Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
  • New Harbor ETF: OSEA
    Here is a snap shot of Bengt Serger, the fund manager, and a global fund (
    C WorldWide Global Equities 1A ) he co-manages.
    https://citywire.com/wealth-manager/manager/bengt-seger/d14658?periodMonths=60&sectorID=3745
    Can’t comment much beyond the annual performance.
    The Harbor ETF is concentrated, top 10 holdings approximate 50% of the ETF. Harbor in general does a good job pick active managers serving as subadvisors and don’t hesitate to replace them. In the past, I had good experience with Haken Castegren managing the international fund before his passing.
  • Passive Investing - Myth and Marketing Tale?
    CIted WSJ column: https://www.wsj.com/articles/mutual-funds-professor-is-blunt-with-the-criticism-1415048456
    Indexing as in index funds or as in constructing a market (or segment) index?
    Total market index funds typically sample and I suspect make corrective/tracking portfolio changes daily, beyond managing cash flows. If making non-periodic changes is a disqualifying attribute, then ISTM that index funds that sample are likely disqualified as passive funds. And that doesn't seem right.
    I prefer to consider index funds those funds that purport to track a third party benchmark. (In this I am somewhat echoing the SEC's description.) This begs the question: is that benchmark a "true" index?
    I agree with Prof. Snowball that the S&P "indexes" are not indexes, because they do not follow a formula; securities can be removed somewhat arbitrarily (see below) so long as a human committee perceives that the securities are no longer "representative".
    A related reason why I don't consider the S&P "indexes" to be indexes follows from the SEC's description of an index as something that "measures the performance of a 'basket' of securities (like stocks or bonds), which is meant to represent a sector of a stock market, or of an economy." A key attribute is that the measurement is path-independent. That is, it doesn't matter how we got to this point, a market's performance is well defined.
    In contrast, the S&P committee says that it will not necessarily remove a security from an index even if it would not have included it were it to construct the index from scratch. That's path-dependence. It matters how we got here. The index doesn't necessarily provide an accurate measurement of its market.
    it is important to reiterate that just because a given stock might not represent its Index well does not mean that it will definitely be removed from that Index, just that the potential exists. We go back to the definition above and ask ourselves, “If we were starting this Index afresh today, would this company be a member?” If the answer is no, the stock would seriously be considered as a removal candidate.
    https://www.evidenceinvestor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/General-Criteria-for-SP-U.S.-Index-Membership-Roger-Bos-Michele-Ruotolo-September-2000.pdf
    About the time S&P wrote that paper, it was busy removing several old economy stocks from the S&P 500 for "lack of representation" and replacing them with new economy stocks. The resulting underperformance was overwhelming.
    https://www.hussmanfunds.com/rsi/misfitstocks.htm
    With respect to LEXCX - passive, yes; index, no (what is it benchmarking aside from itself?). Somewhat similar to HOLDRs - gone, unlamented, in 2011.
  • AMZN settles with EU re: antitrust.
    https://finance.yahoo.com/video/amazon-settles-eu-over-antitrust-170355102.html
    ....And still they've been LOSING money. Just ask David Giroux.
    Capitalism. "Greed is good." --- Gordon Gecko.
  • They never stop trying: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B over consumer law violations

    Following are lightly edited excerpts from a current report by the Associated Press:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Consumer banking giant Wells Fargo agreed to pay $3.7 billion to settle charges that it harmed customers by charging illegal fees and interest on auto loans and mortgages, as well as incorrectly applying overdraft fees against savings and checking accounts.
    Wells was ordered to repay $2 billion to consumers by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which also enacted a $1.7 billion penalty against the San Francisco bank Tuesday. It’s the largest fine ever leveled against a bank by the CFPB and the largest yet against Wells, which has spent years trying to rehabilitate its image after a series of scandals tied to its sales practices.
