@Sven- Best YTM at Schwab now down to 4.7 on non-callable. I'm surprised- with the negative market reaction to the Fed's announced "continuing effort" I was expecting the rates on income instruments to remain closer to 5%.

@rforno I'm curious about the size of your PRWCX holding, if you don't mind sharing? I'm already up to 36% of total.

It's ~15% of one of my accounts, and the only non-AF fund I presently own.

@Crash

Rick Rieder (BlackRock) was saying just that on WSW when I watched it, yesterday. And he was also touting bonds, though not junk. All of the talking heads I'm hearing--- including Desai and Feeney on WSW yesterday--- rather like bonds of higher quality, because finally, investors can receive a decent yield from them.

The Bond thread was started from what was observed around the October 25 time frame with many IG bond areas indicating an oversold condition, IMHO; and worthy to start watching at that point. We'll discover how long this will hold with the battle between bond folks and the FED going into next year.

Bond prices mostly up for the week, although many giving back pricing on Friday.
I'm fully unqualified to express any of the comments or answer the follow up questioning at the FOMC meeting, as presented by Mr. Powell. I/we don't have all of their (governors) access to full data.
However, doesn't appear to be any water at the podium; and in the Q & A he clears his throat a lot before answering questions. Perhaps he's dehydrated and didn't intake enough water prior; or that he is anxious about the answers he needs to provide to many well thought questions.
He continues to emphasis the 2% inflation target. Better hold on then; gonna be a rough ride for the economy and some workers, going forward.
FOMC meeting, December 14, 2022 (46 minutes)
---Several selected bond fund returns since October 25
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, December 12- December 16, 2022
--- AGG = +.6% / -11.1% (I-Shares Core bond etf) widely used bond benchmark, (AAA-BBB holdings)
--- MINT = +.22% / -1.1% (PIMCO Enhanced short maturity, AAA-BBB rated)
--- SHY = +.14% / -3.8% (UST 1-3 yr bills)
--- IEI = +.54% / -8.3% (UST 3-7 yr notes/bonds)
--- IEF = +.78% / -12.8% (UST 7-10 yr bonds)
--- TIP = -.78% / -11.6% (UST Tips, 3-10 yrs duration, some 20+ yr duration)
--- STPZ = +.12% / -4.2% (UST, short duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- LTPZ = -2.7% / -29.2% (UST, long duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- TLT = +.73% / -26.2% (I shares 20+ Yr UST Bond
--- EDV = +.96% / -32.7% (UST Vanguard extended duration bonds)
--- ZROZ = +.69% / -34.3% (UST., AAA, long duration zero coupon bonds, PIMCO
--- TBT = -1.74% / +67% (ProShares UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury (about 23 holdings)
--- TMF = +2.77/ -65.5% (Direxion Daily 20+ Yr Trsy Bull 3X ETF (about a 3x version of EDV etf)
--- BAGIX = +.82% / -11.6% (active managed, plain vanilla, high quality bond fund)
*** Other, for reference:
--- HYG = -.6% / -10.3% (high yield bonds, proxy ETF)
--- LQD = +.18% / -15.4% (corp. bonds, various quality)
--- FZDXX = 3.91% yield (7 day), Fidelity Premium MMKT fund
*** FZDXX yield was .11%, April,2022. The rate of rise in the yield bumped up .1% this past week.

Remain curious,
Catch

LEXCX is a bad example/ideal. It charges 0.51% (about $4 million/yr) to do absolutely nothing for an almost forever-static portfolio of 19 holdings. It's unbelievable that this has been going on since 1935 and the fund still has AUM of $794.2 million.
Indexing, as it has come to be known today, means a portfolio that is based on some prescription or formula and that portfolio is rebalanced/adjusted periodically (monthly, quarterly, semiannually or annually). Rebalancing itself can be all at once (e.g Russell indexes) or gradually, over time (e.g CRSP indexes). Adjustments to take care of daily inflows/outflows don't count. Passive is just a descriptor and probably not a good one.
Active on the other hand is something that makes frequent portfolio changes, even daily.
Factor-based (non-market-cap) funds use some customized indexes and some call them semi-passive or semi-active. That also leads to endless arguments between the likes of Vanguard vs WisdomTree and Research Affiliates (RAFI indexes). As we know, Vanguard finally jumped late into factor-investing after hiring some people from RA.
Costs are another matter. We have low and high cost active funds AND passive funds. iShares has both high AND low cost index ETFs and has justified them on their different liquidity characteristics. For marketing/PR, iShares called the latter newer ETFs core/retail versions but some of those are now larger than the older expensive and supposedly institutional ones (after a while, the institutions saw the light).
A modern debate is whether the recent hot trend of direct-indexing should be called indexing at all. After all, it allows user tinkering, tax-loss harvesting (TLH), etc, in addition to periodic rebalancing.

