BTW
"Chief Executive Officer Greg Becker sold $3.6 million of company stock under a trading plan less than two weeks before the firm disclosed extensive losses that led to its failure.
The sale of 12,451 shares on Feb. 27 was the first time in more than a year that Becker had sold shares in parent company SVB Financial Group, according to regulatory filings. He filed the plan that allowed him to sell the shares on Jan. 26."

Bloomberg's Authers and Matt Levine have very good pieces about what went wrong, but they require a subscription ( which I pay as their articles are very good)
In summary, the tech industry in a low interest rate world had gobs of money, which they deposited at SVB. Most Banks make loans with their depositors money, and get paid back with interest, taking on credit risk; some loans are adjustable so interest return may go up, too.
Most of SVB customers ( most of them companies with accounts far in excess of $250,000 FIDC limit) didn't need loans so SVB had to do something with the money. They bought Government bonds in a low interest rate world. (They could have used them to lend for mortgages but they didn't). SVB had far far more bonds on their books than loans compared to most banks, and almost all of those bonds were fixed rate.
So SVB was exposed, not to credit risk ( from loans as a typical bank) but to interest rate risk. When interest rates shot up, and venture capital started to dry up the start ups needed their money so they started withdrawing their deposits.
Eventually to meet this demand for cash, SVB had to sell the bonds which were worth a lot less than they paid for them. Then the panic started and they ran out of things to sell.
Compared to a typical bank, SVB had far fewer loans and more Bonds, far more fixed rate bonds at low interest rates, a customer base all in one industry and therefore subjected to the same economic conditions all at the same time and far far more exposure to interest rate risk in a rapidly rising interest rate world.
They also were just under the asset level that would have designated them "too big to fail" and required government stress testing. The limit was lower before Trump, and SVB growth would have pushed them past it and required stress testing. But Trump raised the limit dramatically because it was "too much regulation" and they were just under the new limit too.
So here we have a train derailment in the banking world that could have been prevented.
Hard to know how many other banks are in same shape. The impact on tech startups may be more profound.

I do have linked Schwab Bank account with my Schwab Brokerage account. I don't know too much specifically about the Schwab Bank, but Charles Schwab is #8 bank holding company (it is also included in annual Fed stress tests). Schwab Bank is also an important profit center for Schwab and it is integrally tied to its robo-advisors. So, I doubt that "Chuck" would let anything bad happen to it and have heaps of eggs on him. I am not worried. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks_in_the_United_States
There is good coverage of Silvergate/SI, SVB Financial/SIVB and banks in the current Barron's:
TRADER. The STOCK market has been hit by rising RATE expectations (after POWELL’s 2-day testimony) and falling BANKS/financials (after the failures of SI and SIVB). The problem faced by SIVB – a forced sale of Treasuries at huge loss – isn’t that unusual for banks facing runs (if there is no help from the Fed, FHLB, etc). These events may cause the FED to go slow on rate hikes. In a soft-landing scenario, the SP500 of 4,600 is possible.
UP AND DOWN WALL STREET. Silicon Valley Bank/SIVB is the 2nd largest bank failure in history; it was in part due to losses on forced sale of a huge portfolio of Treasuries. The fed fund futures projections were all over – up after POWELL’s 2-day testimony, and then down on the failure of 2 CA banks, the crypto-friendly Silvergate/SI and the venture-capital (VC)-friendly SIVB. The financials were stressed (KRE, KBE, XLF); credit conditions have tightened. As SIVB lent to tech startups and others burning cash, the prospects of those companies became gloomy. The 2-yr fell 48 bps from Wednesday and similar moves were seen in the past during 10/1987 crash, Lehman failure in 09/2008, 9-11 terrorist attacks. In all this drama, the jobs report was a minor sideshow. But coming are the CPI (Tuesday) and PPI (Wednesday).
All BANKS/FINANCIALS sold off last week (KRE, KBE, XLF). But most differ from SVB Financial/SIVB (and Silvergate/SI). The problem with SIVB was a large loss on huge forced-sale of available-for-sale (AFS, market-to-market) Treasuries, and its efforts for raising capital failed (and the Fed or the FHLB didn’t step in for the rescue). Most large banks have diversified businesses, are well capitalized and can tap multiple sources of funding. While rising RATES are generally good for banks, some overleveraged banks with poor quality loan-books get squeezed. DEPOSITS are also moving from banks into higher-rate Treasuries and money-market funds. SIVB was really a bank for venture-capitalists (VCs) who are sophisticated investors that can move large amounts of money (its sudden closure during the business hours may have been to limit that flight). In better times, SIVB just parked excess deposits into Treasuries that it had to sell suddenly at depressed prices (due to higher rates now). All banks now have large unrealized losses that may be hidden within their hold-to-maturity (HTM, not marked-to-market) portfolios – really, a permissible accounting trick. (In a bank run, the distinction between HTM and AFS basically disappears) Large banks also have tougher regulations and undergo annual stress-tests by the Fed. So, this general selloff offers opportunities in banks now – FITB, HBAN, JPM, KEY, MTB, PNC, RF, USB, etc.
https://www.barrons.com/magazine?mod=BOL_TOPNAV
See also open access LINK1 LINK2