    Regulators made it clear, however, that they believe Wells Fargo has further to go on that front. “Put simply: Wells Fargo is a corporate recidivist that puts one out of three Americans at risk for potential harm,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, in a call with reporters.
    The bank’s pattern of behavior has made it necessary for regulators to take additional actions against Wells Fargo that go beyond the $3.7 billion in fines and penalties, Chopra said.
    The violations impacted more than 16 million customers, the bureau said. In addition to improperly charging auto loan customers with fees and interest, the bank wrongfully repossessed vehicles in some cases. The bank also improperly denied thousands of mortgage loan modifications for homeowners.
    Wells Fargo has been sanctioned repeatedly by U.S. regulators for violations of consumer protection laws going back to 2016, when employees were found to have opened millions of accounts illegally in order to meet unrealistic sales goals. Since then, executives have repeatedly said Wells is cleaning up its act, only for the bank to be found in violation of other parts of consumer protection law, including in its auto and mortgage lending businesses.
    Wells paid a $1 billion penalty in 2018 for widespread consumer law violations, the largest against a bank for such violations at the time. Wells remains under a Federal Reserve order forbidding the bank from growing any larger until the Fed deems that its problems are resolved. That order, originally enacted in 2018, was expected to last only a year or two.
    CEO Charles Scharf said in a prepared statement Tuesday that the agreement with the CFPB is part of an effort to “transform operating practices at Wells Fargo and to put these issues behind us.”
    While Wells Fargo tried to frame the agreement with the CFPB as a resolution of established bad behavior, CFPB officials said some of the violations cited in Tuesday’s order took place this year.
    “This should not been seen as Wells Fargo has moved past its problems,” Chopra said.
    (Text emphasis added)
  • How Worried Should New Retirees Be About Market Losses and High Inflation?
    Several inflationary scenarios were discussed:
    Sequence-of-Returns Risk, Explained
    What is sequence-of-returns risk? It’s the risk of running out of money in retirement because of losses in the early retirement years. Early losses increase the probability of portfolio exhaustion for two reasons. First, they forestall the stock and bond gains needed to maintain and enlarge retirement funds over time. Second, they can force retirees to sell assets to support their spending at inopportune times—when stocks and bonds boast more-attractive expected returns.
    High inflation has accentuated that risk in 2022, as many retirees naturally increase their spending as consumer prices escalate. While this inflation adjustment helps retirees maintain their standards of living, it further ratchets up the pressure on retirement funds and permanently elevates the base spending amount to which future inflation adjustments will be made. After all, today’s currently torrid inflation rate may moderate, but consumer prices are unlikely to go back to previous levels.
    https://morningstar.com/articles/1129750/how-worried-should-new-retirees-be-about-market-losses-and-high-inflation
  • Buy Sell Why: ad infinitum.
    Anyone buying now?
    Couple csp and cc Tsla lcid qqq otherwise no new positions added today
    Prob sit wait
    This environment maybe best short terms bonds ust....
    Sp500 severe resistance levels maybe near 3882 & then 3772.. The dam may break soon though
    Maybe buy more for mama portfolio
    Kimco realty bond tomorrow solid company mature ~4 yrs ytm 5.3 bbb+ (no BANKRUPTCY for 17 20 yrs
    CUSIP 49446RAM16
    Or Chase bond tomorrow
    Careful dippings
  • Donald Trump NFT Collection Sells Out, Price Surges
    Well done, OJ. I'm sure that 2nd paragraph could have been a few pages longer.
    Kind of telling that so many of Trump's cohorts fan afoul of the law. Class acts such as: Steve Bannon, Paul Manafort & Rick Gates, Roger Stone, George Papadopolous, Allen Weisselberg, Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, Tom Barrack. And the son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was another sketchy character.
    "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."
  • Vanguard's 2023 market outlook
    ya, only 2. that's comically criminal b.s. "Ignore it and it will go away." Like 45's attitude.
  • Donald Trump NFT Collection Sells Out, Price Surges
    “ Until Trump I had absolutely no idea how many Americans are total morons. Very scary.”
