The "hot" jobs numbers released by gummint was mentioned by Summers. He's pushing for a rather higher neutral rate. I giggle at the jobs numbers, anymore: most of the hires are part-time. No vacation, no benefits. Because employers can get away with it. Some folks want P/T, ok. And 3.8% unemployment? LOL. How many part-time jobs are in that mix? No one can be a breadwinner working P/T, although many today are forced to try to do it.

From this weeks Barron's:
"One other knock on the labor market data has been the strength in part-time employment versus full-time jobs. But there’s nothing wrong with that, if it’s for the right reason, according to RBC Capital Markets economist Michael Reid. The number of part-timers who actually prefer those gigs outnumber those forced to take part-time work for economic reasons by a factor of five, he writes in a client note."
"With more employers changing work-from-home policies, it isn’t surprising that some workers are preferring more flexible arrangements, he continues. There is also a clear upward trend in the number of over-55 workers opting for part-time gigs instead of full-time, he adds."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/stock-market-will-feel-a-tremor-if-payrolls-and-inflation-keep-rising/ar-BB1l9tDM

@hank, this T+1 (vs T+2) rule for stocks/ETFs/CEFs was adopted 2 years ago. Brokers were given 2 years to make changes to their systems and 5/28/24 is that final date. So, who wants to deal with a broker who couldn't fix this in the 2 year window?

Seek, and ye shall find. TAKE, and ye shall have. Giggle. My interactions at Schwab so far have not been egregiously awful, just rather typical, including the need to explain a problem 12 ways before they can comprehend what's going on. I even was accused once of "venting." (Maybe next time, stop to THINK first, Missy!) But not always. I DID indeed get the $50 extortion fee refunded, without even asking. The agent initiated it on her own, after I mentioned the strange -$50 debit amount showing. Officially getting access to my wife's as yet unfunded IRA was a monstrous fiasco. Contradictory misinformation abounded. Finally got it done. And we won't have to deal with the passive-aggressive twit on the phone anymore, at BRUFX. The required transfer form is supposed to be in the mail to us. The Schwab AMEX cards arrived yesterday. I had to call AMEX and waste a bunch of time simply trying to find our credit limit. It was also expertly camouflaged amid 14 pages of no doubt legally required STUFF that came with the cards. I remember receiving new credit cards in the past, with the credit limit printed right above the cards--- which are glued to the page.
I'm learning where Schwab has hidden everything. Progress is being made. The most anti-intuitive website I've run into. Accomplished my first trade. Limit order, will go through after the week-end, I expect. I'll survive--- even the inattention of the fellow downtown. There is no advantage anymore in doing things face-to-face. That's been true, I guess, for decades. A bitter pill. Still stuck in my throat. Probably stay stuck there forever. The younger generation, including the ones sitting at the desks at "Customer Rage and Aggravation," don't even expect real service anymore. ("What's the problem? Why should you be annoyed at needing to fix OUR mistake?")
I am a relic who still asserts that systems ought to serve people, rather than themselves.

If you like hearing Ray Dalio you’ll enjoy the first segment (April 5). Never at a loss for words. Includes a clip of Dalio being interviewed on the original WSW in the 80s about the Mexican Peso crisis. Also features some clips of Congressional testimony he gave around then. And, of course, the interview with Bloomberg’s David Westin.
A good portion of the later part is spent with Larry Summers. Better than average and longer than average discussion. Larry took exception to some of Powell’s recent rhetoric / interest rate comments. As usual, Summers sees the Fed as far “behind the curve” in moving rates up to a meaningful / appropriate level. (Of course, should the economy tank, it won’t be Summers taking the blame.) If there was much investment-specific advise on this show I missed it. But Dalio did talk about the learning curve and how early mistakes can prove rewarding longer term if you learn a lasting lesson. Dalio also emphasized taking diversified approaches as an investor.
Addition - Sonal Desai, CEO of Fixed Income Investing at Franklin Funds, also was interviewed on the show for a few minutes. I find Desai engaging and bright … but a recent check of her prior Barron’s Roundtable record in predicting winners was a bit disheartening. Nonetheless, like Summers, Desai also finds the Fed’s fund rate too low and doesn’t agree with Powell on that matter.

From The Guardian "Trump Media deal faces calls for inquiry over alleged ‘influence peddling’"
ARTICLE

@Crash, I'm sorry for your difficulties, but I have to say that you seem to be the unluckiest person alive with all the difficulties you've had. I originally was with Thinkorswim; then to TDA; finally on to Schwab. All the transitions were smooth and all agreements were honored post-transition. Have had nothing but positive interactions with representatives all along the way. Anecdotal, of course, but your problems seem atypical to me as well.

