Bumping this discussion back up. I’m curious if anyone has added to their investments in either China or in EM? If so what funds are you investing in? Back in 2020 I had a large position in MIOPX, one of Kristian Heugh’s funds. But the fund sold off 55% last year. Luckily I sold out in time. So far this year I have purchased Vanguard international core stock fund which is managed by Wellington and has a 9% China stake… good conservative fund that has outperformed since inception. Curious what you are doing?

DECEMBER 4, 2000
Effective immediately, Vanguard Health Care Fund has raised its minimum initial
investment amount to $25,000 for all new accounts, including IRAs and custodial
accounts for minors.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/734383/000093247100000798/0000932471-00-000798.txt
Before that (starting Dec 20, 1999 when the fund reopened), the min was $10,000, and before that, $3,000
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/734383/000093247199000519/0000932471-99-000519.txt
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/734383/0000893220-98-000900.txt

If I recall, back in the day there was a $25K minimum entry for the fund. Glad I took that leap of faith, even though that was a significant portion of the portfolio at the time.

2022 was a brutal year for Emerging Market Bond Funds
FT Article
"Investors have withdrawn a record $70bn from emerging market bond funds this year(2022)..."
"Investors head for exit as rising rates in big economies and strong dollar hit sentiment..."
Multisearch shows 25 Emerging Market Debt funds with AUM less than MICPX and 35 with AUM less than MINCX. Could be a lot of liquidations if AUM is the reason.

Vanguard doesn’t allow employees to go on business shows?
Gus Sauter on Bloomberg TV:

Most people are familiar with the idea that if one pays T-IRA taxes from the IRA proceeds, and if tax rates don't change, then it doesn't matter whether one puts money into a T-IRA or into a Roth IRA.
For example, with a tax rate of 25%, and $1,000 to contribute, assuming the investment doubles (2x) in value:
Traditional: $1000 x 2 x 75% (for taxes) = $1,500 after tax value
Roth: 75% x $1000 (contribution after taxes) x 2 = $1,500 after tax
Likewise it doesn't matter where you keep the faster growing assets, Roth or traditional. Whatever money you keep in a T-IRA, and however you invest it, the 25% share needed to pay the taxes upon withdrawal will keep pace.
--------
"A dollar’s loss in a Roth actually hurts more than loosing a $ in a taxable Traditional IRA."
True enough as far as it goes. But one's investments drop by percentages, and a 10% drop in a T-IRA hurts the same as a 10% drop in a Roth.
Using the same example as above, except instead of doubling the value, let's say the value drops by 10%:
Traditional: $1000 x 90% (drop of 10%) x 75% (for taxes) = $675 after tax value
Roth: 75% x $1000 (contribution after taxes) x 90% = $675 after tax value
The key is to think in terms of after-tax dollars. That's hard to do when a dollar in a T-IRA looks the same as a dollar in a Roth, even though the former may be worth only 3/4 as much.
--------
Of course there are other factors to consider. If you have a large T-IRA and a fast rate of growth might kick RMDs into a higher tax bracket, then you will want to constrain T-IRA growth. Of if your heirs are nonresident aliens in a country without a tax treaty (so that they owe 30% on T-IRA proceeds), you'll want to pay taxes now, at a lower rate, to convert that money to a Roth. And so on.

