I came across this article.
https://news.yahoo.com/wisconsin-sets-coronavirus-record-cases-150054772.html
Stay Safe, Derf

In case anyone still gives a hoot about FAIRX
POSITIONS

Appears to me ,with students hitting the books that the second wave is in progress. Will this have ant effect on Mr.Market or will the appearance of a near future vaccine negate this ?
A good week to all, Derf

Sometimes things weren't quite as we remember them. Stein Roe was acquired by Liberty (now Columbia), not by Strong. Dick Weiss did move from Stein Roe to Strong, but by switching funds, not by acquisition.

Former Stein Roe employees say that when Richard Weiss, well-known manager of the Special Fund, failed to win support in 1991 for a new institutional equity product that would have capitalized on his existing fund's strong record, he jumped to Milwaukee-based Strong Funds and gathered nearly $2 billion in two years. Mr. Weiss was soon joined at Strong by promising Stein Roe manager Carlene Murphy Ziegler.

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/19951021/ISSUE01/10008554/how-stein-roe-blew-it-once-a-big-name-now-an-also-ran
FWIW, here's a post of mine on the convoluted path of acquisitions that ultimately led to Columbia Threadneedle. Stein Roe was acquired by Liberty, which was acquired by Fleet Boston, which already owned Columbia and rebranded some acquired funds; Fleet Boston (Columbia) was acquired by Bank of America, which sold its funds to Ameriprise.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/51510/#Comment_51510

Here it is, Economist couple days ago, guys working on projects at Youngstown State:
... almost all who had voted for him in 2016, even if tentatively, now vigorously endorsed him.
“He’s done a great job, he’s got everyone back to work. I’m pretty much 100% for him,” said Kyle, a 30-year-old electrician. “He shoots his mouth off but at least that shows he’s honest,” said Jason, a pipefitter, who said he especially liked Mr Trump’s commitment to reducing the national debt. “He’s done more for our country than the past ten presidents put together,” said an older builder, Jeff, skimming wet concrete on a new road. “He’s made—who is it, China or Japan?—pay our farmers billions of dollars. He got healthcare done, which the Democrats could never do. He built the wall.”

The debt thing is especially grotesque. Great comms technology has chiefly abetted Fox and OAN. I mean, these three did not form their conclusions from reading.

@Observant1, Interesting concept at that time, kinda like the 1992 USA Dream Team. Invested with their International fund but found there nothing special but many downsides to it.

@Sven,
The Master Select International Fund intrigued me but I was already invested internationally.
I now gravitate towards funds with only one (preferable) or two different management teams.
I don't want there to be "too many cooks in the kitchen".

@Observant1, Interesting concept at that time, kinda like the 1992 USA Dream Team. Invested with their International fund but found there nothing special but many downsides to it.
@msf, I remember Dick Weiss from way way back when he was with Stein Roe Opportunity fund before the firm was merged with Strong.

+1.

Sorry- corruption and sneaky dishonesty needs to be called.
Watching a poster have two accounts and to pretend to be two different people is just another reflection of the complete lack of honesty and moral scruple emanating from and endorsed by the very highest levels of our present government.
This sad little MFO situation is of course much less important than the current attempts of the president's political appointees to "spin" and even suppress extremely important data reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but very much in the spirit of the current administration.
It's not a coincidence that this farce is being produced by a fervent admirer of that administration.
If this post results in this thread being shut down that's just too damn bad. Good riddance.

@WABAC
Depends on the size of the house. I've seen many homes cut up six ways from Sunday. Typically in college towns. But it probably happens elsewhere too.
Interesting interpretation. Though if that's what's meant by the number of units "in single-family buildings with between one and four units", then wouldn't this count exclude buildings that were originally built as small multi-unit dwellings?
Subdividing houses has been going on, if not forever, at least since the 50s. Here's an old (1995) paper on The Subdivision of the Single-Family House in the United States
http://arkitekturforskning.net/na/article/download/687/633

In the 1950's most [maturing original suburban locations] experienced an economic downturn: the new middle classes were moving away from the city, leaving behind an aging population which was slowly being replaced by lower-income owners and even tenants. Houses were subdivided into two or more apartments which could be afforded by the lower economic brackets of the population. Since the 70's [there was gentrification]. In these so-called gentrified areas, subdivided houses have remained so because they respond to a need for smaller units by smaller households ...

