+1.

USAA recently "sold" their Investment division to Charles Schwab for $1.8 Billion. That's $1,800,000,000 in cash. USAA will transfer $90 Billion in assets to Schwab sometime in May 2020. I asked how individual investors (there are 1 million) will benefit from this sale. I am still waiting for that answer. This latest move may not mean anything for the orphan investors who are leaving USAA for Schwab. Doesn't look like individual account holders will receive any of this $1.8B as a "bonus" for this asset transfer.
The 1 million investors seem due some it not all of this windfall.

The VIX was created by the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE)
and now is at 47.65 at 11:45 PM
I follow the VIX + many other indexes/ETF during the day at Yahoo which is accurate too (VIX)

Hi VintageFreak, This is none of my business but did you buy/sell after 30 days due to wash sale rule. Unless you can argue that PVFIX Is a micro-cap and PVCMX is a small cap?

Buying and selling active funds should not trigger wash sale. They are, by definition, independent and while may have some degree of overlap, will likely never be enough to be "substantially similar."

Hi Guys, Today is Tuesday 4/21 (around 7:50am) and it is not looking to start well with the stock futures down across the board. The VIX has climbed back towards the 40's reading after being down in the mid 30's. In addition, the money feed, in the barometer, moved from 63 to 50 which indicates that some investors are now booking profit from the recent stock market's upward run. I have the big stock Index (S&P 500) pulling back yesterday just short of 2% (1.8%) leaving it with about a 26% gain above it's 52 week low.
I did a little selling yesterday and reduced my equity allocation from the 49% to the 47% range. My next sell step, in my rebalance process should the Index continue its descent, is around the 2685 mark. Otherwise, my next calendar sell step will come sometime during the first part of May. After my next sell step I plan to hold, for a while, at an asset allocation of about 15% cash, 40% income and 45% equity. From this asset allocation, I will either move towards a 10/45/45 or 20/40/40. At the moment I'm in flux as I ponder how much cash to hold and I could wind up at 15/45/40 as cash is paying very little in the form of yield.
I'm still with my thoughts that the Index will settle into a trading range bewteen 2500 to 2700 ranges. However, please know it can move above, or below, these numbers based upon news of events and happenings.
For now, I sit and watch.
Thanks for stopping by and reading ... be careful ... stay safe ... and, I wish all ... "Good Investing."

@FD1000 "My main point is that you can't make your assumption on others..." I bet you'd love the chance to proofread that and express it so that it makes sense? This is your chance. ..... As for the rest of what you posted above: You want credit, you want adulation, you want to get stroked. OK, consider it done. Next?

+1.

I have a question about what happens in an index when a significant number of companies in an index go bankrupt. (Gee - guess what sector I might be talking about :-/) So, the value of the company's stock goes to zero, and the index falls accordingly. When a new entity gets picked to replace it, how does the value of that company get reinserted into the index?
For example, let's say there's a simple index that consists of A, B, C, and D, each stock sells for $10 and all the market caps are the same, so the index starts out at $100. A.B. and C stay at $10, and D goes bankrupt, so the index falls to $75. A new entity E is introduced whose stock is $10.
My guess is that the NAV of the index is redesigned such that the new entities, A, B, C, and E, split the $75 NAV at the time of D's bankruptcy. A, B, and C have a smaller representation in each share; each index investor's basis reflects the progress of all 5 entities including the demise of D.
Would this procedure be in the SIA for the various index funds and ETF's? I'll have to read through some.

VIX was over 40 last Wed-Thur then down Friday to 38+ but is back up to over 40 now.
4:10 PM - VIX ended the day around 43.

Vanguard is horrible if you require interaction.
A few weeks ago, I received a troubling email (blackmail) that included my Vanguard password (not user name). While I suspected that it was a scam, clearly my password was hacked. In addition to turning it over to the FBI, I called Vanguard to freeze my accounts. I did the same with Schwab and Fidelity where I have a small account. All accounts were frozen immediately.
So far, so good. The weekend passed, I changed my password and determined that it was a scam. I called all three back and Schwab and Fidelity removed the freeze immediately. Vanguard said that they would submit the paperwork to the appropriate department and that it would take two weeks! Finally, after 10 days, I had access to my account.
Anything that is not routine, Vanguard is as bureaucratic as the federal government.