Dont' Worry, Be Happy; as the song lyric goes.....at least so far for this young year in BondLand.
So many here provide timely information regarding a forms of investing, that it is, at times; difficult to find something else. Thank you. Less work for me, when free time is at a premium.
One supposes the 'debt ceiling' battle could be of consequence. Check the current thread, as provided by Lewis, for more insights. I'm sure many of us will be watching to discover the 'affects'.
Again for this week, please see the Real Yield thread here; as to what some 'pundits' think about 'yields', now and going forward.
I'm sure most are aware of MMKT yields in the standard accounts you hold, and I suppose the yields are similar for most fund houses; with Fidelity's MMKT's having a yield of about 3.9%. Not beating inflation, but a large spread over a standard bank or CU savings or checking account yield. The banks/CU's should be making a decent profit between what they're paying for deposits, versus what they're loaning the money for cars, etc.
An overview of the recent CPI and all related may be found here. Thanks, AndyJ.
Relative to the below performance info for this week: All bond returns in the list were positive this week; however short term and TIPS related were not in favor for positive cash flows. Several bond sectors have 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 9 - January 13, 2023
***** AGAIN, No love for short term issues this week.....
--- AGG = +.84% / +3% (I-Shares Core bond etf) widely used bond benchmark, (AAA-BBB holdings)
--- MINT = +.18% / +.44% (PIMCO Enhanced short maturity, AAA-BBB rated)
--- SHY = +.15% / +.58% (UST 1-3 yr bills)
--- IEI = +.55% / +1.95% (UST 3-7 yr notes/bonds)
--- IEF = +.62% / +3.35% (UST 7-10 yr bonds)
--- TIP = +.25% / +1.63% (UST Tips, 3-10 yrs duration, some 20+ yr duration)
--- VTIP = +.23% / +.45% (Vanguard Short-Term Infl-Prot Secs ETF)
--- STPZ = +.16% / +.48% (UST, short duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- LTPZ = +.07% / +4.8% (UST, long duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- TLT = +1.5% / +7.2% (I shares 20+ Yr UST Bond
--- EDV = +2.15% / +9.8% (UST Vanguard extended duration bonds)
--- ZROZ = +2.12 / +10.6% (UST., AAA, long duration zero coupon bonds, PIMCO
--- TBT = -3.12% / -13.1% (ProShares UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury (about 23 holdings)
--- TMF = +4.26% / +22.2% (Direxion Daily 20+ Yr Trsy Bull 3X ETF (about a 3x version of EDV etf)
--- BAGIX = +1.02% / +2.81% (active managed, plain vanilla, high quality bond fund)
*** Other, for reference:
--- HYG = +1.5% / +4.1% (high yield bonds, proxy ETF)
--- LQD = +1.72% / +4.8% (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

Under the assumption that one will pay taxes on a T-IRA withdrawal using proceeds from the IRA, it doesn't matter which assets go into the traditional, and which go into the Roth.
Let's assume that the tax rate upon withdrawal is 25%. Let's assume that you've got $4 in a T-IRA and $5 in a Roth. The after-tax value of the T-IRA is $3. The total after-tax value is $8.
Now let's say that you allocate half the money (based on after-tax value) to an investment that quadruples in value, and you allocate the other half to an investment that "merely" doubles.
It doesn't matter how you do the allocation. Two (of many) possibilities:
Roth: $4 to faster growing investment, $1 to slower investment;
T-IRA: $4 ($3 after tax value) to slower investment.
- or -
Roth: $1 to faster growing investment, $4 to slower investment;
T-IRA: $4 ($3 after tax value) to faster investment.
At the time of withdrawal, in the first case:
Roth = 4 x $4 + 2 x $1 = $18
T-IRA = 2 x $4 x 3/4 (remainder after taxes) = $6
Total after tax value = $24
At the time of withdrawal, in the second case:
Roth = 4 x $1 + 2 x $4 = $12
T-IRA = 4 x $4 x 3/4 (remainder after taxes) = $12
Total after tax value = $24
The only trick here is to view everything in terms of after-tax value.
-------
As to conversions, if one assumes that tax rates won't change upon withdrawal, and that the taxes on conversion are paid from a taxable account, then converting comes out ahead. That's because, by "pre-paying the taxes" (via conversion), you're effectively sheltering the amount of the tax.
For example, say you've got $4 in a T-IRA, $1 in a taxable account, and you're in the 25% bracket. Assume assets double in value between now and when you withdraw from IRA:
Converting (moving the $1of value into a tax-sheltered account):
Taxable account: $0
Roth IRA: $4
At withdrawal, after investments double in value:
Taxable account: $0
Roth IRA: $8
Total after tax value: $8
Instead, if you don't convert, then:
Taxable account $1
T-IRA: $4
At withdrawal, after investments double in value:
Taxable account: $2 minus taxes due on $1 of gain
T-IRA: 2 x $4 x 3/4 = $6 (multiply by 3/4 to account for the 25% in taxes)
Total after tax value: $8 minus taxes due on $1 of gain
You lose here because growth on the $1 remained subject to tax.

