For the week ending on 1/11/23, bearish remained the top sentiment (39.9%; above average) & bullish remained the bottom sentiment (24.0%; low); neutral remained the middle sentiment (36.0%; above average); Bull-Bear Spread was -15.9% (very low). Investor concerns: Inflation (moderating but high; CPI due today); supply-chain disruptions; recession (2023?); the Fed (higher rates longer); dollar; crypto ice-age (some crypto banks tapped the FLHB); market volatility (VIX, VXN, MOVE); Russia-Ukraine war (46+ weeks); geopolitical. For the Survey week (Thursday-Wednesday), stocks were up sharply, bonds up, oil up sharply, gold up, dollar down. #AAII #Sentiment #Markets
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/141/aaii-sentiment-survey-weekly?page=8&scrollTo=896

Why don't you use schwab or webull... Very good experiences for me
Google finance yahoo finance free also very good imho
So much descriptions w webull though, 10d MA 50 d MA, 200 d MA, Bollinger bands, rsi, ROC, MACD, etc

@hank et al
Correction, the JD A model is two cylinder. There was a single cylinder motor (moveable) for other uses at the farm.
Hank, the IDLE sound you recall (145-190 rpms, typical).
Now, I won't further pervert this decent thread.

IIRC, back when I held it, Josh Spencer ran the fund fairly aggressively, too ... but he managed it quite well. I always liked PRGTX but think it got a bit reckless and IMO became addicted to Hopium(tm) in recent years (like Cathie Wood), so perhaps the manager change is deserved.
A 55% loss is inexcusable, in my view. Growth was rapidly falling out of favor as rates rose, yet I guess Tu stuck to his plan and rode it all the way down instead of trimming or moving more into safer holdings and/or cash. Reminds me of DODFX sticking to financial stocks during the GFC because it was "the plan" ... or Arnott holding a 20% short S&P position in his fund during years of a bull market because it was "his model."

When the situation changes, what would you do?

I don't own the fund, but just noticed this on the M* website. This is a copy & paste from part of their fund analysis. The fund has had very good years in up markets under the past several managers, but was down -55.5% in 2022. After 2022 the fund's 5 year average return is barely positive, .32% as of 1/10/23. Current manager is being replaced after only managing the fund for 3 years. Sounds as though there were some differences of opinion regarding portfolio construction and risk management between TRP management and the fund manager.
An unexpected manager swap and investment process pivot lead to a downgrade of T. Rowe Price Global Technology’s Morningstar Analyst Rating to Neutral from Silver.
Manager Alan Tu’s pending departure from this strategy raises a variety of questions that will take time to answer. Consistent with his predecessor, Tu managed the strategy in an aggressive fashion, posting strong results during bull markets in 2019 and 2020, but a tremendous drawdown of over 50% in 2022 led T. Rowe to make changes. Disagreements around Tu’s portfolio construction and risk management amid the tumult led the firm to conclude that analyst Dom Rizzo would be a better fit at the helm. Rizzo became comanager on Dec. 1, 2022, and will assume sole control on April 1, 2023. Rizzo is a reasonable match for the role but has just seven years of industry experience. Rizzo started his career covering small- and mid-cap tech hardware stocks in the United States, then moved to London to pick up coverage of European technology, including a handful of Asia-based companies. He does not have prior portfolio management experience.
Rizzo will manage the fund according to a different mandate. The new approach emphasizes greater diversification across secular themes and individual stocks. Rizzo’s goal is for the strategy to enjoy good—although perhaps less exceptional—performance in up markets, with more manageable downside during drawdowns. His investment guideposts are to invest in companies in secular growth industries with products that are mission-critical for customers, ideally at a time when business momentum is trending upward, and valuations are reasonable. Rizzo says he will rely on these pillars to create a portfolio capable of performing well in a variety of market environments, guided by his outlook over the next 18 months.
While the strategy’s new design seems reasonable on paper, its implementation hasn’t been tested. Further, the transition comes after a period of very weak performance and introduces the risk that the more-conservative portfolio may not make up lost ground in a strong rally as quickly as it would have under its previous iteration. The strategy still benefits from a deep team of capable analysts, and it’s possible Rizzo will be able to successfully steer the fund to success, but the picture is cloudy at the moment.
This strategy has historically been aggressive and highly differentiated from common technology benchmarks, but it will become tamer under its new structure. Manager Alan Tu and his predecessor Josh Spencer kept a relatively concentrated portfolio of stocks with large weightings in fast-growing companies with big potential—and a high level of volatility. Incoming manager Dom Rizzo will ply a modified approach that seeks to smooth out the strategy’s historically lumpy returns by including more-mature companies such as Apple AAPL and Microsoft MSFT, greater industry diversification, and smaller weights in stocks with a wider dispersion of outcomes.
Rizzo targets an 18-month time horizon in his process, which emphasizes buying companies in secular growth industries with products that are mission-critical for customers, ideally at a time when business momentum is trending upward and valuations are reasonable.
Rizzo’s framework is reasonable, but whether he can execute it well is yet to be seen.
This portfolio will undergo changes as it transitions from current manager Alan Tu to successor Dom Rizzo on April 1, 2023. Because of its mandate shift, investors should expect more prominent positions in more-mature mega-caps such as Apple AAPL and Microsoft MSFT. Rizzo believes these companies can still offer good risk/reward despite their size and the alternative of younger companies with faster growth. Rizzo also suggested that the number of stocks held will likely increase somewhat. Under Tu, the portfolio has held 40-60 stocks.
Rizzo indicated that he won’t shun companies with high upside and volatility but is likely to be more particular about when he owns them and at what position size. Tu was highly attuned toward a stock’s upside and was willing to hold large stakes in companies in which he saw the greatest potential. That included a rough stretch in 2022 when many of his holdings saw large share price declines amid slowing growth.
Rizzo will work with Tu to methodically transition the portfolio to its desired state over the following months to April 2023.