"...I can say that if you are not a buy and hold forever (Bogle style) then you are not an investor...."
I come here to learn. Reading many of the interchanges between others here and FD1000, it's clear that he/she has an unreasonable need to win all the time. Reminds me of conversations with my nephew. Reminds me of the Orange Abortion in the White House.
....... When I was a younger man and doing comunity organizing, our leader reminded us very early about a Cardinal Rule: if you control the terminology and definitions and can get the ones on the other side of the issue to start believing and using your definitions and terminology, then you've all but WON the issue.
********************************************
I'm not interested in embroidery nor competition in here. You've got info worth sharing? Share it, by all means.

My main point is that you can't make your assumption on others. If an investor meets their goals then it's that simple. I know a guy that sold his company for millions of dollars years ago and wants low volatility and invested over 90% in Munis and it worked great for him over 20 years. Another one retired with a pension + his SS covers his expenses and all his money is in stocks. Another guy uses only CEFs and trade them with good results. They all met their needs, there is no right or wrong answer, the problem is trying to put someone in a box that you don't like.
Over the years I shared my thoughts and actually helped hundreds who contacted me privately. I never tell them to use my style, never, I helped them using their style. This is what many can't grasp.
Example: An older relative retired around 2001-2 and told me he saw several financial advisors and thinks that 1% is too high and he really doesn't trust them while markets got volatile and he wants a stable LT simple portfolio and all his money is at Vanguard. Based on his portfolio, he needed about 3-3.5% yearly withdrawal. I told him he can be in just 35-40% stocks and the rest bonds and to invest in just 2 funds VWIAX+VSCGX. Every 2-3 years this guy calls me and thank me how I saved him so much money and how it works.
I knew VWIAX would be better but I wanted to diversify a bit more. Below are the results(link)

"...I can say that if you are not a buy and hold forever (Bogle style) then you are not an investor...."
Easy to win arguments/debates when you pull definitions outa the clear blue sky, to suit your purposes and defend your viewpoint. I've been mostly lurking through several of these discussions/debates involving FD1000 and I just can't understand why , on a board like this one, there must be winners and losers. I come here to learn. Reading many of the interchanges between others here and FD1000, it's clear that he/she has an unreasonable need to win all the time. Reminds me of conversations with my nephew. Reminds me of the Orange Abortion in the White House.
....... When I was a younger man and doing comunity organizing, our leader reminded us very early about a Cardinal Rule: if you control the terminology and definitions and can get the ones on the other side of the issue to start believing and using your definitions and terminology, then you've all but WON the issue.
********************************************
I'm not interested in embroidery nor competition in here. You've got info worth sharing? Share it, by all means.

I employ the ones that give me the best work for the money. If they don't perform, I just switch the

@FD1000, then you are not an investor, you're a trader of the hottest fund of the month club. Most here are investors. So, speaking for myself as an investor, I would not take your short term rear view mirror advice on this one.

You should never take advice from anybody but do your own due diligence. That's what I do.
But, I have held funds for months up to several years. As I said, I look for best risk/reward funds first then select the best one. I have held PIMIX(Multi) and PHMIX for years. It's not just the best performer.
There are all kind of investors, I don't put anybody in a box. I can say that if you are not a buy and hold forever (Bogle style) then you are not an investor. The key is to find what works best for you to meet your goals.
How many investors do you know who sold over 99% before the crash this year?
I can tell you from experience that a good fund can do well in the next 1-2 years.

More socialism for the rich without concern for the "moral hazard" of supporting junk bond investors:
https://bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-14/federal-reserve-s-high-yield-etf-buying-defies-explanation
Moral hazards apparently only apply to poor folk getting government benefits or homeowners and students seeking forgiveness for their debt. But hey, junk bond ETF investors and their debt issuers need a lift after issuing credits during the longest bull market in history. If your debt is still rated junk after the longest bull market--not a fallen angel but junk at issuance--what does that say about the quality of the business and why should a government agency be bailing you out? And poor Fed, can only leverage Treasury coverage of these purchases 7 to 1 instead of 10 to 1 for ordinary investment grade corporates.

If you read this, it sounds like the crisis in the bond market was just a blip and now that the Fed’s stepped in everything’s hunky dory: https://google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/business/bonds-fed-rescue-investors.amp.html
Now read this to understand how problematic bond funds can be and have been recently: https://google.com/amp/s/finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/bond-etfs-not-mispricing-mutual-120000952.html

I employ the ones that give me the best work for the money. If they don't perform, I just switch the

@FD1000, then you are not an investor, you're a trader of the hottest fund of the month club. Most here are investors. So, speaking for myself as an investor, I would not take your short term rear view mirror advice on this one.