    Exactly how I felt about those that would vote for a senile person with another behind the curtain calling the shots.
    @Chahta, do drop in.
  • Political Instability as a risk factor
    A respectful, generic conversation might be in order, yes. We've had to install that particular ring-fence you describe, @Old_Joe, because of unprecedented subversive behavior by a particular Party. As "The Hill" describes in my link above, what the Jan. 6 committee had to confront was unprecedented, leading to unprecedented decisions to recommend specific indictments. And by the way, I could see this prospect might very well happen, back in 2015. Ding. Policies are not in focus, but criminal activity, instead. And sadly, he'll get away with it, too. Deep pockets, running out the clock on everything.
  • The Surprising S&P Stock Returns After A Fed Pause
    Tom Madell Article:
    Summary
    "A long Fed pause, hopefully in 2023, might lead to surprising stock returns based on the effect of such pauses over the past 25 years. There have been five such pauses of over a year after the Fed began either to raise rates, such as now, or to drop them. In each case, the market showed outstanding gains during the paused period. We don't know when, or if the Fed will take a long pause during the current rising rate cycle, but if they do, investors will, in all likelihood, do quite well."
    surprising-sp-500-stock-returns-after-fed-pause
  • Barron’s Article: Higher Medicare Premiums / How to Contain Them / Investing Tactics
    One more reason to like Roths ….. ISTM
    Excerpt: IRMAA is short for income-related monthly adjustment amount. It frequently surprises retirees because it is tacked on to standard Medicare premiums for people with incomes above certain cutoff points. Although it is aimed at higher-income retirees, “you don’t have to be rich to fall into the penalty box,” notes Denver financial planner Phil Lubinski.
    This year, IRMAAs hit individuals with modified adjusted gross incomes of more than $91,000, and for couples, more than $182,000. Instead of paying the standard annual Medicare premium of $2,041.20, higher-income individuals are paying from $3,006 to $7,874.40. Couples can pay double that.
    Each year, Medicare charges are reset based on the income that people reported two years earlier. Even retirees who never had a problem can be blindsided by an IRMAA after an unusually high-income year.
    Ignorance isn’t bliss in such cases. People can often make income adjustments before year end to dodge an IRMAA threshold, such as selling losing investments to offset capital gains. Cutting income by as little as a penny can slice almost $1,000 off an individual’s annual Medicare premiums at the lowest levels, and thousands at higher levels.

    Source / Barron’s https://www.barrons.com/articles/medicare-premiums-taxes-irmaa-51671059739
    (Link may or may not work.)
    Disclaimer - Not an expert on this - or even well informed. Highly recommend the article.
  • More T. Rowe Price ETFs in registration
    TRP would be the best to give you the correct answer. Pretty sure you can put in the entire $250K. Transferring asset to TRP requires signature guarantee at your local bank.
    I thought about it when it was made available. Since we own PRWCX in multiple accounts, and moving to TRP would save 0.10% in institutional shares. In the end, we decided against the move.
  • More T. Rowe Price ETFs in registration
    Ok thx Sven. Will contact T Rowe. Any idea if I could put the full $250k into PRWCX?
  • More T. Rowe Price ETFs in registration
    @MikeW, you can gain access got PRWCX through TRP Summit program.
    https://troweprice.com/personal-investing/about/client-benefits/index.html
    If you scroll down, there are several level of Summit investors, depending on the level of asset in TRP. In order to get into closed funds as institutional shares, the amount of $250K is required.
    PRWCX is TRP's most successful fund. Seriously doubt they would change the existing structure.
  • More T. Rowe Price ETFs in registration
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1795351/000174177322004211/0001741773-22-004211-index.htm
    T. Rowe Price Core Equity ETF
    T. Rowe Price Growth ETF
    T. Rowe Price International Equity ETF
    T. Rowe Price Small-Mid Cap ETF
    T. Rowe Price Value ETF