocks, but professionals study the bond market. And lately the bond market is telling a tale of profound pessimism.
    Why does the bond market reflect economic expectations? If investors expect a boom, they also expect the Fed to try to rein in the boom by raising short-term interest rates (which it more or less directly controls), to head off potential inflation. The prospect of higher short-term rates then leads to higher long-term rates, because nobody wants to lock money in at a low yield if returns are going up. Conversely, if investors expect a slump, they expect the Fed to cut rates, and pile into long-term bonds to lock in returns while they can.
    So the slump in long-term yields since last fall, from a peak of 3.2 percent to just 1.63 percent this morning, says that investors have grown drastically less sanguine about the economy. Long-term rates are now notably lower than short-term rates — and this kind of “yield curve inversion” has in the past consistently been the precursor to recession.
    Bond investors could, of course, be wrong — there are some people out there claiming that we’re in a bond bubble. And so far the real economy, as measured by G.D.P., job growth, and all that, is still chugging along. But as I said, there’s clearly a wave of pessimism sweeping the market. What’s it about?
    One answer is that last fall many investors were looking at a couple of quarters of high growth, and thinking that this might be the start of an extended boom. Serious economists warned that this growth was a temporary lift — a “sugar high” — driven by the shift from fiscal austerity to what-me-worry deficit finance. But at least some people bought into the Trumpist line that tax cuts were going to produce an enduring rise in the growth rate.
    Since then, however, it has become clear that the tax-cut boost was indeed a one-time thing. In particular, there has been no sign of the promised surge in business investment.
    At the same time, Trump’s trade war may be starting to take a toll. In particular, the uncertainty may be deterring business spending. Whether new tariffs would hurt or help your business, it now makes sense to hold off on plans to expand, until you see what he actually does.
    Finally, economic troubles in the rest of the world — several major European economies are quite possibly in recession — are filtering back to the U.S.
    Now, most economists aren’t predicting a recession here, for good reason. The truth is that nobody is very good at calling turning points in the economy, and calling a recession before it’s really obvious in the data is much more likely to get you declared a Chicken Little than hailed as a prophet. (Believe me, I know all about it.) But the bond market, which doesn’t worry about such things, is looking remarkably grim.
    I leave the possible political implications as an exercise for all of you.
  • Chuck Jaffe: How Could $1,000 A Month Change Your Life?
    John:
    If you mean a time where the Treasury (and other sovereign Govts) are unable to service their debts, at least more than for a day or 5, well my crystal ball tells me something else will occur. (see next paragraph) --- Though if you are truly concerned, then the thing to buy is gold bullion. Not ETFs, not mining stocks, nothing with a 3rd party custodian. Just gold, which you self-custody somewhere in your personal residence. The "worst" you can expect from bullion, is that it will retain its purchasing power over time. The "best" is that it soars in value when conventional asset markets become dislocated for some indeterminate period of time.
    Look, the whole world is awash in debt, not just the USA. So there will be a global solution, involving most major currency sovereigns. The CBs already have a playbook to address it, once we approach the financial "cliff". I don't know what's in the playbook, but I suspect ONE of the plays will be for each sovereign Treasury to issue new private-placement debt (PPD) to their respective central bank. The terms of the PPD would be: a) no maturity (i.e. perpetual), and b) 0.0% coupon. So "free money". The proceeds received from the CB to the Treasury could be used to pay off existing public bondholders as those debts fall due. --- So definitionally, there would be no "default". Moving to PPD financing has enormous implications. But the key is, there need not be any "default".
    When will Us bankrupt or default on their bonds
    I worry about my nephews nieces children living in a poor economic system in 20+yrs
    I wonder what potus congress doing about fed deficits beside kicking can down road after 2020
    Think it will be very difficult to pass laws /convince US citizens /tax workers (voters small business owners) >40s% in taxations and rich folks ~ 70% to pay (for all free Healthcare and green deals and 1k monthly each millennials)
    I would vote for yang if he gives me one k monthly and a free Corvette
    As rono would say - time buy more (physical) gold?!? -
  • M*: ETF Or Traditional Index Fund: Which Is More Tax-Efficient? Text & Video Presentation
    FYI: Investors have gravitated to exchange-traded funds for a variety of reasons, including tax efficiency. Joining me to share some research on the tax efficiency of various fund types is Ben Johnson. He's director of global ETF research for Morningstar.
    Regards,
    Ted
    https://www.morningstar.com/articles/941574/etf-or-traditional-index-fund-which-is-more-tax-efficient
  • PIMCO income A expense ratio
    @MFO Members: As a holder of Pimco Income Fund I admit the expensive is high, but what concerns me is the size of the fund $103.3 Billion. I beliece it's size has hurt performance over the last couple of years despite Dan Ivascyn's claim that it hasn't
    Here's a chart comparing PIMIX's performance over the past two years with that of the average mult-sector bond, VMBSX (mortgage backed index fund), a couple more mortgage-backed bond funds, and VBLTX (IG bond index fund). It excludes August 2019, when as @mcmarasco points out, PIMIX had anomalous performance.
