Fidelity Announcement On Transaction Time Reduction This is regulatory and "should" apply to everyone at every broker. I thought mutual funds already settled faster so this wouldn't affect them, but the email I received mentions them so maybe something is changing. I don't buy without cash on hand so I don't think it matters for me but could for some people. The email I received from E*TRADE said basically the same thing as the one we both received from Fidelity:
We're writing to make sure you know about an important upcoming change in U.S. securities markets.
What’s changing
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in cooperation with the financial services industry, is shortening the trade settlement period for many types of securities from three business days to two. This new rule is designed to increase efficiency and reduce risk. Products affected by the change include stocks, corporate bonds, municipal bonds, ETFs, and mutual funds, among others.
NO ACTION IS REQUIRED FROM YOU. The shortened settlement period will take effect automatically on Tuesday, September 5, 2017.
What this means to you
If you sell a security, you’ll receive cash one day sooner
If you buy a security, it will be delivered one day sooner
If you are using margin, purchases will create a settled debit balance one day sooner and selling will decrease your settled debit balance one day sooner
You will have one less day to execute a tax-lot swap
This Fund Invests Only In Companies That Contribute To Trump And Republicans (MAGA) Interesting thought. The fund screens out those who don't pay to play, then takes the top 1
50. That's based on total dollar amount and percentage that goes to GOP candidates. So big companies can win even if they're just hedging their bets.
Even going by the pay to play philosophy, wouldn't it still make more sense to focus on specific policies?
If, say Pfizer bought its way into affecting regulations (e.g. maintaining the ban against drug importation despite
campaign promises seemingly to the contrary), wouldn't one expect the whole brand name pharmaceutical sector to benefit? Even if, say, Merck had supported Democrats.
That's not to say that an individual company couldn't wrangle sweetheart government deals. Just wondering whether such company specific (as opposed to industry-specific) "help" would be the exception or the rule.
Don't Be Dazzled By Gold Yeah -
Barron's really "got it right" in October 1998.
With gold at $303, their "Wrong About Gold" article scorned investors who were (correctly) becoming bullish on the metal. So I won't put much faith in their analysis today.
Excerpt:
Wrong About Gold Oct. 5, 1998 - Key Commodity Indexes
"The world's gold bugs seem to be exulting at news of the global financial crisis. And it's easy to see why. With stocks falling sharply in value, investors have started to show renewed interest in gold, that ageold hedge against hard times. But their knee-jerk reaction ignores the fact that we seem to be looking at an outbreak of deflation, not inflation. That's not to say that gold prices couldn't rise further over the next few months. Uncertainty always seems to stoke enthusiasm for the yellow metal. But the fact is that fundamental demand for gold is not increasing significantly and supplies remain plentiful." http://www.barrons.com/articles/SB907371410794467500-
Just my personal perspective ... buying gold, or the miners, is about the closest you can come to
gambling within the confines of your IRA. (Only
@rono knows where it's going.) I have a meager 1-2% hold in OPGSX which has done well since buying in May. Some of my diversified funds, notably PRPFX and PRAFX, have decent exposure. At some point I'll sell the p/m fund, take the money and run. Not yet --- too much uncertainty out there in the geopolitical. Last week gold was hot, picking up $30-$40 and rising to over $1320. With the turmoil in Asia, it gained another 10 bucks Monday to around $1330.
---
If trouble with above link, try this Google search. Select top story "Wrong About Gold"
https://www.google.com/search?ei=UK-sWevdLOSXjwSH0pawAg&q=cheryl+strauss+einhorn+commosities+corner+1998+article+on+gold+price+in+Barrons+Oftober+5+1998&oq=cheryl+strauss+einhorn+commosities+corner+1998+article+on+gold+price+in+Barrons+Oftober+5+1998&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.12..30i10k1.30394.37695.0.38648.15.15.0.0.0.0.387.4260.0j1j7j7.15.0....0...1.1.64.mobile-gws-serp..0.15.4258.Uq4g1FlZnVE
Don't Be Dazzled By Gold
Vanguard Withheld Support For Key Wells Fargo Directors Or a negative sign - that WF was so bad that not even Vanguard could stomach all of it.
"Vanguard funds supported 12 of 15 Wells Fargo directors on the ballot, and backed the company’s management on all nine shareholder proposals up for a vote at the April meeting. "
Is the glass 80% (12/15) empty or 20% (3/15) full? Compare Vanguard with American Fund's "Income Fund of America, which did not support nine of 15 directors."
I suppose that's still better than 100% empty.
Pimco Has A Manager Who Tops Dan Ivascyn. His Name? Dan Ivascyn PCI is still retains a discount although. Narrower than in the past.
Separate question: Do folks regard PONDX/PIMX/PONAX as a core holding or a high yieldly satellite? Just curious what folks like
@junkster,
@davidsnowball,
@mikem,
@oldskeet think?
Regards,Mike
Mike I can't help you because of the short term nature of my methodology. I was in PONDX in 2012 and a few months in early 2013 but not again until this year. Its returns from 2013 through 2016 were not inspiring. Much of this year's returns are from its exposure to rmbs primarily non agency. I read somewhere PIMCO and Ivascyn are buying all the legacy non agency rmbs from before the crash they can get their hands on. I am 55% IOFIX and 45% DPFNX now which is primarily all non agency but with a heck of a lot less AUM. How long this ultra steady rise in that market can continue there I have not a clue. But the strong housing market has helped immensely.
