FYI: It is time to position your portfolio to survive a volatile 2019.
Most veteran market observers agree than an array of factors, from trade disputes to rising interest rates, will create more turbulence as an aging bull market becomes more vulnerable to emotion-driven selloffs. Adding to the uncertainty is the fact that market strategists seem to have an array of forecasts for the markets in 2019—both positive and negative.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/where-to-put-your-money-in-2019-1544411580

@ron
Appears that Sunday and other evenings begin futures trading at 6pm, EST.
"Unless otherwise noted, all of the above futures products trade during the specified times beginning Sunday night for the Monday trade date and ending on Friday afternoon. Open on Sunday night at 5:00pm CT/6:00pm ET.Nov 16, 2018"
This site is of some interest, that I do view; although not a futures trader, but curious to what the world is doing.
https://www.investing.com/indices/indices-futures

FYI: Yesterday the US Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York released a sentencing memorandum for Michael Cohen. We'll leave the political implications to our colleagues in the DC bureau, but one paragraph in particular jumped out at us (emphasis ours):
The largest source of undisclosed income was more than $2.4 million that Cohen received from a series of personal loans that he made to a taxi operator... for a total principal of $6 million. Each of these loans carried an interest rate in excess of 12 percent. Cohen funded the majority of these loans with a line of credit with an interest rate of less than 5 percent (such that Cohen was earning a substantial spread on the difference between the two loan rates)... In total, Cohen received more than $2.4 million in interest payments from Taxi Operator-1 between 2012 and 2016.
Regards,
Ted
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2018/12/08/1544280108000/Michael-Cohen-is-an-amazing-banker/

Huh? There was broad and slight decline before 9/08, sure, but Monday 9/15/08 is the point of the gulping, newsmaking drop. Some of us remember it vividly.
For SP500, breakeven was achieved toward the end of 4/10, as I said. ~20mo.
Further breakeven selling opps presented a half-year later, and since then, well, mostly rock'n'roll.
I suggest using M* 10k-growth charting, always.

"These reforms require prime institutional money market funds to “float their NAV” (no longer maintain a stable price) and provide non-government money market fund boards with new tools — liquidity fees and redemption gates — to address runs. These changes took effect on October 14, 2016."
https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/money-market.shtml
From the FNSXX prospectus:
"The fund is a retail money market fund. Shares of the fund are available only to accounts beneficially owned by natural persons."
It is not offered for sale to institutions, except to the extent that they are buying shares for (the benefit of) their customers (e.g. brokers may buy shares to be held in street name for their clients).
This is why I tried to clarify the distinction between institutional MMFs (a legal term of art) and institutional class shares (a fuzzy term generally meaning a share class of a retail fund with a high minimum, whatever high may mean).
Here's a good page by Vanguard with both chart and text explaining the differences between government, retail, and institutional MMFs:
https://institutional.vanguard.com/VGApp/iip/site/institutional/investments/MoneyMarketReform
(Note that the Vanguard page is wrong in saying that government MMFs cannot use gates. None will, but they are allowed to opt in, with adequate notice to investors. See https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-bulletins/investor-alerts-mmf-investoralerthtm.html )

That fund (OPCHX) no longer exists. A search (as I did) of current funds that did badly a decade ago will miss the ones that died off.
But another issue with that particular fund is that it was heavily leveraged. Again I question the wisdom (sanity?) of anyone who rode a leveraged fund all the way down in 2008.
Though in fairness to the poor suckers investors stuck with this fund,

The 2008 prospectus for the Champion fund didn’t adequately disclose the fund’s practice of assuming substantial leverage in using derivative instruments. ...
The SEC’s investigation found that the Champion fund’s 2008 prospectus was materially misleading in describing the fund’s “main” investments in high-yield bonds without adequately disclosing the fund’s practice of assuming substantial leverage on top of those investments. While the prospectus disclosed that the fund “invested” in “swaps” and other derivatives “to try to enhance income or to try to manage investment risk,” it did not adequately disclose that the fund could use derivatives to such an extent that the fund’s total investment exposure could far exceed the value of its portfolio securities and, therefore, that its investment returns could depend primarily upon the performance of bonds that it did not own.