Of note, Morningstar, Inc. (MORN) is currently selling for $238.14 on NASDAQ, with a market cap of $10.108 billion, annual revenues of $1.85 billion.
They're making a ton of money, but I'm not really sure from who. Frankly, I don't trust their ratings, let alone their website.

Silvergate/SI has tapped FHLBanks for billions in advances/loans. The FHLB $s are ahead of EVERYBODY, even the FDIC. This is getting curiouser and curiouser.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/silvergate-capital-got-4-3-bln-loan-from-feds-amid-run-on-deposits-report-11673459671
https://www.americanbanker.com/news/silvergate-bank-loaded-up-on-4-3-billion-in-fhlb-advances
What is FHLB? https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/386/fhfa-fhlbanks

One suggestion often overlooked is additional "umbrella insurance" for your homeowners and auto policy. $5,000,000 coverage is fairly cheap and will cover a judgement for an automobile accident or something at your house.

The data on "fixing the dirtiest" is fascinating. I also heard today that the author (a Forbes employee) of a book about the meat industry "Raw Deal " calculates that if "plant based meat" and beyond meat etc reached 15% the same penetration of the meat market than non-milk products have now in the milk market it would be equal to eliminating the carbon produced by 25% of the cars in America!
Not surprising I guess when you realize that Cattle ranching accounts for about 30% of the land use in America and Domesticated livestock equal 60% of world's biomass
I am not familiar enough with Fossilfree methodology to know how they arrive at their determinations, where they draw the line, and how the measure plans of any company to improve it's fossil footprint, but I am glad you all reminded me of the site and will do some more digging.
There are so many moving parts here, and companies available, with rapidly changing prospects I think active management is probably better than index funds, unless you use index funds limited to particular segments like Solar, wind EV vehicles etc.
I also believe that this is an engineering problem, but almost all the funds seem to lack engineers who can evaluate new technology.
I lot of fund reports remain vague and not terribly useful.
@LB thanks for tip on ECAT. It is encouraging that BlackRock and Goldman Sachs and Vanguard are creating funds for this

>> back down to 15% or less
you left out the minus sign

I bond is limited to $10K per person @0and additional $5K on their tax return.
CDs and T bills can be purchase in large sums. However, T bills are more liquid and can be sold through secondary market. T bill ladder is recommended so the shorter ones mature every several months. Not the same with CDs since the secondary market is much smaller and one have to watch for the penalty.
Many money market funds are yielding in 3-4% and they are most liquid.

I rebalance quarterly -- generally to control risk.
I have had luck rebalancing into market downturns (COVID, 2008), but the net effect seems to be modest. Here I was using the safer assets (cash, short term high yield) as dry powder and balancing into major drawdowns. My wife, on the other hand, holds fewer safe assets directly, but holds more AA funds (which presumably are rebalancing into drawdowns as well). She seems to have done about the same as I have over the past several years (actually, I do marginally better on average), but with a bit less volatility.
Probably the reason for the low returns to my opportunism is because even though getting the timing right on market entry is straightforward ("hold your nose and jump in"), getting out at the right time is not a simple matter once the juicy returns start to accumulate and I get greedy and hold on too long. I.e., you get a nice15-20% return and feel pretty good about yourself ("you bold and daring genius, you!") -- do you try to take it to 25% and 26% and 27% before ... *whoops* ... the market dips and you're back down to 15% or less.