@ET91 Yup, I always take care. In any case hard to prove wash sale with those two funds. You cannot simply take M* classification. The legal term is "substantially similar". One would have to prove co-relation.
I tried doing Fund Compare on M*, but PVCMX is not enabled for that right now. I see it as "Small Blend" while PVFIX is "Small Value". If you look at the holdings there is not a single one that is common - PVFIX you can fund on M*, PVCMX you can find on their website.

@LewisBraham
What you said is mostly correct BUT index works best for US LC. I have done very nicely by having a list of great risk/reward funds and selecting the one with the best momentum. Basically, I call them my NBA team. I want my team to go to the playoff every year. Even a superstar (like PIMIX) will be out if I can find a better performer (in my case IOFIX). This guarantees my funds to be a top performer. I also care a lot about volatility.
In 2000-2009 I mostly held 3 funds SGENX,FAIRX,OAKBX. After 2010 and preparing for retirement I held PRWCX and PIMIX and then IOFIX.
===============
@MikeM
long term FMIJX looks better but I only care what happened in the last 1-3 years. See my answer above.
I also look at my fund managers as my contractors, I employ the ones that give me the best work for the money. If they don't perform, I just switch them.

Let's look at a story of 2 International funds. If we look at total return, the growth of $10,000 invested on 1/1/2011, we have these results:
Both funds A and B start with a $10,000 investment on 1/1/2011.
on 12/31/2011, fund A had $8609 / fund B had $9823
on 12/31/2012, fund A had $10124 / fund B had $11608
on 12/31/2013, fund A had $12391 / fund B had $14969
on 12/31/2014, fund A had $11489 / fund B had $15138
on 12/31/2015, fund A had $11459 / fund B had $15625
on 12/31/2016, fund A had $11018 / fund B had $17188
on 12/31/2017, fund A had $13360 / fund B had $19843
on 12/31/2018, fund A had $11876 / fund B had $17966
on 12/31/2019, fund A had $15456 / fund B had $21034
At the end of 9 years of return history, fund B has returned 36% more than fund A.
on 4/1/2020, fund A had $12663 / fund B had $15693
Even after a misstep in the 1st qtr of 2020 (which every manager goes though) Fund B has still returned ~20% more than fund A for long term investors.
Also:
Fund A's managers have been on board for 3 years, fund B management since inception. Fund A's volatility as measured by STD is 13.5, fund A has been less volatile at 11.3.
Fund A has an expense ration of 1.15%, you'll pay less for fund B, 0.9%.
If you are a long term investor, which fund would you have been happier investing if on 1/1/2011? If you are a long term investor, why would you throw out fund B and replace it with find A? Is there a crystal ball that tells you fund A is immune to manager missteps?
of course:
Fund A = CWVGX
Fund B = FMIJX

@FD1000 The problem with this sort of comparison is the past is gone, and there is little evidence for long-term performance persistence of top performing funds in the future: https://advisorperspectives.com/articles/2020/01/23/december-2019-spiva-persistence-scorecard There is evidence for short-term performance persistence, however. The fund that is hot this year may well be hot the next, but the fund that is hot over the past five years most likely won't be over the next five. That's why other criteria besides peformance should also be used, fees being one, valuation of the portfolio, style consistency, manager tenure and risk control. By the time three or five-years of outperformance have occurred the investments the manager made that have proven successful may be tapped out and he/she is due for some underperformance. The question is then is the manager someone investors can tolerate sitting through the underperformance periods after the strong ones. Evidently for some MFO-ers, this is not the case with FMIJX, despite the explanation management provided for the underperformance. This is a fundamental problem with active management. Even if the strategy makes sense and the management knows how to execute it many investors buy and sell at the wrong times, leading to a poor overall investor experience. There are a number of MFO-ers I think therefore who would be better off indexing as they can't take these bouts of underperformance. This is not meant to be a criticism. It is a reality of investing.
Then again, FMIJX marketed itself as a defensive fund that is good at losing less during downturns. In this regard, it has failed at a fundamental objective during this period, although it hasn't in past ones. Therefore, a review is in order and a consideration of management's explanation of the suprising downside in this case. The question becomes, do investors believe management's rationale or not?