Mr baseballfan question - it's a 4 hrs answer question
Many analysts probably give quarterly opions about each bank or stock with each earnings. Schwab research has excellence summary of different equity or banks if you need research about these vehicles. If you buy bonds from these banks bond desks /analyst summaries give you guidelines and redflags to look for.
But with a perfect storm like what we have now, any largeships can turnover and sink in an instant. So difficult to predict.
I did not expect small/ mid cap companies like LCID RIVN BBBY to loose 95%s of stock values over past 14 months
Also read that many small caps Pennies start ups in Silicon Valley/wineries have so much tied up in pacwest, sivb, and first republic.
We are at holding patterns now. Not much new buys next 8 12 wks, Prob buy more UST SHY TLT, or short spy for now

Riders on the Storm, March 6 - 10, 2023
Song titles that may apply for this write:
--- Riders on the Storm, The Doors, 1971
--- Dazed and Confused, Led Zeppelin, 1969
--- I Can see Clearly Now, Jimmy Cliff, 1993
Bonds mostly in a funk until the Silicon Bank melt on Friday, March 10. Then, IG bonds performed as normal for a flight to safety. I suspect some of these price gains will be pulled back next week. 'Course, this may put a pinch on the FED plans for rate changes coming March 26; and I imagine numerous folks in the FED and Treasury departments do not have the weekend 'off'. As noted in a thread by @Old_Joe, Silicon Bank's UST collateral had to be dumped at market rates without benefit of maturity. Contagion towards other FDIC banks may be a problem at some point 'IF' their portfolio is concentrated within their customer base. I only note this now, as I imagine some bank portfolios will find a deep analysis of 'where is your money', being loans and deposits.
An example could be: a bank catering to sub-prime used auto loan.
The 2007-2008 melt was the result of too many folks with their fingers inside the sub-prime mortgage loans areas, and a lot of fancy quasi guarantees layered to protection against default of the mortgage borrower. As the dominoes fell, not many could cover one another's butts with the heavily margin monies. Default city X 10. So many of these sub-prime mortgages were packaged and sold as 'good', with a nice yield. A lot of lying by the peddlers and failure to verify from buyers. I recall pension funds in Finland and other places one would not think about who found their money 'up in smoke'.
There will likely by some more banks with problems, but not to the point of a FDIC grab; but with impact to a stock price and withdrawal of deposits. Any of this could be highly modified with 'social media', which was not a concern in 2007 - 2008. Some companies having monies with SVB may have problems. ROKU (online digital streaming) reportedly had $500 million parked at the bank. What will be their fate with this money recovery?
One may suggest that poor bank management, high interest rates, improper regulatory monitoring and the poor decisions by companies having a concentration of their monies at one bank helped cause a 'perfect storm' for a bank run.
I feel that the appropriate and timely actions with SVB were performed properly, which should add assurance.
If you're curious; a list of failed banks 2009 - 2023. I last posted this list in 2010 or there about. Scroll down for names.
I digress.
IG bonds will likely find favor until the dust settles. IMHO.
Those MMKT's. Stagnant yields again this week, as they've hit a plateau; but most still having a yield between 4.2 and 4.5%, unless it's a magic sauce MMKT. Perhaps another bump up in yields when the FED raises rates again.
--- U.S.$ DOWN -.32% for the week, +.86% YTD
