Corporate VCIT and Treasury VGIT behave differently.
https://stockcharts.com/h-perf/ui?s=VGIT&compare=VCIT&id=p52114443552

Is there a particular spot in the 10-year treasury yield that might be advantageous for buying or selling if one were predisposed to timing? (speaking of investment grade intermediate term bonds). ISTM perhaps 3.5% might be in the ballpark - the “sweet spot” so to speak.
In December the 10-year peaked around 4.33% but then receded to under 3.4% early this month. Interestingly, that drop in rates to below 3.4% appeared to spark some interest in buying on the board / likely elsewhere. But then late in the week it spiked back up sharply to 3.48%. That degree of fluctuation in rates may not sound like much, but can lead to significant gains or losses for anyone “playing” the bond market.
I submit the question merely as a curiosity. Not seeking or offering investment advice.

This is a huge problems for individuals, but the Biogen Alzheimer's drug will be a much bigger dollar problem for society.
Here we have a very marginal drug that slows brain decline ( does not stop it or reverse it) very very modestly, kills 2 to 3% of selected patients in carefully monitored trial, was only tested on patients with early Alzheimer's in controlled situations, requires several MRIs during treatment and will cost thousands and thousands of dollars. Unless Medicare can limit it to clinical trial settings, there will be infusion clinics set up on every street corner by for profit clinics recruiting any elder with any degree of Alzheimer's to get this "miracle".
Last year before they restricted the use of the other Biogen drug, Medicare increased the part B premiums of very single member in the US at least $7 just to cover an even more marginal drug.
Dozens of Scientists and MDs wrote a letter supporting this one's approval. Guess how many of them had contracts, consulting arrangements or speaking fees with Biogen? 50%

Since October 20 of 2022 when Pfizer made its announcement it would raise vaccine prices and the market reacted by expecting Moderna would too, Moderna's stock is up 64% while Pfizer's is up only 5%. This makes sense as Moderna is a much more pure-play on the vaccine while Pfizer makes many other drugs.
The other interesting factor here is evidence of how commercialization in the case of pharmaceuticals doesn't reduce prices as Adam Smith would like it, but increases them as there are so few players--from $27 per dose to a soon over $100 a dose. Meanwhile, even the debt ceiling and the new Congress's unwillingness to subsidize vaccines for citizens may be playing a role in Moderna's announcement as now the "free market" amongst only three manufacturers will determine the price. KFF illustrates the situation in the above link:

The federal government has spent more than $30 billion1 on COVID-19 vaccines, including the new bivalent boosters, incentivizing their development, guaranteeing a market, and ensuring that these vaccines would be provided free of charge to the U.S. population. However, the Biden Administration has announced that it no longer has funding, absent further Congressional action, to make further purchases and has begun to prepare for the transition of COVID-19 vaccines to the commercial market. This means that manufacturers will be negotiating prices directly with insurers and purchasers, not just the federal government, and prices are expected to rise. Elsewhere, we have analyzed the implications of commercialization for access to and coverage of COVID-19 vaccines, finding that most, but not all, people will still have free access. Still, the cost of purchasing vaccines for the population is likely to rise on a per dose basis, though the extent to which it affects total health spending is dependent on vaccine uptake and any negotiated discounts, among other factors.

It was in the news a while ago that Moderna and the NIH were in a patent dispute over mRNA technology. Moderna had filed a sole patent for its mRNA vaccine but the NIH protested that it should have been included as co-owner. Moderna let its original patent application expire/slide and may refile with or without the NIH - their talks are ongoing. If the NIH is included, how the Government will share in the proceeds, or whether it will independently license the mRNA technology, will be seen later. So, this is an unfolding story.
As this link below shows, Moderna and NIH cooperated under informal arrangements during the Covid crisis. But it wasn't like a regular Government grant/contract that do have a clause that the Government has the right of first refusal for any commercialized technology. To encourage Covid vaccine or drug developments, the Government guaranteed advance orders to 8 companies for any products they may successfully develop (5 were for vaccines, 3 were for other types of drugs). It turned out that startup Moderna (without any prior commercial products) was more cooperative with the NIH/Government than Pfizer. Recall that, later, Pfizer didn't even want to give the Government priority in any subsequent/follow-up orders (beyond its initial guaranteed advance orders) until the Government threatened to use its powers under import/export regulations.
As they say, this stuff/mess is complicated.
https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/03/31/nihs-fight-ownership-modernas-covid-19-patent-highlights-hazards-business-collaborations/id=148040/

Stuck In The Middle With You, Stealers Wheel, 1972, a partial lyric for Congress.

'Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right
Here I am stuck in the middle with you'
While it would be highly likely that a debt ceiling impasse would affect bonds of all flavors, no secret with this thought, I suspect; one may wonder what the path will be until the dust settles. Bond holdings at this house will remain, as we can't guess what will be.
The vast majority of Congress enjoy the debt, eh? Spending OPM (other peoples money) is ultimate power of high political office; 'a look what I've done for you', even if it's a 'bridge to nowhere'.
--- Wednesday, BOJ.....has been fiddling with yield curve since Dec. of 2022. They wanted to maintain a base yield on the BOJ 10 year bond. This attempt has kinda gone 'poof' as global traders have other concerns for inflation in Japan. The thinking has been that a higher10 year yield would repatriate Japanese monies, as well as other potential monies into the Japanese bond market; which would draw these monies away for other foreign bond investments, which would include the U.S. bond market. Well, today finds a large downward move in U.S. yields, as folks apparently want UST and related again, and/or still.
--- Wednesday, weaker retail sales and PPI data. As well as thoughts 'again' about a mild U.S. recession.
--- Wednesday. For a small dot of time in the investing time frame, IG bonds performed as they 'should' when equity takes a 'whack'.
Read the current Real Yield thread for other details, that may or may not provide any clarity.
The other days of the week found me away from the 'desk'.
Relative to the below performance info for this week: Most bond returns in the list were positive this week; with a few longer term duration with profit taking(?) . Several bond sectors remain with YTD returns as good as, or better than some U.S. equity sectors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---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, January 16 - January 20, 2023
***** AGAIN, this week, FZDXX, MMKT yield has remained at 4.27% for one month. The core Fidelity MMKT's have continued a slow creep upward to about 3.95%. The holdings of these different funds account for the variances at this time.
--- AGG = +.17% / +3.2% (I-Shares Core bond etf) widely used bond benchmark, (AAA-BBB holdings)
--- MINT = +.23% / +.44% (PIMCO Enhanced short maturity, AAA-BBB rated)
--- SHY = +.15% / +.67% (UST 1-3 yr bills)
--- IEI = +.2% / +2.16% (UST 3-7 yr notes/bonds)
--- IEF = +.18% / +3.5% (UST 7-10 yr bonds)
--- TIP = +.44% / +2.08% (UST Tips, 3-10 yrs duration, some 20+ yr duration)
--- VTIP = +.26% / +.71% (Vanguard Short-Term Infl-Prot Secs ETF)
--- STPZ = +.3% / +.78% (UST, short duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- LTPZ = +.61% / +5.43% (UST, long duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- TLT = -.52% / +6.7% (I shares 20+ Yr UST Bond
--- EDV = -1% / +8.7% (UST Vanguard extended duration bonds)
--- ZROZ = -1.67 / +8.8% (UST., AAA, long duration zero coupon bonds, PIMCO
--- TBT = +.92% / -12.3% (ProShares UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury (about 23 holdings)
--- TMF = -2.15% / +19.6% (Direxion Daily 20+ Yr Trsy Bull 3X ETF (about a 3x version of EDV etf)
--- BAGIX = +.2% / +3.02% (active managed, plain vanilla, high quality bond fund)
*** Other, for reference:
--- HYG = -.6% / +3.5% (high yield bonds, proxy ETF)
--- LQD = +.07% / +4.9% (corp. bonds, various quality)
--- FZDXX = 4.27% yield (7 day), Fidelity Premium MMKT fund
*** FZDXX yield was .11%, April,2022. The rate of rise in the yield remained flat again this week.