The following are several brokers that I have used: VG, Fidelity, Schwab, Scott, Welltrade,Thinkorswim. I have moved money several times from one to the other (Fidelity <--> Scwhab)..I had zero problems with all the above.
I think it's more than being unlucky.
Hey crash, did you get the $50 transfer/extortion fee charged to you by TRP.

@fred495, to add to the conversation and add to your post, which I think is a good one, I'm wondering if others, especially those near or in retirement, own or are looking at alternative type 'absolute return' funds in their portfolio. I actually like the idea of some percentage of these to smooth out the ride. Problem (maybe) is that there are so many in the alternative section to choose and they can be vastly different.
So, I'll give the ones I'm using. If others want to chime in that would be great.
I hold:
JHQAX, at about 10%, an options fund recently discussed in this month's commentary by @Devo
BLNDX/REMIX at about 5%, a multi asset fund, labeled as a L/S by M* (I don't agree)
LCR, which can be closer to a balanced fund, at about 5%
By the way, to give an opinion on your starting post, I do thing QDSNX would be as good a choice as others available to accomplish the "smoother" portfolio ride.

@MikeM - those are great ideas for the "smoother ride" approach. I have a few more suggestions:
-PSFF - FOF for options - prefer it to JHQAX, but really the same space.
-RSIVX Lower SD than LCR, but also lower Returns. Very conservative.

The graphic is set for the 5 days ending April 5, Friday; for the best to worst % returns in select etf categories. One may then also select the one month column to align the one month return best to worst; or for the other listed time frame columns.
ADD an etf performance of your choosing, if you desire. ***
*** Requested ADD: For the week and YTD
--- EWW = +1.46% / +3.64% (I Shares, Mexico)
MMKT note: Fidelity mmkt's yields were down slightly this week, with core acct's yields at 4.95% (SPAXX) and 4.98% (FDRXX).
NOTE: The broad U.S. equity and bond sectors finished the week with losses in the 1% range. With the longer duration bonds finding the largest losses towards the - 3% area.
!!!!! Money market funds holdings set a new record amount of $6.11 trillion this week.
NEW: 1 week 'heat map' by sectors. This is an interactive graphic. You may hover the computer pointer over the various blocks to view portions of sectors and/or stocks within those sectors. NOTE: to the left of the graphic, one may change the 1 week performance drop down menu to another time frame. Another example: at the left edge of the graphic, select exchange traded funds and then 1 week or a time period of your choice.
Remain curious,
Catch

@Ben, let's just go through it together
Here's the relevant para:
A Twist in Strike/Price
An investor is long a stock at whatever price they buy the stock. (i've fixed the "a" in here)
Not so with Options. Each Option comes with a Strike Price. At the Option expiry, one compares the Strike price of the Option vis-à-vis the then Stock price to determine if the Option expires in-the-money or out-of-the-money.
Here's the intent of the writing:
Stocks and Options behave differently. While a stock investor buys a stock and that buying price becomes their Basis, that is not the same with Options.
If I buy a Call Option on Apple, here's how the Basis works.
Suppose Apple stock is at 169 right now per share
Suppose I buy a call Option on Apple at 175 that expires next month.
Next week Apple announces a great product and the stock goes to 190 per share.
When my Call Option expires, I "exercise" my Call Option at 175.
That means my stock Basis is 175. It is not 169 (when I bought the call option), nor is it 190 (where Apple stock is on Option expiry date).
It's 175 because that the Call Strike of my option.
What is Apple was to go to 150 next week and stay there until my Expiry Date instead of 190?
Well, then I would not Exercise my call option on Apple. I would lose my Call Premium and walk away. I would have never bought Apple. Not at 169, not at 175, and not even at 150.
Thus Stock Purchases and Option Purchases have a different paths.
With Option purchases, the ending Stock Price and the chosen Strike Price matter.
Jargon:
Is this a lot of jargon. It might be. Only each one of us can be honest with ourselves about what's too much jargon and terminology. In general, if I don't understand the jargon involved, I simply do not participate in the product offering. I don't have to know everything to make money. Just one or two things really well.