*** UST yields chart, 6 month - 30 year. This chart is active and will display a 6 month time frame going forward to a future date. Place/hover the mouse pointer anywhere on a line to display the date and yield for that date. The percent to the right side is the percentage change in the yield from the chart beginning date for a particular item. You may also 'right click' on the 126 days at the chart bottom to change a 'time frame' from a drop down menu. Hopefully, the line graph also lets you view the 'yield curve' in a different fashion, for the longer duration issues, at this time. Save the page to your own device for future reference.
--- The NAV's list below had a few small positive moves on Thursday, and of course; big positive price moves on Friday, with exceptions; as yields had large down moves from a flight to safety from the failure of SVB. The longer duration were in favor.
A good day to you.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---Several selected bond funds returns since October 25, 2022. I'll retain this date, as it is a recent inflection point when bonds began to have positive price moves. We'll need to watch if this was just a 'blip'.
NOTE: I've kept the prior dated reports in the beginning of this thread; and have added YTD to this data.
For the WEEK/YTD, NAV price changes, March 6 - March 10, 2023
***** This week (Friday), FZDXX, MMKT yield continues to move with Fed funds/repo/SOFR rates and ended the week at 4.46% (flat lined now). The core Fidelity MMKT's have continued a slow creep upward to 4.22%. The holdings of these different funds account for the variances at this time.
--- AGG = +1.04% / +1.63% (I-Shares Core bond), a benchmark, (AAA-BBB holdings)
--- MINT = +.11% / +1.26% (PIMCO Enhanced short maturity, AAA-BBB rated)
--- SHY = +.56% / +.44% (UST 1-3 yr bills)
--- IEI = +.4% / +.91% (UST 3-7 yr notes/bonds)
--- IEF = +2.27% / +2.05% (UST 7-10 yr bonds)
--- TIP = +.07% / +1.55% (UST Tips, 3-10 yrs duration, some 20+ yr duration)
--- VTIP = -.19% / +.62% (Vanguard Short-Term Infl-Prot Secs ETF)
--- STPZ = -.2% / +.46% (UST, short duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- LTPZ = +.97% / +5.15% (UST, long duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- TLT = +3.63% / +6.6% (I Shares 20+ Yr UST Bond
--- EDV = +4.48% / +8.98% (UST Vanguard extended duration bonds)
--- ZROZ = +4.63% / +9.92% (UST., AAA, long duration zero coupon bonds, PIMCO
--- TBT = -7.% / -11.8% (ProShares UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury (about 23 holdings)
--- TMF = +10.9% / +16% (Direxion Daily 20+ Yr Trsy Bull 3X ETF (about a 3x version of EDV etf)
*** Additional important bond sectors, for reference:
--- BAGIX = +1.25% / +1.83% (active managed, plain vanilla, high quality bond fund)
--- LQD = +.61% / +1.99% (I Shares IG, corp. bonds)
--- BKLN = -.81% / +3.09% (Invesco Senior Loan, Corp. rated BB & lower)
--- HYG = -1.71% / +.83% (high yield bonds, proxy ETF)
--- HYD = +.41%/+1.63% (VanEck HY Muni)
--- MUB = +.67% /+1.04% (I Shares, National Muni Bond)
--- EMB = -.33%/+1.29% (I Shares, USD, Emerging Markets Bond)
--- CWB = -3.1% / +2.41% (SPDR Bloomberg Convertible Securities)
--- PFF = -4.08% / +3.28% (I Shares, Preferred & Income Securities)
--- FZDXX = 4.46% yield (7 day), Fidelity Premium MMKT fund
*** FZDXX yield was .11%, April,2022.
Comments and corrections, please.
Remain curious,
Catch

There are several good articles on Bloomberg regarding what made SVB unique. Here is one:
Startup Bank Had a Startup Bank Run
One problem for Silicon Valley Bank is that its customers had too much cash, and now they don’t.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-03-10/startup-bank-had-a-startup-bank-run?accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTY3ODU0ODE5NiwiZXhwIjoxNjc5MTUyOTk2LCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJSUkJOU1REV0xVNkEwMSIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiIxQTZFNTVBMDIxREI0REJGQjc3MDc4RTE2MUNBNjI0MyJ9.VDcRvPyCtAcky6NCXXKuwLL85ic9ybNwVFh5UXHXpWM

First Eagle’s small-cap portfolio manager, Bill Hench, has a long track record of beating the market and the competition by discovering hidden gems among small-cap stocks with short-term problems.