I just stumbled across the following article from 2014 which cited Professor Snowball.
Link
WSJ: Active or passive? Do today’s fund managers face an insurmountable challenge in beating quantitative systems?
MR. SNOWBALL: “Passive” doesn’t exist. The closest we come to it is Voya Corporate Leaders Trust (LEXCX). Otherwise, it’s a fantasy woven by marketers and advisers. Index funds represent portfolios of stocks selected by flawed, conflicted and occasionally dunderheaded human beings. The Dow and S&P 500 are both good examples of portfolio by committee.
I suspect a better dichotomy is this: disciplined, cost-effective portfolios versus undisciplined, cost-maximizing ones. Many but not all passive products fall in the former. Many but not all active products fall in the latter. Those observations underlie our conclusion that 80% of all funds, active and passive, could vanish without any loss to anyone other than their sponsors.
I agree with the Professor's conclusion that 80% of all funds could disappear
without any loss to investors but think the actual percentage may be even higher.

Hi crash
Is this any good
$BOH Bank Of Hawaii
Current stock price: $74.77
PE Ratio: 13.97
Dividend yield: 3.74%
Dividend Growth Rate (5 yr): 6.08%
Payout ratio: 50.63%
Dividend history: 25 yrs
Market cap: $3.09B
EPS Growth (5 yr): 13.38%
52 week high: $89.20

@Crash : Thanks for showing your trades. Did you sell all of PRISX ? Do you prefer monthly dividends or quarterly. If one is reinvesting dividends, I'd think monthly as you are reinvesting sooner & more often . I guess one would have to sit down & run the numbers. 3 to 4 cent dividends monthly vs 15 to 16 cents quarterly.
Awaiting any & all replies, Derf
PS One would have to take in NAV & number of shares held.

**************************
I had been waiting for the year-end pay-out in PRISX. With that in the rearview mirror, I gave myself permission to make the changes. No, I will not eliminate PRISX entirely. But I have a feeling it's going to be dead money for at least another year. Rates will not come down soon at all. When we get to a terminal rate with the Fed's rate-rise program, I agree with those who assert we will sit there for a number of months, maybe a year. Rick Rieder (BlackRock) was saying just that on WSW when I watched it, yesterday. And he was also touting bonds, though not junk. All of the talking heads I'm hearing--- including Desai and Feeney on WSW yesterday--- rather like bonds of higher quality, because finally, investors can receive a decent yield from them. I've got no shame. I will continue to dumpster-dive. And I can buy junk shares at a big discount still, right about now. I'm still way behind re: Total Return with TUHYX. I bought just under $10 and now it sits just above $8. Stinky doggy poopies. Well, time to make lemonade, then.

I'm going to seriously reduce PRISX, but I do want to keep a position in Financials. Monthly dividends rather than quarterly is the way I like to go, yes. Still reinvesting everything except for an annual smallish chunk I take out of the T-IRA in January, each year. Before the changes, I'm at just 25% in bonds, anyhow. I have room for more bonds in the portfolio. I do believe the terminal rate will be more like 5.5% or 6% rather than 4.5%. Higher, rather than lower. Service sector wages are proving to be perniciously, stubbornly high. Unemployment will be a challenge to get above 4 percent, with the labor-participation rate so low, the way it's been.
PRWCX still hasn't paid. That's coming on the 20th of Dec if memory serves me. That will be a welcome, hefty delivery. Stinky year, generally, all around. PRFDX will show up with quarterlies for me, too. I'll get paid to wait for things to turn lovely again. And it's been a brutal past week for my single stocks, too, apart from Maine-based BHB