I wrote that no number provided was wrong, but that they were representing different quantities. When reporting figures, it helps to be clear about what those figures measure. Otherwise it's easy to get tripped up using different metrics (such as monthly or daily performance).
For example, when using M* charts, sometimes M* graphs daily performance by default (when looking at short time periods), and sometimes M* graphs monthly performance by default (for longer, multiyear periods such as 5 years).
With respect to the fund's ER, the May 2023 prospectus says that it is 1.72%. The fund just put out a supplement saying that the ER is 2.62%. Even if one doesn't care about the size of an ER, ISTM that one should care about changes in ER. They affect how one regards past performance. That is, had the ER in previous years been 90 basis points higher, the performance might have been 90 basis points lower.
But that's not the end of the story. The supplement dated April 1 says that the ER change is due to an anticipated implementation change in some of the underlying funds. It hasn't even happened yet.
If one views the anticipated change in ER as merely a formality (as does M* when it calculates adjusted expense ratios), then the "true" (effective) ER remains 1.62%. If one views the anticipated change as something more than a formality, then perhaps one should expect future performance to be diminished by 90 basis points.

Barron’s Funds Quarterly (2024/Q1–April 8, 2024)
https://www.barrons.com/topics/mutual-funds-quarterly
(Performance data quoted in this Supplement are for 2024/Q1 and YTD to 3/31/24)
Pg L2: SP500 is dominated by Magnificent 7 (or 5). For looking BEYOND SP500, consider LC-growth MRFOX; LC-value DAGVX, SMVLX, SPYV; LC-blend DHAMX (hedged); MC-value FSLSX, COWZ; SC-value AVUV; foreign DFJ; sector funds (with lower R^2) SGGDX, RING; FCG, XOP; URA; IAI; IYH, IHF; XLU. (By @LewisBraham at MFO)
Pg L6: New spot-Bitcoin ETFs (IBIT, FBTC, etc) led in inflows and performance; the old GBTC trust that up-converted into ETF GBTC had huge outflows as it stuck to very high ER. Next were energy, LC-growth and Japan (it rallied after many miserable years). Inflows into money-market funds were strong. The top asset gatherer was SP500 VOO. Despite the gold rally, the gold bullion funds had outflows. (By @LewisBraham at MFO)
Pg L?: In 2024/Q1 (SP500 +10.54%): Among general equity funds,... Among other equity funds,.... Among fixed-income funds,..(FI isn’t very refined in Lipper mutual fund categories listed in Barron’s). NOTE – Funds Quarterly online is missing almost half of its content. This quarterly review will be updated later.
MORE Fund Stories
FUNDS. Uncertainties about the fed fund rates are headwinds for bonds. But they will benefit from rate cuts (maybe in June or later). Stick with short/intermediate durations for now, some credit risks with FR/BL BKLN, SRLN; dividend stocks (XLP, XLU).
LINK

05 April 2024.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2024-04-05/bloomberg-real-yield-04-05-2024-video

I think the difference in “March 2023 drawdown” is that the lowest NAV was achieved ($11.30) late in the month, but had recovered by the end of the month. The nadir was March 17th, then it hit $11.31 March 24th, but recovered to $11.47 by the end of the month. Portfolio visualizer uses beginning vs end of month to achieve its “March 2023 return.” Like msf, both can be true. @BaluBalu added value to this thread, as did everyone else posting; quibbling over various things did not add much to the discussion, however. The question in holding funds such as this (and I know @fred495 holds a lot of bond funds, so is looking for a smoother ride) is when do we get defensive during this melt up? That’s the $64,000 (or 6-7 figure) question.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2024-04-06/wall-street-week-04-05-2024
05 April, '24.

@msf,
The 2.62% ER I mentioned is the Net Expenses stated in the Annual Fund Operating Expenses table at the fund site I linked. I do not see the 1.72% you mention at that link. If that is the Adjusted ER, that is fine. I have no desire to debate which one should be focused, especially when I already mentioned I do not pay attention to ER. I had included the information because I know others talk about it and for many it is a serious consideration.
As to the fund manager qualifications and ER, I thought I was clear that I was joking. That table in its very first line clearly shows Management fees is zero. I personally do not worry about how much money any one in this world makes, even if they are my service providers. As a service provider, my charge out rate was an ungodly number and I have learned early in my career not to worry about what others made. Not sure why my joking about fund manager qualifications and ER attracted a lecture. As some in this forum know, my close family members are fund managers.
As to the fund's draw down related to the SVB tantrum, I originally looked that up on M* charts. Then verified with Yahoo Finance. NAV went from $11.98 to 11.30, for a draw down of 5.7%, which I had indicated that I rounded to 6%. The fund NAV did not reach that peak again until sometime in August, which I also had indicated earlier.
My C-suite clients never asked me to justify everything I wrote or said to them and never made fruity comments. Here, I spent more time trying to help about a fund I do not own and unlikely to ever own than I spent on any fund I ever invested in. I hope to remember to never to repeat and to adapt to the forum culture.