@Hank. Have you ever tried a custom benchmark from however many component ETF’s you choose and assemble to your desired asset allocation. Then put in Portfolio Visualizer. I don’t think it will work for daily but by months it’s fine. Compare with your balance from any start date. Like when you retired to now.

I appreciate your response Larry. I’m not really in search of some performance benchmark. Just wondered how you would go about it. As one who has always eschewed holding cash what I really concern myself with is the inherent short term volatility of the riskier things I invest in. I figure if I’ve invested in what seem to me sound investments with risk offsetting characteristics, than the performance part will take care of itself. (You may assume that like most I keep yearly performance records - now dating back some 25 years.)
Those holdings contain as of now:
6 individual stocks
1 traditional 60/40 balanced fund
1 traditional 40/60 conservative allocation fund
1 non-U.S. equity index fund
1 gold miners fund
1 commodities basket (metals) fund
1 capital allocation CEF using derivatives / leverage
1 infrastructure fund
1 long-short fund
1 risk premia fund
1 global real estate fund
1 EM stock fund
1 GNMA fund
1 global bond fund
1 intermediate HY fund
1 market neutral convertible bond fund
1 inverse S&P 500 fund
- negligible % in money market funds
Friday the entire collection ended down 0.22%. I made 3 purchases throughout the day as a stock was falling, so that number is a bit exaggerated to the high end. That’s reasonable daily volatility. Of course there are occasional off-days when the portfolio falls more than 0.50%. It’s the roughly 8-10% commitment to precious metals / mining that affects volatility the most. Also, individual stocks affect volatility, especially two which represent close to 5% of portfolio each..
If you are beyond 70, and if you hold close to 0 cash reserve, then daily / monthly / year-to year volatility may concern you a great deal. The “close your eyes and invest for the long-run” approach ceases to work at some point.
I know you’ve been looking at a simplified approach. Makes sense. I’d likely recommend that to many our age. Unfortunately, it’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks. I’ve always enjoyed investing. Am reasonably informed. Lived through some horrendous inflation during the 70s & 80s period and came to distrust holding much cash. Other than for ballast, I’ve not liked bonds that much. Albeit - under Paul Volker you could pull 15% or better in money market funds. But it wasn’t always that way. There were stretches where cash didn’t keep up with rising prices. And, as we learned in 2008, some of those money market funds were riskier than we thought.
Re the 3 funds I track daily for volatility: They are all conservative allocation type funds, selected primarily for their diverse investment approaches:
ABRZX from Invesco spreads risk equally among equities, bonds and commodities. It does so largely through the derivatives markets. A stated goal of the fund is “reduced volatility”.
PRSIX is an actively managed 40/60 allocation fund run by T. Rowe Price, one of the best managers in the business - notwithstanding this fund’s recent lackluster performance. Until the bond wipe-out of 2022, it was considered one of the best conservative allocation funds in its class.
AOK is a 30/70 allocation ETF from Blackrock with an appealing 0.15% management fee. It appears to rely partially or wholly on various market index funds. I like that it includes some domestic mid-caps, some foreign equities and even a small exposure to EM stocks. As far as I can tell it’s not actively managed, so the return - for better or worse - represents how the varied assortment of global / domestic indexes perform.
As I’ve stated, I do not own any of the 3 tracking funds above. Just enjoy watching their daily behavior. I did find it unusual - and a bit funny - that they managed to break-even on one of the most volatile trading days I can remember - and with a bank failure thrown in for good measure.