Umm … beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
Here’s their 2022 recommendations and (2022 return to date) one-year return as reported in this week’s edition:
AMZN -46.1%
AT&T +12.3%
BRK.A +5.6%
GM -30.1%
HTZ -23.5%
IBM +23.5%
JNJ +9.7%
JWN -10%
SHEL +39.7%
V +1.5%
According to Barron’s, their picks averaged -1.7% while the S&P returned -12.1% (Figures as of 12/17/22)
Not disputing that on average their picks did better. But woe is he who loaded up on AMZ or GM based on their recommendation. ISTM those averages are not weighted by market cap.
FWIW - Here’s their 2023 picks:
AA
GOOG
AMZN
BAC
BRK.A
CMCSA
DAL
MSGS
MDT
TOL
Source: Barron’s (print edition) December 19, 2022

Is he talking about his Sea Change memo?

I’ll save folks a few thousand words of reading. The ”sea change” comes at the very end of Mark’s memo:
“We’ve gone from the low-return world of 2009-21 to a full-return world, and it may become more so in the near term. Investors can now potentially get solid returns from credit instruments, meaning they no longer have to rely as heavily on riskier investments to achieve their overall return targets. Lenders and bargain hunters face much better prospects in this changed environment than they did in 2009-21. And importantly, if you grant that the environment is and may continue to be very different from what it was over the last 13 years – and most of the last 40 years – it should follow that the investment strategies that worked best over those periods may not be the ones that outperform in the years ahead. That’s the sea change I’m talking about.”
Love Mark’s thinking. @Crash’s 15-20 minute video is well worth the time. In a nutshell, Marks looks for whatever appears “cheap” at the moment. (I affectionately term this practice “dumpster diving”).
I thought the memo kind of boring. Blame that on my short attention span. But generally I’m one who comprehends things better verbally than in writing. I treasure Mark’s book “The Most Important Thing” - the audible version of which I’ve listened to a number of times.
Back to basics, Mark’s “sea change” rests on his perception we’ve moved from an environment of ultra-low interest rates to a more moderate range of 3-4% on investment grade paper. The ramifications of this are too widespread to cover here. But, seemingly, investors will be inclined to to shun riskier assets now that decent returns are available with safer ones.
Not much new here. Working on a new sleeve in the allocation model which will include a 5-10% allocation called “La-La Land” - essentially high volatility funds like GUG (that I own) which employ options strategies, tons of leverage and charge exorbitant fees. :)

The money from these amateur photoshopped 'collectibiles' goes to Tweety Amin personally. So for all we know, one of his PACs or other dark money groups simply bought them all up that day, which meant he was (legally) able to move ~$4.5M from a restricted campaign/political account to his own piggy bank. I wouldn't put it past him to do this sort of thing.
The NFT craze peaked a looooong time ago; this is beyond pathetic, even by his standards. Heck, after this idioy, even his buddy Steve Bannon is fed up w/his antics, too.
Edit: The fine print on the first sale says that 10% of every secondary market sales goes right back to Tweety, so it's the grift that keeps on grifting, like a virus.
Edit 2: The NFT company's mailing address is the same as his International Golf Club in West Palm Beach. Imagine that!

@Crash : Thanks for showing your trades. Did you sell all of PRISX ? Do you prefer monthly dividends or quarterly. If one is reinvesting dividends, I'd think monthly as you are reinvesting sooner & more often . I guess one would have to sit down & run the numbers. 3 to 4 cent dividends monthly vs 15 to 16 cents quarterly.
Awaiting any & all replies, Derf
PS One would have to take in NAV & number of shares held.

16 december, 2022.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1489215/000110465922127692/tm2232852d1_497.htm
Target funds:
Emerging Markets Fund
Emerging Markets Great Consumer Fund

To me, the cost of living adjustment indexed to inflation or COLA described in the article makes the most sense. If the Times is worried that inflation won't last and they'll be promising too much, COLA would hedge their bets but also ensure that employees' wages keep up with prices everywhere else instead of being a wage reduction after inflation. From the article:

Whatever pay increase the Times eventually agrees to, the NewsGuild is calling for a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) that would equal inflation, that would hold Guild members harmless against any increase in inflation. The Times has rejected that COLA proposal even though enlightened employers often agree to cost-of-living adjustments. Not only do such provisions protect employees from having their pay eroded by higher-than-expected inflation, but if inflation remains low, COLA provisions would help the employer’s bottom line by holding down any promised raises. I hope that Times management will see the light on this—and take the enlightened approach.
It’s not as if the Times can’t afford to give newsroom employees a 22.7 percent raise over four years. That’s around ten percentage points above what the Times is offering, and with each percentage point translating into $1.5 million a year in raises, that would cost the Times $15 million annually. That represents just 10 percent of the $150 million stock buyback and a small fraction of the Times’ current $465 million in cash on hand.