Comments and corrections, please.
Remain curious,
Catch

Good for stock investors’ profits, bad for the American people. A significant part of the cost will be born by Medicare and Medicaid, i.e., taxpayers. It could also cost lives of the uninsured here as well as in developing nations buying our vaccines:
https://thenation.com/article/economy/big-pharma-greed-knows-no-bounds/tnamp/

Just last week, the drug giant Moderna was scrambling to explain away concerns about its plans to quadruple the price for its Covid-19 vaccine, from $26 per dose to $110–130 per dose. “I would think,” claimed Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel, “this type of pricing is consistent with the value.”
It costs Moderna as little as $2.85 to produce a dose of the vaccine. So we’re talking about a price that would be roughly $127 above the production cost for each shot that goes into someone’s arm. Even by the standard measures of pharmaceutical-company excess, this is, as Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) suggest, an example of “unseemly profiteering.”
Does Moderna need the money? No. Over the past two years, the company has made more than $18 billion in profits from its vaccine. The company is literally awash in money—so much so that its CEO is now worth more than $6 billion, up from $4.3 billion in 2021. “This is what corporate greed looks like,” says former secretary of labor Robert Reich.
But shouldn’t Moderna be able to profit from a vaccine it created? Actually, as the office of Senator Bernie Sanders notes, the Moderna vaccine was “developed in partnership with scientists from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a U.S. government agency that is funded by U.S. taxpayers. The federal government directly provided $1.7 billion to Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine research and development, and guaranteed the company billions more in sales.”

"Another of them is named Yu. A real looker."
OOPS. Katrina Yu is with Aljazeera:
https://www.aljazeera.com/author/katrina_yu_150428095706090

HSAFX is available with a transaction fee at Schwab and Vanguard-not available at E-Trade.

Unavailable also at Merrill Edge. But it is available at Firstrade (all funds NTF). At least it shows up at Firstrade if one logs into an account ($500 min); it isn't on Firstrade's public list of funds.

Abby Joseph Cohen * is a panelist in “Round II” of Barron’s Annual Roundtable (current Barron’s print edition). Her five recommendations for investment in 2023 include TROW. Some interesting thoughts about the firm as well about active management.
(Cohen): “My last pick is T. Rowe Price [TROW] … We are entering a period when good active management of portfolios is going to make a difference, after an extended time in which the market was largely momentum-driven. People invested in market-capitalization-weighted index-oriented strategies, such as exchange-traded funds, which became self-fulfilling ‘prophesies’, until they didn't. This approach led to a high concentration in the indexes of a small number of stocks which grew overvalued. A handful of good active managers were left by the wayside …..
“The company's mutual funds outperformed their benchmarks 76% of the time in the past 10 years. T. Rowe … pioneered no-load mutual funds. The idea was to provide a high-quality product with low fees. The company's funds still tend to have fees at the lower end of the spectrum. The stock hasn't performed well in the past year, and it has an attractive valuation. It is trading for 13 times trailing 12-month earnings, with a dividend yield of 4.3%. The consensus earnings estimate for next year is $7.74 a share …..
”If you believe that the U.S. economy will expand, T. Rowe will grow with it. The P/E ratio and dividend yield offer a layer of protection. The 52-week range on the stock is $93 to $194. The stock was trading on Jan. 6 at around $112. The concerns are priced in. What isn't priced in is greater interest in active investment.”
(Excerpted from Barron’s - January 23, 2023 / edited for brevity)
* Cohen once worked at T. Rowe Price as an analyst and had a long distinguished career at Goldman Sachs. She currently teaches business at Columbia University, NYC.

Thanks for your reply @sma3 .. Things are better now. You're right about the movement south. When the snow birds return it's a longer wait for an appointment.
SP/5 Derf

The Time Zones don't compute for me: I'm 2 hours behind L.A. and 3 hours, in summer. I would bet that Vonnie Quinn's brogue has held her back. Speaking as an Irishman, here. Seems to me she's done some work, rounding-out her words. She appears resistant to reciting that stupid spiel whenever any of them finishes their reports: "...128 countries on 14 continents, ... yada yada... THIS is Bloomberg." Wifey is Filipina, so I notice Lizzy Burden. Another is Kailey Leinz. Univ. of Virginia product. I want to have her children.
https://www.lizzyburden.com/
Burden is a fashion model, too.
https://www.bso.org/profiles/kailey-leinz
Emily Chang is from Kailua, and went to school just up the block from where I live.

Another of them is named Yu. A real looker.

Here's that Pimco Jan. 11 outlook piece Clarida referred to (very detailed): Cyclical Outlook: Strained Markets, Strong Bonds.
Didn't realize he's a Pimco guy.
The missing piece in all the Fed discussions is this: what measurement are they talking about when they refer to the 2% inflation target? Clarida's statement that inflation now is running "about 5%" means he's looking at year-over-year change -- which, if that's also the Fed's take, at least in part contradicts his point that the Fed is "forward looking."
Nothing says backward looking like a year-over-year measure, but what that choice would mean for the economy and investing is that they're going to stick with tightening for a good while beyond what more current measures of inflation would indicate is the best course of action, and so yes, the risk of overtightening is very real. I hope they're going to be willing to change course when needed. (They're not idiots; just very careful with communication, and in some ways not all that transparent.)
P.S. Thanks @Bee; I'd forgotten to look for WealthTrack episodes lately, and this one was for sure worth a listen.