Portfolios can be rebalanced based on time intervals or asset threshold ranges.
Frequent rebalancing may be counter-productive due to short-term market trends (momentum).
Rebalancing annually or even biennually can be more productive.
Investors often use a 5% or 10% deviation from their target stock/bond allocation as a trigger.
The primary benefit of rebalancing is risk reduction but it may lead to higher returns when executed
on an intra-asset level (e.g., US stock/foreign stock, large growth stock/small value stock).
I was unable to access this article via the link because of a paywall.
It was accessed via ProQuest which is made available through my local library system.

Thanks Mark. Great article. I don’t doubt Hulbert’s overall premise. But you know what they say about ”In the long run …”.
Gosh - depends on what all you’re invested in as well as age, risk profile, etc, Curiously, a very speculative stock (one of Cathie Wood’s holdings) I sunk a tiny amount in a week ago has bounced 10 15% in a week - up over 5% Tuesday alone. Should I sell all or part? LOL. Last year I might have sold, as I felt locking-in whatever small gain I could in every corner of the markets a necessary “survival” strategy. With a lot of the “free-fall” (hopefully) behind us, I’m not feeling nearly as eager to capture small gains now, Will let this one run a lot longer. But, then again, were it a larger portion of the portfolio I would dump it now - as a quick 10 15% gain is a 10 15% gain any way you cut it. (Again - age, risk tolerance, etc. affect this decision).
(Edited post for accuracy)
Sarah Ketterer, a frequent guest on Bloomberg WSW, recently suggested a tactic she calls ”tactical rebalancing”. By that she means capturing short-term (a few months) or intermediate-term gains in some parts of your portfolio. Probably amping-up and throttling-back certain holdings rather than all-in or all-out. I guess it’s the uncertain and highly volatile nature of today’s markets that led her to that conclusion. ie: “Trying to make the best of a bad situation.”
But lots of good input from the contributors here, Great thoughtful article. And was easy to access,

Hi @WABAC
I enjoyed your open thinking pondering about re-balancing.
I flash back to very early days and a type of re-balancing that likely carried over to be a new, young investor. Although being 'older' and with much more experience doesn't necessarily cause one to ponder less, the so-called, re-balance.
The youth years found me in a rural setting. Some of those in my age group were associated with farming. My family was not; but I had buddies' families who were. Which brings me to hay mounds and the near by creek.
--- Hay mounds: A friends uncle and grandpa had a medium sized working farm. We were allowed to play in the big barn. Each end of the barn had hay or straw bales stacked high, with the center being open. We used a large barn rope hung from the inner peak of the roof to swing (Tarzan style) from hay loft to hay loft. Testing one another's skills at various sections, as the bales were not always equal in location, versus the other side. Swinging back to the other side wasn't always the same circumstance.
---Jumping the creek: The creek was 8 feet at the widest, but some sections were only 3 feet wide during a dry summer season. The creek was surrounded by a forest of mature trees, young trees and dead trees. We'd find a dead, but strong tree limb of the right size and use it to kinda 'pole vault' to the other side. We'd often discovered the smooth, tapered bank on one side was a steep bank on the other side; and at times we couldn't find a suitable vaulting stick if the original fell into the creek while 'crossing'. Crossing back wasn't always the same proposition.
Both of the above caused a type of re-balance, a change of mode of operation, at least in my mind; to get back to the other side. Substituted today for a bond to equity, or an equity to bond move. Or perhaps the neutral zone of cash....but still a move and an investment.
The point being, at that young age, is that I unknowingly was learning a form of re-balancing that would eventually apply to investing.
The 'when you sell, what are you going to do with the money now'? What's your next move, dude?
Anyhoo......a fun example I still recall from youth. The learning process.
We don't have a re-balance schedule. The portfolio re-balance occurs merely from a given buy or sell. We generally lean towards at least a 5% move in order to be a meaningful amount to impact the portfolio; and we don't shuffle the money often.