It has six managers four of whom have Ph.D.s.; the 2.62% ER is kind of justified! Joking aside, I generally do not pay attention to ER if a fund has return history. The ER includes acquired fund fees.
https://funds.aqr.com/funds/alternatives/aqr-diversifying-strategies-fund/qdsnx#about
Fact Sheet and Fund Profiles can only be downloaded as pdf at the link above.

As you observed, the ER includes acquired fund fees. Those six managers alluded to receive no fees from QDSNX (the prospectus shows a management fee of 0.00%). Management fees are paid to the managers of the underlying funds, that include different managers. For example, Michael A. Mendelson is a co-manager of AQRIX, an underlying fund, but does not help manage QDSNX.
As of today (April 6) the ER of QDSNX, net of reimbursements, is stated to be 1.72%.
MFO shows the maximum drawdown of QDSNX to be 4.5%. That's not during March 2023, but it does serve as a cap on the March 2023 drawdown.
There is no contradiction in any of the figures given. Rather, it is important to know precisely what any number represents. Otherwise, one is comparing apples and oranges.

you can also use the multisearch analyze tool on the results page to see maxxdd (and several other metrics) by calendar years and about 150 other fixed periods ... all in one datatable.

@fred495, to add to the conversation and add to your post, which I think is a good one, I'm wondering if others, especially those near or in retirement, own or are looking at alternative type 'absolute return' funds in their portfolio. I actually like the idea of some percentage of these to smooth out the ride. Problem (maybe) is that there are so many in the alternative section to choose and they can be vastly different.
So, I'll give the ones I'm using. If others want to chime in that would be great.
I hold:
JHQAX, at about 10%, an options fund recently discussed in this month's commentary by @Devo
BLNDX/REMIX at about 5%, a multi asset fund, labeled as a L/S by M* (I don't agree)
LCR, which can be closer to a balanced fund, at about 5%
By the way, to give an opinion on your starting post, I do thing QDSNX would be as good a choice as others available to accomplish the "smoother" portfolio ride.

update:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1413594/000110465924044129/a24-8908_3497.htm
497 1 a24-8908_3497.htm 497
abrdn Funds
(the "Trust")
abrdn Emerging Markets Sustainable Leaders Fund (the "Fund")
Supplement dated April 5, 2024 to the Fund's
Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (the "SAI"),
each dated February 29, 2024, as supplemented to date
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI for the Fund, a series of the Trust, dated February 29, 2024, as supplemented to date.
On March 13, 2024, the Board of Trustees of the Trust approved an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization relating to the reorganization (the "Reorganization") of the Fund into the abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund (the "Acquiring Fund"), a series of the Trust. The Reorganization does not require approval by shareholders of the Fund. The Reorganization is anticipated to occur after the close of business on or about June 21, 2024 (the "Closing Date").
The Fund's investment adviser, abrdn Inc. ("abrdn"), proposed the Reorganization, in part, because of the Fund's decrease in asset size and increased distribution opportunities available to the Acquiring Fund. abrdn also serves as investment adviser to the Acquiring Fund.
A combined information statement and prospectus describing the proposed Reorganization in more detail will be mailed to shareholders of the Fund prior to the anticipated Closing Date. In the Reorganization, each shareholder of the Fund will become a shareholder of the Acquiring Fund and will receive, on a tax-free basis, shares of the Acquiring Fund with the same aggregate net asset value as their shares of the Fund. Shareholders of each class of the Fund will receive each corresponding class's shares in the Acquiring Fund. A Fund shareholder who does not wish to become a shareholder of the Acquiring Fund may redeem shares of the Fund at any time prior to the Reorganization.
In connection with the pending Reorganization, effective after market close on April 12, 2024, shares of the Fund will no longer be available for purchase by new investors. In addition, the Fund will depart from its stated investment objective and policies on or about June 12, 2024 because the Fund will need to dispose of any securities that are not transferrable or cannot be held by the Acquiring Fund. During this time, the Fund will hold larger amounts of uninvested cash than is customary leading up to the Closing Date, and there will be times when the Fund is not fully invested in accordance with its investment objective and strategies during this transition period, which may cause the Fund to forego appreciation in value of portfolio investments, if any.
The pending Reorganization of the Fund may be terminated and/or abandoned at any time before the Closing Date by action of the Board of Trustees of the Trust.
Please retain this Supplement for future reference.

WSJ: At Close 4:00 PM EDT 04/05/24
$40.59
-5.56
-12.05%
:)

So much winning....

Investors will eat those realized losses (when they eventually sell) - that's the tax "gift".
And they will like it.