@WABAC, I am not quite following your thinking regarding your sale of PRBLX. As relates to a 500 index fund, PRBLX has 34% in the M* LCG style box compared to 40% for a VFINX. PRBLX also has a slightly lower beta and SD. Are you also saying that a 500 index fund has become too growthy and volatile for you?

Hi @Mona. I have never owned the 500.
I wouldn't ban PRBLX from my taxable account, which I hope to leave to the kids. But right now it's just another fund over-weight in tech and financials with an 82 cent ER. And I think they have drifted away from:

The investment seeks to achieve both capital appreciation and current income. The fund's objective is to achieve both capital appreciation and current income

That's M*'s description. The dividend is now about half the 500 last time I checked. Maybe PBRLX has updated the prospectus.
A little later today I will be putting the proceeds from that sale into DGRW. It's about the lowest volatility fund (SD and Beta) I could find that stands a chance of outperforming PRWCX. It also stands up well to VDIGX. But I'll probably do one more screen with MFO premium.

I'm thinking real hard about the opaque knock on effects going forward. Not only from an investment standpoint but also from a societal view. Example. Starting to see reports that in several states over 20% of drivers do not have car insurance. Virginia allows you to pay $500 to drive without insurance. I question what the demographics are in this example. Our food, shelter costs so high or just doing without in this degradation of law enforcement?
Do those who carry auto insurance just pay more then? In areas like Oakland and Chicago with high crime rates, lax law enforcement and consequences do insurance companies stop offering policies like in Florida hurricane flood prone areas?

@yogibearbull, thanks for your work. Can I ask a couple questions so i can not assume I understand the data?
- the SWR gives the "initial" withdrawal for that period? Does it increase yearly for inflation? And finally, it is the withdrawal that would have taken the original balance to zero in 2023?
- SWRM, same questions but this withdrawal rate would take the balance to the original staring balance in 2023?
Very interesting that these withdrawals are mostly above the 4%. Contrary to opinions now that starting withdrawals should be 3.5% or lower.

As I rely on Portfolio Visualizer (PV) data, I have to follow its assumptions/conventions.
So, for SWR, the balance would be near zero at 2022 yearend AFTER the withdrawal, but that would feed monthly withdrawals through 2023.
Similar for SWRM, but that original amount would be inflation-adjusted. So, if the starting amount was $100,000 on 1/1/20, the ending amount at 2022 yearend AFTER the withdrawal would be near $182,883. One can do whatever with that amount.

@yogibearbull, thanks for your work. Can I ask a couple questions so i can not assume I understand the data?
- the SWR gives the "initial" withdrawal for that period? Does it increase yearly for inflation? And finally, it is the withdrawal that would have taken the original balance to zero in 2023?
- SWRM, same questions but this withdrawal rate would take the balance to the original staring balance in 2023?
Very interesting that these withdrawals are mostly above the 4%. Contrary to opinions now that starting withdrawals should be 3.5% or lower.

I think https://www.morningstar.com/funds/which-popular-funds-will-hit-investors-with-big-capital-gains-distributions-this-year?utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=linkshare&utm_source=link this article from M* is a bit premature published Oct 26 missing Vanguard and it's 6 funds over 5%, and anyone else published after that point.
Many thanks to TheShadow for putting this together and maintaining it every year. The best investment tools on the interwebz is knowledge like this.

@WABAC, I am not quite following your thinking regarding your sale of PRBLX. As relates to a 500 index fund, PRBLX has 34% in the M* LCG style box compared to 40% for a VFINX. PRBLX also has a slightly lower beta and SD. Are you also saying that a 500 index fund has become too growthy and volatile for you?

Follow up on this...

The stock market in 2023 has been tracking the Annual Seasonal Pattern (ASP) really closely, that is until a late October 2023 extra dip in stock prices that was not on the ASP's program. Since that dip, stock prices have been rallying hard to get back on track. But why did that dip happen?
Blame Californians. I wrote here back on July 21, 2023 about how the IRS had changed the tax filing and payment deadlines for most of California, because of flooding rains in January on previously burned areas that led to a lot of flooding. This led to disaster declarations, and a ruling by the IRS that taxpayers in 51 of California's 54 counties would get an extension to October 16, 2023 for filing their 2022 taxes. That extension also included a delay in having to pay any amounts owed for 2022, plus all quarterly estimated payments in 2023.
Because of this extension, smart Californians held onto their money and their tax returns until just before the deadline, presumably earning at least money market interest rates on it, but denying those tax dollars to Uncle Sam. California has 15% of the US population, but it also has more than its share of millionaires who have the wherewithal (and the accountants) to do this sort of tax planning.
Why this relates to the stock market is that we have learned from the Fed's QE and QT episodes that having money in the banks is helpful for boosting stock prices. But when a bunch of Californians all wrote their tax payment checks to the IRS in October, that created a sudden drain in the liquidity pool. The result was an extra dip that the Annual Seasonal Pattern did not forecast

californians_caused_late_oct

@hank, next time, give ebay a shot.
Easier to read. Better user-protection. I don't work for ebay. And I have no idea if I own any of their stock. Just been shopping with them for years trouble-free.