It was a huge month for non agency RMBS bonds. But have been paring back IOFIX because of its exposure to Houston. If last month's high is taken out (adjusting for the ex div date) will ramp back up.
Technical Analysis Tip of the Month for September, 2017 @Tony,
A technique to find a security in an uptrend is to be able to draw a straight line upward through at least 3 of its price lows, preferably using a semi-log chart.
Some thoughts:
I believe this technique also holds true on the downside where a downtrend can be identified by this same method.
So,
Three lower lows = a downtrend
Three higher lows = an uptrend
The question is, do you apply this analysis on a daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly basis?
Day traders might say daily. Long term investors might say yearly. I like looking at monthly data using chart sites like M*. By using the YTD chart option a monthly grid display makes end of the month data easy to read.
Here I am connecting "end of the month" data to identify "uptrends" or "downtrends" with respect to "new lows".
Moving in closer to this month's (August) action:
We tend to hear the new cycle report "new highs" when what really is more important is making and holding a "new higher low" since this becomes support and a reference for a change in momentum.
Thanks for this thread.
Morningstar's Top Rated Funds Unlikely To Give Investors Best Returns t.maddell monthly read Nice writeup. Pretty basic stuff, but a lot of effort. (I've worked with a company off and on that does a similar form of machine learning.)
Good results for a prototype, though I'm not sure it's ready for prime time.
M* acknowledges that the model has a hard time distinguishing between gold, silver, and bronze. Grouping these all together into one bucket (called "Recommended"), the model still doesn't do a great job. See Exhibit 4 in the paper.
Of funds that analysts actually rated Recommended (gold, silver or bronze), the model only thought 78% of them should be recommended. The model said that 21% of these Recommended funds should be rated Neutral, and 1% Negative.
Of the funds that analysts rated Neutral, the model said 59% should be Neutral, it Recommended 32% of them, and was Negative on 9%.
Of the funds that analysts rated Negative, the model rated only 55% Negative, it was Neutral on 41% and even Recommended 4%.
Given the questionable value of analyst ratings in the first place, an automated rating that is itself wrong 22% to 45% of the time seems to render this first stab as useless.
I've no doubt the accuracy can be improved. Will take a lot of time and effort though.
PIMCO Income raises fund fees Interesting move by PIMCO, eh? Contrarian indicator?
Pimco Bucks Trend by Raising Fees on Ivascyn's Income Fund
Pimco Income Fund, the fastest-growing actively managed U.S. mutual fund, is raising fees at a time most money managers are racing to slash costs paid by investors.
The $92 billion fund will increase its fees
5 cents per $100 on Oct. 2 for most share classes, according to a filing Thursday, bringing expenses for the institutional-class shares to
50 cents per $100. The change in supervisory and administrative fees is attributed in part to the cost of managing dividends for the growing fund, which has about
5,
500 securities in numerous countries and currencies, said Pacific Investment Management Co. spokesman Michael Reid.
< - >
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-31/pimco-bucks-trend-by-raising-fees-on-ivascyn-s-income-fund
The Closing Bell: US stocks Jump After Report Of Stronger Consumer Spending
Thanks
@Ted. Hoping not to step on any toes here. What struck me today was that commodities - notably energy (followed by gold) were on a tear. One day is probably meaningless, but just relaxing in front of the Bloomberg screen after my afternoon workout I see:
- RBOB Gas (gasoline futures)
+13.5% for the day - after an already strong week
- Heating Oil +
5%
- Nat gas + 3%
- NYMEX + 2.
5%
- AG - Very strong across the board
- Lumber Up
- Aluminum Up
- Copper Up
- Gold + $13 to over $1320 (about $100 above its recent low in May)
*'Footnote -
Giving credit where due:
@Ted's AP Link does include a pretty good summary of the energy & commodities markets, although some of the numbers differ a bit from what Bloomberg is showing.
The Closing Bell: US stocks Jump After Report Of Stronger Consumer Spending
Gotta Have Faith: The Rise Of Religious ETFs
Vanguard Jumps On ETF-Of-ETFs Bandwagon, The Vanguard Way Ah. Thanks v much for specific example. Interesting. I bet that was not unique. That's a nontrivial bid-ask.
I just checked at ML and for AOR at the moment it's 44.24 and 44.28, 4 cents. ~1% if my arithmetic is good today. Vol 56k. I did not try and trade a small quantity, so I suppose worse is possible. I did not check at Fido.
Given the kind of entity it is, such a nice diverse mix of other etfs (AOA, AOK, and AOM are very similar, different proportions), I guess it should be buy-hold and not something to consider trading.
But your point is taken and I will remember what I have learned when I suggest it in the future. Thanks much.
Morningstar's Top Rated Funds Unlikely To Give Investors Best Returns t.maddell monthly read
M*: 5 More Under-The-Radar And Up-And-Coming Funds
Vanguard Jumps On ETF-Of-ETFs Bandwagon, The Vanguard Way Will read up on the link. My only direct experience from a year back was losing 1.5% on a market trade of 500 shares due to bid-ask spread. Limit order penny below ask did not go through for a long time and was forced to enter market order because I wanted to get out to fund another position. Never happened to me for high volume ETFs. Note that some days the volume can be dramatically lower than the average volume. Could be one-off.