Story (Originally published in the WSJ) -
The overseer of one of the largest public pension funds in the US is demanding an explanation from crisis-hit Southwest Airlines — New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli wants to know how the carrier plans to prevent another operational meltdown that caused the recent holiday travel chaos. "Clearly this crisis has resulted in profound customer dissatisfaction and is expected to generate significant costs to the company," DiNapoli told Southwest CEO Bob Jordan in a January 6 letter seen by Insider. The Wall Street Journal first reported the news on Monday.
In the letter, DiNapoli also asked the carrier how it plans to "correct these failures - not just in the immediate term, but for the coming years."The New York state pension fund is one of the top-100 largest investors in Southwest. As of September 30, it held $17.6 million worth of Southwest stock, or about 0.1% of outstanding shares, according to Refinitiv data. The comptroller's office oversees the fund.
Source of Above Excerpt & Story
Major Holders of LUV - including mutual funds
LUV Market Cap $21.5 Billion - Interesting that LUV Is held in some “Mid Cap” mutual funds. Generally, at over $10 Billion market cap, it would be considered a large cap stock.

Why would that matter? In any case, the point is that FossilFreeFunds does not "by definition" exclude any firm that is not exclusively in solar, wind, geothermal, etc. This looks like a straw man. Where did this come from? And why just US?
So long as there are any utilities (or if you prefer, US utilities) that are not exclusively into renewables but are still acceptable to FossilFreeFunds, that'e enough to show that FossilFreeFunds does not have the zero tolerance policy you described.
A 50% threshold is pretty far away from zero or even de minimis tolerance. Take, for example, Clearway Energy Inc. (CELN.A) According to its most recently posted 10-K (2021), 3/4 of its $12B in operating revenue is derived from renewables. Which means that 1/4 of revenue is still "dirty".
Praising the worst of the worst for "transitioning"? How far? It's easy to put up good numbers by picking the low hanging fruit - substituting something merely less bad.

what if the [100 dirtiest US] power plants simply reduced their emissions rate to the national average emissions rate of all power plants in the United States? That average rate currently sits at 454.7 kilograms per megawatt-hour, which would amount to a 46.46% reduction in total emissions.
What if our “100 Dirtiest” all switched their entire production to natural gas instead of coal and oil products? The national average emissions rate for natural gas power plants is 401.25 kilograms per megawatt-hour, which would be a 52.75% drop in the total emissions released by these plants.

https://findenergy.com/top-100-dirtiest-power-plants-in-the-united-states/#what-would-it-look-like-if-the-100-dirtiest-plants-made-a-change
It's going to take more than a single graph showing bad actors behaving less badly to impress. Not that the changes aren't for the better, but what comes next? And when?

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1587982/000139834423000515/fp0081452-1_497.htm
497 1 fp0081452-1_497.htm
Sunbridge Capital Emerging Markets Fund
Institutional Class (Ticker Symbol: RIMIX)
A series of Investment Managers Series Trust II (the "Trust")
Supplement dated January 10, 2023 to the currently effective
Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information ("SAI").
The Board of Trustees of the Trust has approved a Plan of Liquidation for the Sunbridge Capital Emerging Markets Fund (the "Fund"). The Plan of Liquidation authorizes the termination, liquidation and dissolution of the Fund. In order to perform such liquidation, effective immediately the Fund is closed to all new investment.
The Fund will be liquidated on or about February 10, 2023 (the "Liquidation Date"), and shareholders may redeem their shares until the Liquidation Date. On or promptly after the Liquidation Date, the Fund will make a liquidating distribution to its remaining shareholders equal to each shareholder's proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund, in complete redemption and cancellation of the Fund's shares held by the shareholder, and the Fund will be dissolved.
In anticipation of the liquidation of the Fund, Sunbridge Capital Partners LLC, the Fund's advisor, may manage the Fund in a manner intended to facilitate its orderly liquidation, such as by raising cash or making investments in other highly liquid assets. As a result, during this time, all or a portion of the Fund may not be invested in a manner consistent with its stated investment strategies, which may prevent the Fund from achieving its investment objective.
Please contact the Fund at 1-877-771-7721 if you have any questions or need assistance.
Please file this Supplement with your records.

Thank you all for the excellent information.
I reside in Washington state which has strong creditor protections for "employee benefit plans."
Here's a snippet from the corresponding state law:
"The right of a person to a pension, annuity, or retirement allowance or disability allowance, or death benefits, or any optional benefit, or any other right accrued or accruing to any citizen of the state of Washington under any employee benefit plan, and any fund created by such a plan or arrangement, shall be exempt from execution, attachment, garnishment, or seizure by or under any legal process whatever."
This law specifically states that employee benefit plans include: IRAs, Roth IRAs, HSAs, 403(b) accounts, etc.
Link

I think that the headline writer didn't read through or understand Hulbert's article, or just wrote the headline for maximizing clicks.
Rebalancing isn't for enhancing returns.
But as the article points out, rebalancing is a risk control strategy.
It is also known that frequent rebalancing doesn't achieve much and annual rebalancing may be sufficient. Some use 5% deviations as triggers.