AAII Sentiment Survey, 4/3/24
BULLISH remained the top sentiment (47.3%; high) & bearish remained the bottom sentiment (22.2%, low); neutral remained the middle sentiment (30.5%, below average); Bull-Bear Spread was +25.1% (high). Investor concerns: Elections, budget, inflation, economy, the Fed, dollar, Russia-Ukraine (110+ weeks), Israel-Hamas (25+ weeks), geopolitical. For the Survey week (Th-Wed), stocks down, bonds down, oil up, gold up, dollar flat. Good seasonality from Nov 1 - Apr 30; Q1 was best for SP500 since 2019. #AAII #Sentiment #Markets
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1424/thread

So do we think the 5 to 10 yr Treasury rates are going down or higher which of course will have an impact on the 5+ yr CD rates?
Everyone on TV seems to be correlating equity prices to rate cuts by the Fed Reserve. I would have thought equity prices (discounted cash flows) and housing activity are impacted by 10 yr treasury rates. I can see a situation where the curve steepens: Fed cuts rates and 10 yr Treasury rates go high and stay high because of fiscal policy (deficits). How does that help equity prices, except from the slight boost in economic activity? I think a lot of consumer loan rates and businesses' working capital financing rates depend indirectly on the short end of the curve. Why are the equity quacks debating ad nauseam on TV whether the Fed will cut rates and by how much in 2024?

@BenWP, I did not get as far as looking at the portfolio. You are right, the index description does not match with the current holdings. Now that I look at the stock style, only in 1 out of the past 5 years it was in large caps. Since it claims to select factors based on the stage of the economic cycle and given the fund currently is in high value, low quality, small to mid caps, I am guessing the index provider must think we are at the beginning of an economic cycle. I was drawn to its dynamic (not on a preset time line) rebalancing (almost like an active fund). I do invest in the mid cap space but I prefer real active management for that space. The only exception I make is for XMHQ (rebalanced twice a year). I still think OMFL, as a dynamic multi factor fund, can be profitable if the index provider gets economic cycles and market conditions right. Evidently, we are off the norms because of Covid but the index provider is able to stay with or ahead of SPY.

Oil/gas midstream.
Many perceive Seeking Alpha to be clickbait. Since (somehow) I have managed to get access to what previously had been blocked, I've been reading a lot on that website. Just one more consideration; one more source to check before buying or selling, or just plain learning.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4681656-energy-transfer-moving-americas-energy-at-40-percent-discount-to-peers
03 April, 2024: new 52-week high.

"I am surprised SPDR is able to direct flows into the higher ER SPY while they have >75% cheaper SPLG."
Just a guess but that may be due to the fact that many investors of all sizes find or perceive SPY to be more liquid or tradeable.

I looked up OMFL as I did not come across that ETF. Pretty interesting and another of good Invesco product. 6 year old and has $6.5B AUM. "The Fund and Index are reconstituted and rebalanced based on economic indicator signal changes, as frequently as monthly. The Index is constructed using a rules-based approach that re-weights large-cap securities of the Russell 1000 Index according to economic cycles and market conditions, reflected by expansion, slowdown, contraction or recovery. The securities are assigned a multi-factor score from one of five investment styles: value, momentum, quality, low volatility and size."
P.S.: I am surprised SPDR is able to direct flows into the higher ER SPY while they have >75% cheaper SPLG.

...And TS is up 2% today to a 52-week high. Share buy-back underway. Those re-bought shares are to be canceled. Laughing and weeping here at the same time. It's my smallest holding, almost.