To its credit, CNBC notes that "About 12% of landlords surveyed went into this mortgage forbearance program." If you go digging into its source, you find that it's 15% of owners of landlords owning 2-4 units. No other breakdown info.
It looks like these are percentages of all landlords surveyed, not just the ones with mortgages. So one can reasonably infer that the percentage of landlords with mortgages that are able to defer payments is larger than these figures. In any case, this does show that contrary to what Politico wrote, not all landlords with mortgages still have to make payments now.
This fuzziness in the data - what it means, where it comes from, how large the error bars are (except for Census data which is higher quality) - is what makes understanding the numbers, let alone verifying them, so difficult.
Thanks for identifying the "The Hill" piece as opinion. I'm fine with opinion pieces so long as the facts can be verified, and this piece does a fine job in linking to its sources. It's hard to describe as controversial statements like: "All can be protected — at least over the near term — by continued government support". Not when even Mnuchin is supporting some form of government support.
Though I do think the writer is being kind in saying that "the HEROES Act [is] now being debated in Congress." Not when the latest action is dated July 23: "Senate. Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Hearings held."
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6800/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs

thanks OS current barometer is 135 which indicates overbought market.

@msf

"single-family buildings with between one and four units".
How do you legally get four units into a single-family building?

Depends on the size of the house. I've seen many homes cut up six ways from Sunday. Typically in college towns. But it probably happens elsewhere too.
I suspect that the reporting will get better on this as more outlets take a whack at it. I don't think of Politico when I think about strong financial reporting.
But even at 42-43% of those four units holding a mortgage there is the potential for some serious pain.
Here's CNBC taking a whack.

Nearly a third of renters who live in single-family or small multifamily properties owned by individual landlords were unable to pay their August rent, according to a survey by Avail, a technology and marketing platform for small landlords. That is up from just under 25% in July. Avail received responses from 2,225 landlords and almost 3,000 renters.
[ellipses]
Individual landlords make up the majority of single-family rental owners. Nearly 23 million units in 17 million properties are owned by individual investors, according to the most recent count by the U.S. Census Bureau. Just under a third of these investors are retirees.
Nearly 54% of the income from a typical rental unit normally goes toward fixed costs associated with property ownership, according to an analysis by Zillow. These expenses include mortgage payments, property taxes, maintenance, insurance and capital improvements. Without the rent, landlords still have to cover shortfall.
“Our data show that 42% of renters and 35% of landlords are digging into their emergency funds and savings to cover everyday expenses,” said Ryan Coon, CEO of Avail.

Here is an opinion piece in The Hill taking on mortgages in general, as well as renters. The opiner calls for more relief. And I wonder where that ends, whether it's to the renters, the landlord, or both.

the top 10 percent own 83 percent
Do you think any of that top 10% participate in mfo discussions? Let’s hope so. Otherwise, the good people who come here to talk about investing represent (at most) only 17% of the market. A dismal thought.

OSTIX also just upped its yield slightly. Now 4.1%. It too has served more conservative investors well this year, so far.
As did RCTIX.