I'm writing fiction David, I've already stated that explicitly. Here is some more fiction about zero click attacks
https://www.csoonline.com/article/3660055/zero-click-attacks-explained-and-why-they-are-so-dangerous.html
Meanwhile you on the other hand are purportedly not writing fiction but have yet to provide a single substantive rebuttal.
Fwiw, changing the goalposts and whining about CNBC citing 3 sources vs. promising 4 would not pass muster even in a middle school debate competition.
You appear to be having difficulty connecting the dots -- any device can be hacked, ergo nothing is off limits. The krebs site even describes how SMS messages can be forwarded by malware. So much for SMS based 2FA being indestructible.
Hey btw you accused me of fearmongering and asked me what my angle was but didn't
address the same question I asked you. What is your angle around your ridiculous stance
that logins cannot be hacked and that using account aggregation is 100% safe. Are you shilling for an account aggregator service?
Cheers and I wish you happiness and joy in your beliefs and angles.

In the current negotiations, the NewsGuild is demanding a wage increase averaging 5.25 percent a year over four years.... According to the union, the Times’ latest wage offer comes to 2.875 per year...

Meanwhile, the Times raised paper subscription rates 10% at the start of 2022, and will raise them another 12% at the start of 2023. That's more, cumulative, in just two years than the workers are asking for spread over a period of four years.
I had been thinking about cutting back the number of days I get the paper in hardcopy. But after reading about how the Times values its employees, I'm thinking of skipping pay subscriptions altogether and taking the free digital subscription offered through my school.
I appreciate the service that the Times provides, but it shouldn't be on the backs of its employees or its customers alone.

Thanks. Yes a CG of 5.44 plus a few holdings that went down a bit in value would account for an apparent one-day loss of nearly 7%. Because my M* portfolio didn't show that more shares were bought with the CG it appeared like a substantial loss. But it isn't. :-)

In the MFO list of fund CGs (by @TheShadow), est for MAPOX as of 11/10/22 was in 4.93% - 5.50% range. It came out at 5.44%.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/60074/2022-year-end-capital-gains-distribution-estimates-vanguard-s-final-estimated-year-end-posted/p1
https://www.mairsandpower.com/about-us/company-news/item/163-estimated-2022-capital-gains-and-dividends

Come on, don't deflect, and don't project. Email and sim hacks and all that are trivially easy to prevent. Send me $500 and I will explain. I will post the explanation here, too.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/14/brokerage-log-ins-for-sale-on-dark-web-robinhood-sees-highest-prices-.html is inexcusably weak, detail-free, fright reporting.
Like so much of the financial press.
So ... Robinhood alone has pisspoor access and authentication control? That alone is a major story.
Inside job? But that would not meet your scare criteria.
I am going to google to see if I can find out what actually happened w poor old Nate Heard.
The last six CNBC paragraphs are shocking, writer-firable for their slop and laziness. Also preposterous as factual narrative reporting.
And while I expect that you are not a working editor, did you notice that CNBC leads with speaking to 4 people but then can list only 3? yoohoo, editors!?
Again, can you recount for all of us the steps for a bad actor to, out of nowhere and without operator error, access and drain a Vanguard (or ML or Fidelity or Schwab ...) investment account?

@david
You need to remove the cobwebs and emerge into the light a la Rip Van Winkle.
Reddit isn't TikTok for starters -- it is used by much more than teens, $85K isn't chump change, that's a lot of money for the vast majority of the population. Teens also typically don't carry those kind of brokerage balances.
Look up what a keylogger is and what it can do.
Dude, you're embarrassing yourself by continuing to pretend that your brokerage account cannot be wiped if your credentials leak. Or pretending that your credentials can never leak and your email and SIM cannot be hijacked.
How about you post your credentials here and we find out? Even better than that, how about you post your credentials on social media like Twitter, FB etc.. and challenge the world to drain your account. Put your money where your mouth is big guy and this topic can easily be resolved.