“I have nothing against Jonathan Ferro but Katy Greifeld is very easy on the eyes.”
That appears to be a requisite for women working at the network. Have always wondered if Mike does the screening himself … ?
Vonnie Quinn is one of my favorites for all around personality and talent. For whatever reason she no longer appears daytimes, but occasionally surfaces from NY on their late night lineup.
Dani Burger seemed to drop into their post-midnight broadcasts a few months back from out of nowhere. Extremely attractive, knowledgeable and gifted overall - but young and rough around the edges as a broadcaster. Been fun watching her grow professionally.
Photo Album

Jan 20, 2023 Episode

As we move into 2023, the best advice for investors remains the same – “Don’t fight the Fed.” The Federal Reserve is being clear about its intentions to continue raising short-term interest rates and tapering its bond purchases until it reaches its target of bringing inflation down to 2%.
Richard Clarida, a highly respected expert in Fed policy and Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve under Chairman Jerome Powell, will be discussing these topics and more in this episode.

Excellent, @Crash. Came here for the link and you already had it posted.
They even touched on EM debt ... which is already running hot. But how long will it last?
Good bit of talk about the risk of Fed overtightening. Two of them seemed to think if the Fed does what they've put out there -- 5%+ terminal, no cuts in 2023 -- that will be overtightening.
Nothing ever about munis, but then it's a fairly small slice of the whole market, so the big houses don't much care about them, I guess. But they're pretty important for individual investors.
Issuance overall is really ramping up.

Check the volume of its trades. Zero shares most days; others a couple of hundred; occasionally a couple thousand. Out of 5.42M shares; 5.21M public float. No wonder some trades greatly affect the price.

Important to remember the intent of why legislation forcing debt limits was created in the first place.
The intent was to give the Treasury more flexibility, not to constrain the Treasury or Congress.
As noted in the first line of Congressional Research Service's report The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases, "Congress has always restricted federal debt."
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL31967
For more than half of the United States' existence, Congress restricted the federal debt by allowing no borrowing except as explicitly authorized. For example, Congress authorized the issuing of three series of 50 year bonds (2% 1906, 2% 1908, 3% 1911) for the specific purpose of building the Panama Canal.
https://www.theherbstmancollection.com/panama-canal-loan
Not only was borrowing restricted to explicitly authorized debt instruments, but usually the debt could not be rolled over. When Congress authorized the issuance of a bond, it did not authorize issuing a subsequent bond to pay for the first when it matured.
Over time, Congress gradually changed how the federal government borrowed money. It delegated micromanging of the debt to the Treasury. Instead of Congress deciding how many bonds would be issued at what rates and at what maturities, this task was handed over to the Treasury. Congress also transitioned from borrowing individual amounts for specific purposes to setting a single aggregate borrowing limit that among other things enabled the rolling over of debt.
In 1917, attached to the Second Liberty Bond Act, was a statement that read in part:

It is obvious that the orderly and economic management of the public debt requires that the Treasury should have complete freedom in determining the character of securities to be issued and should not be confronted with any arbitrary limitation.

https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SRpt71-1836.pdf
Congress still set a limit on the amount that the Treasury could borrow, but gave the Treasury free rein on the terms of the debt instruments. At the time, Congress set separate limits on different types of securities. Finally, in 1939 Congress created a single debt ceiling, giving Treasury even greater flexibility in determining the form as well as the terms of debt instruments.
On debt before 1939, see:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5866584/ (easier, shorter)
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21799/w21799.pdf
https://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2015/goode/pdf/sargentpaper.pdf
(by same authors, slightly different material)

update:
Share class conversion:
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1587982/000139834422018766/fp0079713_497-ixbrl.htm

I don't understand why the Democrats didn't lift the debt ceiling last month when they still controlled all three branches of government? It takes a simple majority in both House and Senate and the signature of the President to do so.
They could have easily done it before December 31, 2022.
Not trying to be partisan, but were they playing politics and not thinking of what's good for the country? What am I missing?
Fred

Keystone Cops, eh?