The threads below include discussions regarding Matthews Asia developments.
Link1
Link2

Thanks @Crash & @carew388
Neither MAINX (+3% 1 year) or MICPX (-1.65% -1 year) appears to have a terrible one year stretch. Most everything related to EM got clocked last year. Not familiar with Matthews funds - but recall some favorable mentions here over the years. Possibly “fickle” investors fleeing, or maybe (more likely) just the trend out of mutual funds and into ETFs.

I suspect many growth managers do have fair value estimates, but those estimates have to change with interest rates. A stock with a 4% earnings yield today, i.e., a 25 p-e but great growth prospects in the distant future, looks a lot more attractive when interest rates are 0% as opposed to 4%. If you can get 4% guaranteed from T-Bills, that 25 p-e becomes toxic. I don’t think most growth managers are trained to handle this kind of rising rate environment. Admittedly, once rates peak or are near peaking, they should do better—that sign, perhaps, Derf was looking for. The thinking of many growth managers is that high p-e stocks will eventually grow into their valuations, that the p-e only looks inflated today and ignores the tremendous future earnings potential. The problem is investors don’t want to wait around for tomorrow’s growth when they can get a 4% yield on T-Bills today.

Former Vanguard Health Care (VGHAX) manager Ed Owens died on Nov. 27, 2022.
VGHAX had an annualized 16.4% return during his long tenure
compared to a 10.7% return for the S&P 500 index.
Link1
Link2

Reverse-splits for mutual funds don't make any (rational) sense. They don't trade like stocks, and trading and margin considerations don't apply.

99.9% of the time, I agree with this. There is the oddball exception where there is a sensible rationale for reverse splits.
BTTRX is a zero coupon bond fund. A real zero coupon bond pays no interest (though interest is imputed); it merely appreciates in value until maturity. BTTRX is designed to mimic this behaviour.
From the prospectus:

Reverse Share Splits
When the fund pays its distributions, the board also declares a reverse share split for the fund that exactly offsets the per-share amount of the distribution. If you reinvest your dividends, this reverse share split means that you will hold exactly the same number of shares after a dividend as you did before. This reverse share split makes changes in the fund’s share prices behave like changes in the values of zero-coupon securities.

https://www.americancentury.com/plan/tax-center/reverse-share-split/

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/923184/000119312523008392/d274034d497.htm
497 1 d274034d497.htm FORM 497
MATTHEWS ASIA FUNDS
SUPPLEMENT DATED JANUARY 13, 2023
TO THE PROSPECTUS FOR
THE MATTHEWS ASIA TOTAL RETURN BOND FUND AND
THE MATTHEWS ASIA CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES FUND
DATED APRIL 28, 2022, AS SUPPLEMENTED (THE “PROSPECTUS”)
For all existing and prospective shareholders of the Matthews Asia Total Return Bond Fund and the Matthews Asia Credit Opportunities Fund:
Liquidation
The Board of Trustees of Matthews International Funds (d/b/a Matthews Asia Funds) (the “Trust”) has approved a Plan of Termination, Dissolution and Liquidation for each of the Matthews Asia Total Return Bond Fund and Matthews Asia Credit Opportunities Fund, each a series of the Trust (each, a “Fund” and together, the “Funds”), pursuant to which the Funds will be liquidated (each, a “Liquidation” and together, the “Liquidations”) on or about March 15, 2023 (the “Liquidation Date”). This date may be changed without notice at the discretion of the Trust’s officers.
Suspension of Sales. Effective January 17, 2023, the Funds will no longer sell shares to new investors or existing shareholders, including through exchanges into the Funds from other series of the Trust.
Mechanics. Each Fund will cease investment operations in accordance with the Fund’s investment objective and policies, and the Fund’s assets will be converted into cash and cash equivalents on or before the Liquidation Date. In connection with the Liquidations, any shares of a Fund outstanding on the Liquidation Date will be automatically redeemed as of the close of business on the Liquidation Date. The proceeds of any such redemption will be equal to the net asset value of those shares after the applicable Fund has paid or covered with reserves all of its charges, taxes, expenses and liabilities. For each Fund, the distribution to shareholders of these liquidation proceeds will occur as soon as practicable, and will be made to all shareholders of the Fund of record at the time of the Liquidation. Additionally, each Fund must declare and distribute to shareholders any realized capital gains and all net investment income no later than the final Liquidation distribution. Matthews International Capital Management, LLC (“Matthews”), investment advisor to the Funds, intends to distribute substantially all of each Fund’s net investment income before the applicable Liquidation. Matthews will bear all extra expenses other than any brokerage commissions in connection with the Liquidations to the extent those expenses with respect to a Fund exceed the amount of the Fund’s normal and customary fees and expenses accrued by the Fund through the Liquidation Date, provided that those accrued amounts are first applied to pay for the Fund’s normal and customary fees and expenses.
Other Alternatives. At any time before the Liquidation Date, shareholders of the Funds may redeem their shares of the Funds and receive the net asset value thereof, pursuant to the procedures set forth under “Investing in the Matthews Asia Funds – Selling (Redeeming) Shares” in the Prospectus. Shareholders may also exchange their shares of the Funds for shares of the same class of any other series of the Trust, as described in and subject to any restrictions set forth under “Investing in the Matthews Asia Funds – Exchanging Shares” in the Prospectus.
U.S. Federal Income Tax Matters. For tax purposes, with respect to shares held in a taxable account, the automatic redemption of shares of a Fund on the Liquidation Date will generally be treated as any other redemption of shares (i.e., as a sale that may result in gain or loss for federal income tax purposes). Instead of waiting until the Liquidation Date, a shareholder may voluntarily redeem his or her shares before the Liquidation Date to the extent that the shareholder wishes to realize any such gains or losses before the Liquidation Date. See “Other Shareholder Information – Taxes” in the Prospectus. Shareholders should consult their tax advisors regarding the tax treatment of the Liquidation.
If you have any questions regarding the Liquidations, please contact the Trust at 1-800-789-ASIA (2742).
Please retain this Supplement with your records.