    Comparison graph 8/13/2017- 8/1/2019
    If fund size were a significant factor over the past couple of years, one would expect this graph to show lackluster performance. That's not how it appears to me.
    Regarding the last eight trading days, this is a fund that uses all sorts of derivatives as well as basic leveraging. Leveraging alone has got to weigh heavily on performance.
    The spread between the 3 month T-bill and the 30 year T-bond has gone from 37 basis points on Aug 1 (2.44% - 2.07%) to 14 basis points (2.14% - 2.00%) in just a few days. Versus the ten year, the spread has fallen from -17 basis points (10 year yielding less) to -35 basis points. Not quite as huge, but still rather dramatic.
    https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield
    Look at the average duration of the fund's holdings. They range from a "high" of 2.14 years for securitized debt through virtually zero for IG and other gov debt (0 ± 0.5%) down to -2.35 years for foreign developed market debt.
    https://www.pimco.com/en-us/investments/mutual-funds/income-fund/inst
    This is a fund positioned for rising rates. It got caught flat footed. It happens, especially with funds that make macro calls. While size limits PIMCO funds' ability to trade on anything but macro movements, that's been true for decades. This is not a recent change because of growth in the past few years.
  • Calling Bonds
    This says they were selling for $106.25. Seems like it should be more - but what do I know?
    https://markets.businessinsider.com/bonds/7_375-the-hertz-bond-2021-us428040cg21
  • Chuck Jaffe: How Could $1,000 A Month Change Your Life?
    In a sense, people in the US already have a form of basic income. It's just that it's provided via a crazy quilt of programs. So much so that Milton Friedman proposed simplifying with his version, which he called a negative income tax. All variants on the same theme - ensure everyone has at least a certain income level, and use taxes to fund.
    https://www.vox.com/2014/9/8/6003359/basic-income-negative-income-tax-questions-explain
    https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html
  • PIMCO income A expense ratio
    IMHO this is not a big surprise. ABSs tend to have negative convexity and do not respond well to sharp drops in interest rates. Since May, when the 10 year Treasury was still fluttering around 2.4%, the 10 year yield has plummeted to 1.56% today (8/12/19).
    https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yieldYear&year=2019
    Mortgage and other asset-backed bond funds have responded predictably. Check out, e.g. VMBSX, FMBPX, FMSFX, all vs. VBTLX.
    Here's a three month plot from M*.
    Sure, between Aug 1 and Aug 5, PIMIX did significantly worse than its ABS peers, but I'd be more concerned about the broader trend of this kind of fund. (Of course, with PIMCO one is never quite sure of what it is doing; that adds another level risk/reward.)
    See my post from April 2018:
    https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/100394/#Comment_100394
  • Royce funds
    @ET91 -- not fair to directly compare Bruce Berkowtize and Miller to Royce, I don't think.
    Bruce just began drinking his own bathwater -- made bizarre moves with regard to fund staff and friendships, and wanted to grow that sucker and was on TV all the time. Sadly, despite his much-noted ability to understand investor foibles (honed while running book as a lad in Boston, we were reminded all the time !), his own ego got in the way. I hold FAIRX for a long time -- across the entire span of my holding period I ended up doing about as well as I would have had I held a solid fixed income fund. I would have made out quite well if I had bailed when Bruce's media exposure began to double. Perhaps the Fairholme Foundation is doing good work.
    Miller just doubled down until he went bankrupt.
    But with Royce, it was always all about the fees and putting old wine into lots and lots of different bottles, of various sizes and shapes. Royce also had a tendency to creep into international stocks while still benchmarking their funds to the US market. I always appreciated their honesty there. These organizing principle only got worse under LM. In recent year Royce/LM expanded the number of share classes and fund offerings (look at Dreyfus' gem of a fund for example -- special equity is going great guns; let's duplicate it and get Charlie in the press some more !). Royce renamed and closed / merged some poor performers, LM shoved some of their own managers onto the roster, and some of Royce's lackluster managers were retained (while Whitney George left?) and the records of these poor managers hidden from view. George Nekov, Chip Skinner, etc -- but look carefully -- Royce never publishes their historical records; or only selectively features them in fund reporting (this quarter yes, next quarter no). Next up at Royce -- the slow transition from star (Dreyfus, Zaino) managers to newcomers. When will they take Chuck after the 375 or so funds he manages? Trend chasing is perhaps excusable to some extent; the other stuff is not and really indicates to me that they aren't acting as a true fiduciary. I have found them really hard to trust them for some time.
  • PIMCO income A expense ratio
    I’m more concerned with its performance lately. It has been sucking wind. Pimco must be shorting treasuries or something because it’s been dropping on days when the general bond market is up. Down 0.5% today alone!