According to the most recent Federal Reserve data, the top 1 percent of U.S. households by wealth own 39 percent of equities and mutual fund shares, and the top 10 percent own 83 percent . Also, the top 1 percent of U.S. households by income own 41 percent of equities and mutual fund shares, and the top 20 percent own 87 percent.
https://federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/#quarter:122;series:Corporate%20equities%20and%20mutual%20fund%20shares;demographic:networth;population:1,3,5,7;units:shares;range:1989.3,2020.1
This data suggests the need to sell shares to fund retirement needs is likely to have a fairly small impact on stock market behavior. (I just noticed @Mark posted some of this data on another post earlier this morning.)
The quote already pasted to this thread about valuation and TINA speaks to the PE ratio question. That's a daily marketplace decision. But, that decision takes into account the knowledge that central banks are active participants and that fiscal policy is also playing an active role in supporting the economy. The quote suggests it will be difficult for valuation concerns to gain traction in this environment. I suspect if the upward creep in the P/E ratio is gradual the marketplace will continue to accept it assuming the economy can return to a pattern of growth (but I am certainly not betting the farm that is the case). But, what happens if (when?) inflation takes hold? That will presumably force central banks to modify their behavior. The limits of MMT tie in with this too. But, it appears the marketplace views those issues as distant concerns for another day.

Just noticed RCTIX yield is actually increasing a bit. About 4.6%. Dennis championed this fund.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2019/05/river-canyon-total-return-bond-fund-institutional-class-rctix/

While I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of mom-and-pop landlords, the thesis of the article is not well supported by the facts presented. The thesis being that it is the ban on evictions that is "threatening the livelihood of millions of landlords".

One in three tenants failed to make their September rent payment on time, according to the latest Apartment List survey. And a little over 25 percent said they had slight or no confidence in their ability to pay their rent this month, according to Census data published Wednesday, with another 22 percent expressing only moderate confidence.

With a large swath of renters being unable to make timely payments, would landlords be better off evicting tenants who may be paying some money in the hope of finding new renters able to pay more during a pandemic? Is it really the eviction ban creating this threat to landlords?
From another, slightly earlier (and somewhat less conclusory) Politico piece:

A ban without assistance, [ National Low Income Housing Coalition CEO and President] Yentel said, is a “half-measure that extends a financial cliff for renters to fall off of when the moratorium expires and back rent is owed.” ...
“Without direct rental assistance, rents cannot be paid, and owners face a financial crisis of their own by not being able to maintain properties and pay their mortgages or property taxes, ”NAA President & CEO Bob Pinnegar said. ...
Mnuchin also supports rental assistance, he told lawmakers: "Our first choice is to have bipartisan legislation that allocates specific rental assistance to people hardest hit."

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/01/trump-administration-block-evictions-backlash-407060
BTW, I linked to the "Census data published Wednesday" in my post here.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/131148/#Comment_131148
The original article also includes some statements and figures that seem at best a bit flaky:
"single-family buildings with between one and four units".
How do you legally get four units into a single-family building?
"In a four-unit building, if one person can’t pay rent you’ve just lost 25 percent of your income."
That may have seemed obvious to the person quoted, but it's not necessarily correct (the situation can be much worse):

About 40 percent of seniors who live in and own two-to-four-unit buildings have a mortgage. If these older landlords with a mortgage do not receive rental payments, not only are they likely to lose their single source of income, but some may lose their homes.

https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/owners-and-renters-62-million-units-small-buildings-are-particularly-vulnerable-during-pandemic
Small landlords often live in multi-unit buildings they own. So in a four-unit building, if one person doesn't pay rent, they've lost 33% of their rental income. Aside from losing a larger percentage of their rental income than the article says, these owners are themselves at risk of eviction (post-foreclosure).
"And most of those buildings have a mortgage — meaning the property owners themselves still need to make their own monthly payments."
According to the Urban Institute's presentation of RHFS data, 42% of 1-4 unit buildings have a mortgage, not most. The RHFS data itself (click the "apply" button on the linked page for this table) says about 43%. Just 3/7, not "most of these buildings".
As far as "property owners themselves still need[ing] to make their own monthly payments", many will need to, some won't. "[T]though Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have established multifamily forbearance plans, small-building landlords are less likely to hold federally backed mortgages". Urban Institute, ibid.
"Fannie Mae today [June 29, 2020] announced updated renter protections and forbearance extensions for borrowers."
https://www.fanniemae.com/newsroom/fannie-mae-news/fannie-mae-announces-updated-protections-renters-impacted-covid-19