10-15 years ago that would have been heartening to hear. These days I try to stay as far away as I can from Amazon. But I digress. Somebody can start an OT thread if so inclined on the subject.
Thanks for the story. No problem. Most of us own Amazon through 1 fund or another.

And in "exchange", Hyundai will start using Amazon Alexa and Amazon AWS cloud. This looks like an extension of several online car buying services that have tie-ins with the local dealers. Of course, the scale would be huge.
It won't be direct from auto manufacturers to consumers, the model used by Tesla that required changes in some laws.
https://apnews.com/article/amazon-aws-hyundai-dealers-b1635fcd8e85eefe983fd565185a1c99

https://www.axios.com/2023/11/16/amazon-hyundai-cars-sale-alexa
Amazon plans to begin allowing Hyundai dealers to sell new vehicles on its platform, launching the e-commerce giant into the lucrative but highly competitive car market for the first time.
Amazon's sheer e-commerce heft means the company must instantly be taken seriously in the automotive retail space. Amazon announced its plans Thursday during the 2023 Los Angeles Auto Show, and said Hyundai would be the "first" brand to sell cars on the platform.
Customers will be able to search based on model, trim, color and other features, while also choosing payment and financing options. As part of their deal, Hyundai will begin incorporating Amazon's Alexa voice assistant into its vehicles beginning in 2025.

An update.
PV PWR is less commonly used, so I have stopped using it in more recent data.
PV SWR is the percentage of the original portfolio balance that can be withdrawn at the end of each year with inflation adjustment without the portfolio running out of money (dollar amount withdrawals).
New SWRM is the percentage of the original portfolio balance that can be withdrawn at the end of each year with inflation adjustment but at the end of the term, the leftover amount is inflation-adjusted original principal (dollar amount withdrawals).
Three examples below use the start dates of 01/2007 (Pre-GFC), 01/1987 (Year of 1987 Crash), 01/2000 (Year of Dot.com bubble burst). Idea is to select "bad" starts of withdrawal programs in recent history and see how various hybrid funds did; VFINX/SP500 is included for benchmark comparison. The end date is common 10/2023 (so, these data are not comparable to those in the examples in the June 2023 Post).
Example 1 - Period 01/2007 - 10/2023 that included GFC 2008-09 and pandemic 2020.
FUND SWR SWRM SWRM (corrected)
VWELX 8.63% 4.35% 4.37%
FBALX 8.17% 4.28% 4.09%
ABALX 8.27% 3.92% 3.99%
VFINX 8.05% 5.02% 4.82%
Example 2 - Period 01/1987 - 10/2023. Limited by 11/1986 inception for FBALX, although the (free) PV data goes back to 01/1985.
FUND SWR SWRM SWRM (corrected)
VWELX 7.89% 7.03% 7.035%
FBALX 7.43% 6.58% 6.545%
ABALX 7.63% 6.69% 6.70%
VFINX 8.82% 8.15% 8.106%
Example 3 - Period 01/2000 - 10/2023 captured the dot.com bubble burst and was possibly the worst start for withdrawal programs in the recent history.
FUND SWR SWRM SWRM (corrected)
VWELX 7.25% 4.80% 4.82%
FBALX 6.83% 4.58% 4.47%
ABALX 7.40% 4.83% 4.865%
VFINX 4.34% 2.52% 2.40%
If higher withdrawal rates than indicated are used, then the goals would be missed. But if lower withdrawal rates are used, then the balances at the end would be higher than the goals. The goal for the SWR is $0 balance; goal for the SWRM is the inflation-adjusted original principal.
It is interesting that all-stock SP500 did the best in Examples 1 and 2, but the worst in Example 3. That is the danger in using all-stock portfolios in withdrawal programs - they may work much of the time, but may bite occasionally.
Another point is that the "bad" times are more recent, and don't go back to 1920s or 1930s that included even worse times. And the withdrawal rates these funds sustained in the recent history are higher that the typical Bengen Rule of 4% inflation-adjusted withdrawal.
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1249/thread
Edit/Add, 11/19/23. SWRM (corrected)
For data consistency, the PV runs should be to 2022 (recent full year), not 2023 (partial year in 11/2023). While SWR is unaffected, SWRM is affected and is corrected.

@BaluBalu GMO rebalances the portfolio monthly, so the 15% on M* seems low...it's more like ~50% from our view.

Appreciate your responses to my questions. Do you by any chance know the monthly rebalance dates / schedule? My interest is more not to sell right before rebalancing if I ever get an urge to sell. Obviously, I am hoping this to be a buy and hold but like to think about exit strategy before I need to exit.
Thanks Yogi re M* port

@BaluBalu GMO rebalances the portfolio monthly, so the 15% on M* seems low...it's more like ~50% from our view.