Fidelity Fee Schedule, https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/Brokerage_Commissions_Fee_Schedule.pdf
"Certain ETF sponsors pay an asset-based fee in support of their ETFs on Fidelity’s platform that supports services including related shareholder support services, the provision of calculation and analytical tools, as well as general investment research and education materials regarding ETFs. Fidelity does not receive payment from these ETF sponsors to promote any particular ETF to its customers, and these ETF shares are not marginable for 30 days after purchase. Customers purchasing shares in a limited number of ETFs that are not supported by their providers will be subject to a $100 service fee.
...
FundsNetwork Transaction-Fee Funds
Purchases:
Online: $49.95 or $100 per purchase. To identify any applicable transaction fees associated with the purchase of a given fund, please refer to the “Fees and Distributions” tab on the individual fund page on Fidelity.com
...
• FundsNetwork No Transaction Fee (NTF) Funds and ETFs
– For funds participating in the NTF program and certain ETFs, Fidelity receives compensation that can typically range from 0 to 50 basis points based on the average daily balance. As of 12/31/2022, 68% of the mutual funds currently in the NTF program are in the
35–40 basis point range. For NTF funds with a 12b-1 fee, the fund family may use the 12b-1 fee as part of its NTF payment.
• FundsNetwork Transaction Fee (TF) Funds
– For funds participating in the TF program, Fidelity receives compensation based on: (1) per-position fees that typically range from $3 to $25 per brokerage account or (2) asset-based fees that typically range from 0 to 20 basis points based on average daily assets. As of 12/31/2022, 63% of the mutual funds participating in the TF program are in the $12–$19 per-position fee range or 8 to 12 basis point range. TF compensation is in addition to any 12b-1 fees as described in the fund’s prospectus."
There is also news that some of the 9 are considering making a deal with Fido, or reimbursing buyers for Fido fees (that can be complicated). But doing nothing may be a death warrant for them. If these Fido fees stick, others brokers will follow.

"Customers purchasing these ETFs and mutual funds will be charged a service fee of up to $100."
I am reading this to mean the fees is applicable when purchasing and not when selling which if true, existing positions should be exempt from the fees?
I am assuming the $100 fees is in lieu of the $50 transaction fees applied on TF mutual funds. I am fairly certain mutual funds subject to these enhanced(?) fees, would not qualify for $5 auto invest.

Bought 10 shares of NSRGY @ under $105 and 24 bottles of S. Pellegrino.
@Crash. I’d like to echo @Old_Joe’s congrats on maintaining this enjoyable thread.

March 23rd Episode:
Causeway Capital’s Sarah Ketterer describes a range of global companies with outstanding values.

Great!
I had set SP500 as the benchmark ticker, so all my PV runs defaulted to it. This may not even be a new feature.

FYI, separate PV runs for core-plus FBND & foreign VXUS show US stock market benchmark for MPT data.
Same when multiple funds or portfolios are run.
MFO Premium Watchlist (extended results) show fund beta with respect to SP500 AND Best-Fit-Benchmark (BF-BM), but BF-BM are NOT identified. MFO Premium doesn't provide this info for funds or portfolio.

MPT stats Alpha and Sharpe Ratio (in the PV runs, Metrics tab) also capture the essence of the comparative evaluation of funds with their beta-bogeys (beta% in appropriate benchmark).
Alpha > 0 means that fund outperforms its beta-bogey, alpha = 0 means that fund just keeps up with the beta-bogy, and alpha < 0 means that fund underperforms the beta-bogey.
Indirectly, these will also have, correspondingly, Sharpe Ratios of high, OK, low.
Beta-bogeys would be different for US stocks (SPY), US bonds (AGG?) and foreign stocks (VXUS?).
Unfortunately, PV doesn't provide options for bogeys. Its default bogey is SP500/SPY.
Morningstar has a few built-in bogeys, but those aren't selectable by users. Check M* Risk tab.
So, some limitations aren't conceptual, but those of the analytics software used.

Lawsuits filed.

The media company that Donald Trump recently took public is suing its co-founders, accusing them of failing “spectacularly” to get the company off the ground and then trying to “thwart the deal.”
The lawsuit filed in Sarasota County, Florida, civil court seeks to bar Trump Media & Technology Group co-founders Wesley Moss and Andrew Litinsky from appointing members to the company’s board — or from owning any of its shares.
[snip]
Moss and Litinsky failed “at every turn,” Trump Media alleges of the two men, both former contestants on Trump’s former reality TV show “The Apprentice.”