I don’t do podcasts unless it’s something really compelling. (A return from the dead by Louis Rukeyser for a “special” present day market update might qualify. :) )
While I don’t much listen to podcasts, I like Bloomberg TV as background noise, so have likely heard all of the opinions here sometime over the weekend as the show is rebroadcast several times. Can’t stand (“wet blanket“) Lawerence Summers as a market prognosticator, though I respect his considerable intellect. David Westin’s a solid “B grade” program moderator and also a Michigan native, so let’s be kind here. I’d not walk across the street to hear Nancy Pelosi (or any politician) comment on Wall Street / investing during a heated and tumultuous election season, although I agree with her on most issues political. Rick Rieder (mentioned in the excerpt at bottom) from BlackRock appears often on Bloomberg and usually makes good sense.
Some of the guests in the podcast @Crash linked:
- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:
- Bloomberg Senior Executive Editor for Economics Stephanie Flanders
- Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers
- Gerber Kawasaki President & CEO Ross Gerber
- Alger Management CEO & CIO Dan Chung
Additional:
“Sep.11 — This week’s Wall Street Week features David Westin’s interviews with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Bloomberg Senior Executive Editor for Economics Stephanie Flanders, Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers, Gerber Kawasaki President & CEO Ross Gerber, and Alger Management CEO & CIO Dan Chung. The conversations analyze the need for more economic stimulus in the U.S. and the ECB’s decision to hold steady on further stimulus spending. Afsaneh Beschloss, RockCreek Group CEO and Rick Rieder, BlackRock Global Chief Investment Officer of Fixed Income discuss the return of volatility to markets, concerns of over-valued assets, and the whether there is a shift in the fundamentals.”
https://finanz.dk/se-wall-street-week-full-show-09-11-2020/

Yes, capitalism is the only game in town. Yes, presumably, we are all investors here, or people wanting to learn how to be smart about it.
But Bernie is not an extremist. He wants universal health care.

Contrary to common misconceptions, universal health coverage (UHC), socialized medicine and single-payer systems are not interchangeable terms. ... UHC is an umbrella term that socialized medicine and single-payer fall under; socialized medicine and single-payer systems may be implemented in an effort to achieve UHC

https://healthforce.ucsf.edu/blog-article/healthcare-policy/health-care-systems-101-how-does-us-compare-other-countries
This is an excellent, relatively short read on the different health care models: Beveridge (socialized, UK), Bismark (private insurance; Germany, France), hybrid (Canada). See also:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/18/upshot/best-health-care-system-country-bracket.html
Bernie's model of UHC is generally regarded as closest to Canada's. His "Medicare for All plan would leave intact the current infrastructure of doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, but nationalize the health insurance industry."
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/03/politics/medicare-for-all-annotated/
Capitalism is not the only game in town. In most respects, Bernie is no socialist, regardless of how much he may say otherwise. But here at least, he is advocating nationalizing an industry. Though he is not suggesting that the health delivery industry be nationalized, and thus falls short of the existing US model where the government runs the VHA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Health_Administration#VHA_Nationalized_Healthcare_System
Such considerations bear directly on funds like FSHCX (top 3: 25% United Healthcare, 9% Cigna, 8% Humana) and IHF (top 3: 23% United Healthcare, 12% CVS Health (owns Aetna), 7% Cigna).

"Wealthy investors and the Fed have been propping up large companies. It can’t last."
"If the stock market doesn’t reflect the health of our economy, what does it measure? Most directly, it indicates the financial health of the richest among us. Overall, about 55 percent of Americans own stocks, according to Gallup, but ownership is heavily skewed toward the wealthy. According to Federal Reserve data, the top 1 percent of U.S. households own 39 percent of equities and mutual fund shares, and the top 10 percent own 83 percent — which leaves workers in the bottom 90 percent owning just 17 percent."
Article Here