@Observant1 mentioned this high CG distribution earlier - JPEAX, JPECX, JPDEX, JPELX (AUM $853 million)
How can things go so wrong in a "Tax Aware" fund? Of course, heavy redemptions and/or manager incompetence.
JPM is also mad and is just shutting down the fund, TwitterLINK
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1217286/000119312523277672/d372772d497.htm
Edit/Add. Looking at fund data for JPDEX from Fido and M*, this Fund has been in redemption for years, and has distributed large CGs before. So, the question is, what took JPM so long to kill it?
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/view-all/4812A1654
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/jpdex/performance

AAII Sentiment Survey, 11/15/23
BULLISH remained the top sentiment (43.8%; above average) & bearish remained the bottom sentiment (28.1%, tie; below average); neutral remained the middle sentiment (28.1%, tie; below average); Bull-Bear Spread was +15.7% (above average). Investor concerns: Budget; inflation; economy; the Fed; dollar; crypto regulations; market volatility (VIX, VXN, MOVE); Russia-Ukraine (90+ weeks, 2/24/22-now); Israel-Hamas (5+ weeks); geopolitical. For the Survey week (Th-Wed), stocks were up, bonds flat, oil up, gold up, dollar down. The US budget extended to January/February. Presidents Biden & Xi (China) met at APEC in SF. #AAII #Sentiment #Markets
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1256/thread

@yogibearbull,
Thank you for checking. That is transparent.
M* shows portfolio turnover for GQETX - 15%; JQUA - 18%; QUAL - 58%. The as of dates are different and as you all know because of how M* calculates turnover, fund flows can impact the turnover percentage. When I look at outflows, they are very small for all three funds. @rsorden can perhaps clue us in about the actual portfolio turnover for GQETX.
Folks might complain even more about the ER if the turnover is truly so low but I guess GMO can not undercut its own mutual fund with a lower ER for the ETF, though the products are not identical. I checked a few active ETFs I know and their ER varies from 0.3% (TRP) to 0.6% (Fidelity). JPM is in between.
I only talked about ER in my earlier post only as one of the measures of the fund's appeal for investors (e.g., liquidity) because a lot of investors are sensitive to ER, which M* and Vanguard have drilled into investors' psyche. Per M*, MOAT ER is 0.46%.
To me the 0.5% ER is acceptable if the fund outperforms the indexed quality ETFs and I hope (for my sake) that is acceptable to other investors as well.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/809593/000113322823006031/abfeacfrif-html6974_497.htm
497 1 abfeacfrif-html6974_497.htm AMERICAN BEACON FEAC FLOATING RATE INCOME FUND - 497
American Beacon FEAC Floating Rate Income Fund
Supplement dated November 15, 2023 to the
Prospectus, Summary Prospectus, and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”)
each dated December 29, 2022, as previously amended or supplemented
The Board of Trustees of American Beacon Funds has approved (i) the automatic conversion of the SP Class shares of the American Beacon FEAC Floating Rate Income Fund (the “Fund”) into A Class shares, and (ii) the termination of the SP Class shares of the Fund, effective as of the close of business on December 29, 2023 (the “Conversion Date"), based upon the recommendation of American Beacon Advisors, Inc., the Fund’s investment manager. Effective immediately, the Fund will no longer accept purchases of SP Class shares.
No action is needed on your part. Each SP Class shareholder will receive A Class shares in an amount equal to the value of the shareholder’s SP Class shares as of the Conversion Date. Please be advised that the net annual fund operating expenses of the A Class shares will be the same as the net annual fund operating expenses of the SP Class shares as of the Conversion Date. No sales loads, commissions or other transactional fees will be imposed on shareholders in connection with the automatic conversion of their shares. Prior to the Conversion Date, shareholders of SP Class shares may redeem their investments as described in the Fund’s Prospectus. No sales charges, redemption fees or termination fees will be imposed in connection with such redemptions. In general, redemptions are taxable events for shareholders. For federal income tax purposes, the conversion of shares of one share class of the Fund to shares of a different share class of the Fund is not expected to result in the realization of a capital gain or loss. You should consult your tax adviser to discuss the conversion and determine its tax consequences.
For more information, please contact us at 1-800-658-5811, Option 1. If you purchased shares of the Fund through your financial intermediary, please contact your broker-dealer or other financial intermediary for further details.
***********************************************************
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

It started the day with an NAV of $25.28. Took a bookmark position to see how it trades.

It started with 35 investments. I am calling it focused to semi-focused - there may be an industry definition but I have not checked. I think the 35 is consistent with @rsorden earlier post.
Its ER is 0.5%, the same as the ER of GQETX - their Global Quality mutual fund. The two popular US Quality ETFs, QUAL and JQUA, sport an ER of 0.15% or less - but both follow their respective indices; while QLTY is active.
QLTY disclosed its holdings; perhaps, they are not worried about others trying to mimic GQETX, assuming the US holdings of GQETX and QLTY are always the same. May be someone can check the prospectus if QLTY is designed to be a transparent ETF.