M* had mentioned that co-lead-manager Yu Zhang was responsible for the recent (5+ years) shift in MAPIX from old current-dividend emphasis to also include dividend-growth emphasis. As a result, MAPIX started behaving similar to other growth-oriented Matthews Asia funds. IMO, this change may restore MAPIX to its original current-dividend emphasis.

Good catch, Yogi; didn't realize the strategy change with YZ, just that it seemed to get growthier than it was during its better days.
Off topic: I also hadn't realized until yesterday that the China Dividend fund is up more than 30% in the last 3 months (not up just in the current rip).

Bloomberg has a great piece by Matt Levine pointing out that the debt ceiling applies only to the principal of the bonds not the interest. So it would be easy to get around the limit by selling bonds with high interest for a premium, which is entirely legal. It is behind a paywall so I will quote the argument here
He points out that there is little difference in selling two $100 one year bonds paying 4.5% ) yields $9 interest) vs selling one $100 bond paying 109% interest. The latter would sell for $200, or a premium of $100 with $9 in interest being the same as that accumulated on two $100 bonds. The 109% interest bond would only raise the debt ceiling by $100, compared to the $200.
I would buy this in a non-taxable account!

I believe this is what you're referring to:
https://www.chron.com/business/enron/article/Enron-executives-may-lose-lawsuits-but-not-all-2070656.php
As far as OJ is concerned,

Collections attorneys who have experience know how to use the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer act and other such actions in Florida to attack transfers by a debtor into exempt assets. Such transfers may be reversible in certain circumstances. Furthermore, transfers to a spouse may also be reversible if done to defraud a creditor.

https://whhlaw.com/oj-simpson-really-moving-florida-debt-collection/
IOW, you'd better have your ducks in a row before there's a judgment against you.
With respect to plaintiffs being constrained by contingency lawyers, submitted for your amusement:

Geico must pay $5.2 million to woman who got HPV from sex in man's insured car, court rules
...The woman — identified in court papers only as "M.O." — said that she "engaged in unprotected sexual activities in Insured's vehicle" in November and December 2017 and that he "negligently caused or contributed to" her catching the human papillomavirus (HPV), a common sexually transmitted infection, court papers said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/geico-must-pay-52-million-woman-got-hpv-sex-mans-insured-car-court-rul-rcna32831
Of course this is being appealed. Still this is the type of claim (liability for negligence) that umbrella insurance is designed for, and it illustrates that the amounts and types of claims possible are limited only by a plaintiff's imagination.

I suspect i's merely for optics. Having a bunch of funds priced < $5 probably makes them feel embarrassed. Heck, I don't remember seeing a 'reverse split' for an OEF before, come to think of it...