@LarryB - Sounds like you’ve done very well with your investments. Rather than judging performance I’m just trying to keep a handle on daily volatility. That’s the reason for watching 3 different funds - to average out the daily fluctuations. I think the 3 funds I watch combined stand up well on a daily basis in that respect.
Longer term, there are better benchmarks. One good one I watch is VWINX (+0.29% today). There was a fella here a while back who said he used PRWCX (-1.05% today). Do you have any good “benchmarks” to recommend for folks in their late 70s who don’t like to hold any cash?
BTW - I still find AOK intriguing. And will agree with both you and Morningstar that it has not lived up to promise.

@LarryB- There's this, from the WSJ:
Following are selected excerpts from a current article in the Wall Street Journal-

First Republic shares fell 52% in early trading before storming back to near the previous day’s closing level, only to then finish the day down 15%. Investors expressed concerns about unrealized losses on assets at the bank as well as its heavy reliance on deposits that could turn out to be flighty.
Addressing its liquidity, First Republic said: “Sources beyond a well-diversified deposit base include over $60 billion of available, unused borrowing capacity at the Federal Home Loan Bank and the Federal Reserve Bank.” Regarding its financial position, First Republic said it “has consistently maintained a strong capital position with capital levels significantly higher than the regulatory requirements for being considered well-capitalized.”
Investors have grown wary of First Republic for reasons similar to those that caused concern at SVB. Like SVB, First Republic showed a large gap between the fair-market value and balance-sheet value of its assets. Unlike SVB, where the biggest divergence is in its portfolio of debt securities, First Republic’s gap mostly is in its loan book.
In its annual report, First Republic said the fair-market value of its “real estate secured mortgages” was $117.5 billion as of Dec. 31, or $19.3 billion below their $136.8 billion balance-sheet value. The fair-value gap for that single asset category was larger than First Republic’s $17.4 billion of total equity.
All told, the fair value of First Republic’s financial assets was $26.9 billion less than their balance-sheet value. The financial assets included “other loans” with a fair value of $26.4 billion, or $2.9 billion below their $29.3 billion carrying amount. So-called held-to-maturity securities, consisting mostly of municipal bonds, had a fair value of $23.6 billion, or $4.8 billion less than their $28.3 billion carrying amount.
Another point of concern that echoes SVB is First Republic’s liabilities, which rely heavily on customer deposits. At SVB, those deposits largely came from technology startups and venture-capital investors, who quickly pulled their money when the bank ran into trouble.
First Republic’s funding relies in large part on wealthy individuals who increasingly have a range of options to seek higher yields on their cash at other financial institutions as interest rates have risen.
Total deposits at First Republic were $176.4 billion, or 90% of its total liabilities, as of Dec. 31. About 35% of its deposits were noninterest-bearing. And $119.5 billion, or 68%, of its deposits were uninsured, meaning they exceeded Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. limits.
Uninsured deposits can prove flighty since they can be subject to losses if a bank fails.

(Text emphasis added in above.)
For additional perspective, there's this from a post that I made earlier in this thread:

Hopefully we all know or understand that holding bonds or CDs of various types can easily lead to a capital loss if we are required to sell those types of instruments before maturity, and if their value has meanwhile deteriorated due to overall financial market conditions.
But I had never given any thought to the possibility of potential bank losses when they have parked substantial amounts of their money in "ultra safe" US Treasuries. An article in this morning's WSJ pointed out that banks are potentially in the same situation as we are.
A bank such as Silicon Valley Bank can have a significant amount of their capital in short-term "safe" Treasuries, but if they are faced with an unexpected run on their deposits, they can be forced to sell those Treasuries before maturity, and at a loss.
So even a reasonably run bank can get into trouble.

@Crash - ;) couldn't help it. My accounts went from 2 to 1 person so half the coverage. I was slowly correcting as CDs matured so I didn't get it done in this one instance within the 6mo. grace period. I moved the remaining high yield savings but would need to break a CD to get completely under $250K.
@WABAC Thanks. Corrected from NUCA to NCUA.

"Just don't do it. Don't go over $250K in any one place." Shouted the two old guys from the peanut gallery.

Well, you guys got me off my lazy, and I moved my last over the FDIC excess which produced a 5-day settlement window. (Technically still over a bit). So, should credit unions be safe if over $250K NUCA?

If they have supplimental insurance to cover a certain amount over 250K, you're probably ok. For significant cash holdings, I'd even consider throwing it into t-bills at a brokerage and rolling them regularly until you decide what to do with the money.