Are we sure this isn't a pilot episode for a new TV show?

Just in case anyone thinks this is just a ruse to allow those two co-founders to sell their shares before the lock up period ends, No. Q is seeking to zero out (null and void) their 8.5% ownership. This is a case study on how to use the free life time secret service protection to its fullest extent.

The Week in Charts (03/29/24)
The most important charts and themes in markets, including...
00:00 Intro
01:14 Topics
01:52 Biggest Q1 Surprises
02:13 One of the Best Starts to a Year
07:51 Enormous Eight Divergence
12:57 Higher Growth, Higher Inflation, But Still 3 Cuts (Fed)
23:33 Biggest Surprise From Here?
26:13 Smooth Sailing
31:49 Signs of Froth?
43:32 Cuckoo for Cocoa
47:48 The Housing Affordability Gap
57:40 The Power of Dollar-Cost Averaging
Video
Blog

First, note that all of the "Preferred" CDs shown are new issues. OK, the "Quoted price" simply means that if you wanted to buy $1.00 of a particular CD the cost to you is $1.00 (100%). You will find that there are also older CDs out there, paying rates lower than newer ones.
Obviously you wouldn't buy those when you could just as easily buy one paying a better rate. So the "Quoted" (asking) price for one of those lower-paying CDs will be something less than 100%, so that the total income at maturity (YTM: Yield to Maturity) will be competitive with the higher-paying ones.
Similarly you will also find some older CDs paying more than the currently available ones. You can expect the "Quoted" to be higher than 100%. Same reasoning.
No one is interested in selling you a really small CD- the minimum is typically $1000.
The default 1-year "Preferred" list is only the tip of the iceberg-
• If you want a maturity other than the one-year default simply click on the maturity that you want- they go from 1 month to 10 years.
• If you really want to explore the CD universe use the "Visit Find CDs" link for a detailed CD search. There you can enter any parameter that you want, such as "non-callable" or a different maturity, or a minimum rate that you will accept.

I'm not sure I understand what you're visualizing, but most people probably shouldn't be fiddling with their positions all the time.
I enjoy the process of replicating a portfolio--as you described it-- because at this stage in my life I have become interested in funds with average, or better, returns, and betas below 1. I am also a fan of Sortino, Treynor, and Martin.
I wouldn't say it's different this time. But things are different than they were a few years ago. And without looking, I'm not sure the market, as defined by the 500, has been all that kind in the 21st century. So anything approaching, or exceeding, "market" performance with less beta is of interest to me for my IRA at least.
What I'm wondering about is how far this exercise can be pushed. So far I have only exercised a few funds, sectors, and portfolios; e.g. IYK looks much better than FSUTX. And here is LCORX.

Versus VDIGX.

The stock is trading at $25.75 when the transaction closing price is $27.5. Current insider shareholders already own 91% of the voting and voted in favor of the deal.
http://archive.fast-edgar.com/20240402/AJ2ZV22CZZ2RR9ZA22ZS2ZYSVU9KZZ22Z86G/d733429dex991.htm
"The transaction is subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions and required regulatory approvals. No other stockholder approval is required. The transaction is expected to close by the end of the first quarter of 2025."
Current discount is less than 6.8%. If the transaction drags out for a year, not enough discount IMO, given potential litigation by minority shareholders for more consideration and given one can make nearly that much buying 1 yr BBB corporate bonds.
If you are a betting person,
What is the likelihood (assign probabilities) this transaction will close in Q2, Q3, Q4 of 2024 or never closes?
I am betting this will close no later than Q4, 2024 after minority shareholders' suits for a higher price are cleared by the courts. (I am assuming there will be litigation from minority shareholders.)
What is the likelihood any litigation by minority shareholders will actually result in a higher deal price (i.e., higher than $27.5)?
I am betting the deal price will not increase above $27.5 unless a competing bid with a higher price comes along but my probability for a competing bid is less than 20%.
@Devo?
Anyone not wishing to discuss the above in public but otherwise willing to help me out, please send me a private message. I would appreciate all opinions.