Hence a $35M settlement payment to the SEC.
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2012-2012-110htm
More important for the investors was a $52.5M payment to settle the investors' class action suit.
https://www.labaton.com/cases/oppenheimer-champion

https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2009/01/08/390620/157284/en/Stoltmann-Law-Offices-Files-FINRA-Arbitration-Claim-for-Losses-in-the-Oppenheimer-Champion-Income-Fund-Against-Oppenheimer-Investor-Services-and-Fund-Manager-Angelo-G-Manioudakis-O.html
@johnN again is talking nonsense through his scared hat --- time to recover for TWEIX was ~<20mo, plus or minus, and for DODGX, FCNTX, PRWCX, PRBLX, FLPSX the same or less. Interesting to graph. That is hardly even buy and hold, so just hang in.
But this is in hindsight. Of course a sharp drop and bad headlines concern all of us. Dow went from ~12k summer 08, less than half what it is now, to half of that by March 09,
Still.
If you really lack faith, you oughtta not invest and probably should not be publicly on this site, fretting away.

M* (quote page) shows that this bond matures 2/15/2025, so in all likelihood it is CUSIP 645913BD5. As you said, a zero.
According to EMMA, it is currently trading at a YTW of about 4.2% (priced about 77 where 100 is par). While the underlying bond is rated BBB+, its insurance wrapper raises it to somewhere between A and AA (depending on the rating agency).
That seems like a pretty reasonable yield on a six year taxable bond of that quality. (Fidelity shows AA corporates maturing in five years to be yielding around 4%.). Otherwise I'd be wondering what a muni bond is doing in a taxable bond fund. 30% of the fund is in munis (even though M* doesn't show munis among the fund's top sectors).

Many folks lost more than 55% in their portfolios? ... They must have had some really creative portfolios, because I can only find around 110 funds that lost that much in 2008 ...

Maybe they had it all in Oppenheimer’s Champion Income Fund? (Sounds safe enough. :))
“Oppenheimer's Core Bond fund -- presumably suited to serve as an investor's core bond holding -- lost nearly 36 percent last year (2008). But that return looks stellar compared to their high yield Champion Income fund, which was off more than 78 percent.”
That was, of course, a junk bond fund. But many had been lulled into thinking high yield bonds were relatively safe compared to equities. Why they believed that? I don’t know.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-37640185/oppenheimers-bond-fund-blowup-worse-than-you-think/

Many folks lost more than 55% in their portfolios?
They must have had some really creative portfolios, because I can only find around 110 funds that lost that much in 2008, and a sizeable portion of those are ProFunds and Rydex leveraged funds. Were that many folks riding these funds all the way down, especially with the 2000 market still in the rear view mirror?
Admittedly, M*'s list is the result of survivorship bias. Still, there just weren't that many mainstream funds that lost that much. The one exception seems to be EM funds, though they're not likely to have constituted a major portion of many folks' portfolios.
That's not to say that some people didn't see their portfolios drop by a lot.

Many folks loss 45-55% plus in 2008..may not take more chances... Probably at least 60s% spread aroundvin private individual bonds cash and bnd jnk

Hi sir get out stocks while u can like Ted if retired ready... if I was 65 yo would be sitting on large piles of bonds right now and laughing while collectingmonthly Divs

I'm 2 months short of 4 years since I got into PRSNX. I got nothing but love for that fund. It's held up nicely in terms of share value. TRP tells me I'm down YTD by just a quarter percent. That's -.25%. I've added a big bunch to it a couple of months ago. INCOME for the duration: $2,126.68. SHARE VALUE has sunk by a mere -$187.73. Actual, hard-dollar figures. The TRP performance number, tailored to my own account, tells me that over the past THREE (3) years, it's up +4.16%. No complaints.

FYI: Which stock funds suffer the least damage when the market goes into a bad stretch?
Regards,
Ted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/baldwin/2018/12/03/mutual-funds-bear-market/#388f2c175690

Surprised nobody has answered you. I have a 70/30 portfolio and have worked to simplify it. VMVFX is between 20-25% of my equity portion. That will probably increase a little bit. AUENX and PRWCX are my other two. I love VMVFX and consider it great for diversification. Over 500 stocks, mainly mid and large, and names not found in your typical mid and large cap funds. I’m not into international funds that much and this gives me a little of that but not too much. I don’t want any more funds with Amazon, or Microsoft, or Apple or J and J or whatever they all have. I’m 62 and easing it up a little. I figure it this way I let PRWCX do it’s own thing. I combine AUENX & VMVFX and consider it a pretty well diversified set of funds, and add bonds to make it 70/30. Right now that is short term etf’s that I’ll change when rates stabilize.