Well, you guys got me off my lazy, and I moved my last over the FDIC excess which produced a 5-day settlement window. (Technically still over a bit). So, should credit unions be safe if over $250K NCUA?

Following is an excerpt from a current article in the San Francisco Chronicle, a purported* SF newspaper:

A new bank, the National Bank of Santa Clara, has been created by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to hold the deposits and assets of Silicon Valley Bank, and it will begin operating by Monday. But only accounts that fall below $250,000 are insured by FDIC; any winery with funds above that will have to wait an undetermined amount of time to find out if the additional amount will be paid back, partially or in full.

Since two of the few subjects that the SF Chronicle seems equipped to cover these days are food and wine, this article naturally focused on problems that the wine industry may face due to the failure of Silicon Valley Bank. The potential problems for safety of deposits in excess of the FDIC 250k coverage limit will apply, of course, to all deposits of that type.
* Having been a reader of San Francisco newspapers for some 75 years, I can accurately report that the current San Francisco Chronicle is barely a faint shadow of what a real newspaper should be, and in fact, of what the Chronicle once was. The Hearst Corporation is evidently targeting readers between 12 and 20 years of age.

Here it comes...
Scrutiny Falls on $43B USDC Stablecoin’s Cash Reserves at Failed Silicon Valley Bank
https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2023/03/10/scrutiny-falls-on-43b-usdc-stablecoins-cash-reserves-at-failed-silicon-valley-bank/
Per Circle: "Silicon Valley Bank is one of six banking partners Circle uses for managing the ~25% portion of USDC reserves held in cash. While we await clarity on how the FDIC receivership of SVB will impact its depositors, Circle & USDC continue to operate normally."
[narrator]: "Until it can't...."
The USDC chart since that official tweet has, predictably, fallen off a cliff.
Posting the 'this is fine' meme would've been about as reassuring as their official update tweet, I think.

I have avoided the Big Dogs just on principle, remembering the GFC. BPRN Bank of Princeton (on watch-list) was up on Th. by 0.3% but could not do it again today, Friday: down by the same amount. NYCB was suggested to me just a few days ago, here. :)
Its share price got clobbered, the past couple of days. I wonder if it's simply because of its Gotham exposure?
Do we need to come up with a new category entirely, for the sake of accuracy? I eschew the BIG banks. Then there are mid-sized banks. Regional banks. (Zions, Huntington.) Then small banks. Should there be an "obscure banks" category? Wherever my own "darling" fits, she is down for this past full week by -9.05%. ( BHB but up +0.48% in the after-hours, which never helps the likes of ME.) Price target is 22% higher than its closing price today, Fri. 10th March, '23. (Number there is from Stock Rover.)
BHB has branches all over northern New England. Still no panic here. I see a buying opportunity. Same with BPRN, when it falls a bit further.

proposals for what is needed down the road
https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?campaign_id=116&emc=edit_pk_20230310&instance_id=87416&nl=paul-krugman&productCode=PK&regi_id=22268089&segment_id=127474&te=1&uri=nyt://newsletter/4bd85c9f-13a6-59af-9f1d-5783720b47e8&user_id=83d45440ead1d14c2a89a1e7221337d1

Thanks @Crash for sharing some of your winners. I noticed too that HY held up well today.
I just checked the average 2022 performance of those 3 (tracking) funds and came up with a dismal -14.25% combined return for 2022. A lot worse than I fared. Can’t explain why they had such a horrible 2022, other than both bonds and equities fell in tandem (and I caught some lucky breaks as well).

PRISX (financials) is my dog I keep around because I like to kick it across the room. I kicked it hard today. -3.52%. I'm glad that since the New Year, I've already redistributed a ton of what used to be in there.
Two of my smallest holdings were up: JRSH +0.83% and SCHP (TIPs) +1.43%. Among all the others--- all losers today--- the one which fared best was HYDB junk bonds - 0.08%. But I own barely a toe-hold there. And my OEF junk managed not to get murdered badly at all. It's a strange world. TUHYX and PRCPX.
Full portfolio -1.16% on the day.
My classmate Kevin would ask: "Are you bragging or complaining?"