https://www.kitco.com/news/2018-12-06/ETF-Gold-Holdings-Rise-Second-Straight-Month-In-November.html
Kitco News
(Kitco News) - Gold holdings of global exchange-traded funds and similar products rose for the second straight month in November, this time by 21.2 tonnes, the World Gold Council reported Thursday.
Holdings now stand at 2,365.2 tonnes. They are still down 6.1 tonnes for the year to date, although the WGC said ETF flows are now positive for the year to date in U.S. dollar terms.
ETFs trade like a stock but track the price of the commodity, with metal put into storage to back the shares. This gives investors exposure to gold prices without undertaking certain expenses such as storage and assaying of physical metal.
“November flows were positive across all regions,” the WGC said. “European funds led global inflows, with strong flows into U.K.-based funds as Brexit concerns increased and sterling weakened. North American funds saw inflows for a second straight month but remain negative on the year. Asian funds reversed two months of weak performance, adding 2.3% to their assets.”
Holdings in European funds rose by 10.5 tonnes, while those based in North American had inflows of 8.4, the WGC said. Funds listed in Asia posted an increase of 2.1 tonnes, while those for other regions were up 0.2 tonne.
Sponsored By Stansberry Research
Former Hedge Fund Manager: "Get Out Of Cash Now"
The man who called the DotCom crash, the housing boom & bust, and the market’s surge since 2009 warns of a new panic ahead. Click to find out more.
The world’s largest gold ETF, SPDR Gold Shares, led global inflows by gaining 7.7 tonnes. Next was iShares Physical Gold, which gained 5.4 tonnes. China’s Huaan Yifu Gold added 2.7 tonnes.
By Allen Sykora
For Kitco News
Contact [email protected]
Florida Millionaire Predicts 'Cash Panic' In 2019
Popular In the Community
Kitco
Home
All Metal Quotes
Charts & Data
Markets
News
Commentaries
Mining
Connect
About Us
Kitco Media
Careers
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Tools
Kitco Gold Index
Interactive Gold Chart
Bitcoin in USD
Currency Converter
ScrapIt!
Mobile Application
Site Map
Online Store
Be Informed of our special offers, alerts and news.
sign up
We appreciate your feedback.
Android, iPhone Kitco apps
Visit Kitco Mobile Apps
How can we help you? 1 877 775-4826
Drop us a line [email protected]
App Store Google Play
Kitco Metals Inc.
Website Terms of Use
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
gumgum-verify

Financial institutions were still open, so it was possible to trade mutual funds. See, e.g. https://www.vox.com/2018/12/5/18127158/george-hw-bush-open-national-mourning-day
I placed a fund order at 8:51 AM yesterday and it settled at end of day. (I'd say at close of market, but the market was closed.)

FYI: They called Eddie Lampert many things. “The Next Warren Buffett,” Business Week gushed in 2004. “Genius,” wrote Fortune in 2006. A “celebrity shareholder,” Institutional Investor labeled him in 2013.
But in mid-October of this year, they were calling him something entirely different. Privately, hedge fund managers distanced themselves, with one calling Lampert a practitioner of “predatory capitalism.” But perhaps the worst assaults came from those claiming to be employees of Sears Holdings — the company that Lampert had famously spent $1.5 billion to acquire, manage, and, as of that month, drive into bankruptcy. They took to employment review website Glassdoor in droves.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1c33fqdnhf21s/Eddie-Lampert-Shattered-Sears-Sullied-His-Reputation-and-Lost-Billions-of-Dollars-Or-Did-He

Just an observation, not a suggestion: nearly all the funds mentioned are growth or blend funds on the equity side. My understanding of traditional balanced funds is that they were conservative, value-leaning funds, in the VWELX mold.
"BERIX? I think that's not going to be the cup of meat she needs." That might mean that you're looking for something closer to the traditional 60/40 split, and not a bond-heavy fund. Or it could mean that you're looking for something less value-oriented, anticipating that growth will continue to lead as it has for at least a decade.
https://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T052-C000-S002-value-vs-growth-stocks-which-will-come-out-on-top.html

M* has screwed up the categorizations of DSE_X, from the getgo, I think.
It algorithmically churns SP500, as CAPE-plus vehicle, so never ever SC. LCV is always reasonable, since valuation drives the algorithm.