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.
  • The Liz Truss Travesty Becomes Britain’s Humiliation
    The change of PM from Boris Johnson to Liz Truss is getting worse. She reminds me of the 80’s trickle-down economics that never work for the majority of American. The Atlantic has a good article on Truss.
    https://msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-liz-truss-travesty-becomes-britain-s-humiliation/ar-AA12Y9tl?cvid=1581ae93702d430a8d17d06f22b90d4f
    Should I be worry about my British stock holding in my international funds?
  • Classic stock and bond mix no longer makes sense. Do this instead says BlackRock’s Rick Rieder
    “ I think in the near term 40-60 makes more sense if you can get yields at these levels,” Rieder said during an interview with MarketWatch reporter Christine Idzelis, adding that insurance companies, pension funds, endowments and other institutional investors can easily earn a yield of 5% to 6% from a portfolio of short-dated bonds, with some high-yield assets mixed in.”
    Read full story
    It’s become become difficult to access WarketWatch articles. Good luck if you attempt.
    Disclosure - I’m substantially less weighted towards fixed income than Rieder recommends.
  • foreign dividends: a stinky, poopy discovery
    Thanks @Crash
    Google:
    "More specifically, the Canadian tax authority, which is called the Canada Revenue Agency, generally withholds 30% of all dividends paid to out-of-country investors. Fortunately, this 30% is reduced to 15% thanks to a tax treaty shared by Canada and the United States."
  • What “Bubble”? ARKK closing in on 70% for one year
    Fellas, fellas...the original point was how wacked out the market is due to many reasons, some of which are crazy monetary and fiscal policy...which helped to enable cray cray funds like ARKK and many of those who do not have pensions have to "invest" in this stock market dreck/risky casino to fund their retirement while those with gov't pensions do not.
    Not to disparage those who have earned the pensions. A deal is a deal. No questions, I'm sure many have worked hard and served the public to earn them. But why is it they are guaranteed, many inflation indexed, no mattter what the markets do of which they are invested in and if the underlying investments underperform the taxpayer has to pony up, funding is cut for other public projects just to fund the pensions...is that the right thing to do?
    My belief is that the pension returns should be indexed to say the past 3 years rolling returns. I do not think is right that the taxpayer has to be on the hook no matter what happens in the market. Or let ALL workers participate in a national pension, why just if you were say a politician for 25 years?
    What really sticks in my craw is when those with the gov't pensions from a high tax state move right after they retire because "they don't want to pay the high taxes".
    Baseball Fan
  • Unrelenting Inflation: Bad News for the Fed, White House, and the rest of us too...
    Following are excerpts from a current New York Times report, brutally edited for brevity:
    Here's the NYT graphic, unfortunately without the text. The chart begins in 1985, peaks at ~14% in 1980, and the dot at the end of the axis shows +8.2% in September (which was +6.6% excluding food and energy).
    image
    Prices continued to climb at a brutally rapid pace in September, with a key inflation index increasing at the fastest pace in 40 years, bad news for the Federal Reserve as it struggles to wrestle the cost of living back under control.
    Overall inflation climbed 8.2 percent in the year through September, according to the latest Consumer Price Index report. Even more worrisome, underlying inflation trends are headed in the wrong direction. After stripping out fuel and food — which are volatile and removed to get a better sense of the trajectory — prices climbed 6.6 percent in the year through September. That was the quickest rate since 1982.
    Markets swung wildly after the report, with stocks falling sharply initially but then surging higher as investors struggled to digest what the data meant for the future. The S&P 500 index closed up 2.6 percent.
    Economists have predicted that the economy will slow and inflation will moderate in the months ahead. But they have been expecting an imminent cool-down for the past 18 months, and the data have repeatedly proved them wrong. Worried that rapid inflation might last, Fed officials have been clear that they plan to raise interest rates to a point where they are constraining the economy and hold them at a high level until price increases are clearly moderating. Officials have estimated that they will lift borrowing costs to about 4.6 percent by the end of 2023.
    After making three unusually large rate increases, officials had suggested they would debate slowing down in November. The fresh inflation data makes another big move more likely, and economists said it could make it difficult for the Fed to slow down by the end of the year, as policymakers had previously forecast.
    It is too early to know how the Fed’s thinking will evolve by its final meeting of the year on Dec. 13 and 14. Even if inflation shows little sign of cracking by then, policymakers may want to give themselves time to see the cumulative effect of their rate increases, as well as fallout from monetary policy adjustments taking place around the world. But for now, just about every sign they are receiving from the inflation data is discouraging. Economists said there were signs in the inflation data itself that price increases might be growing more entrenched.
    Fed policy takes time to work, and most economists would not expect this year’s adjustments to be pulling inflation drastically lower yet. But because rate moves work by slowing consumer demand, one might expect their effects to show up in everyday consumer goods and services categories first. That has yet to happen. From restaurant meals to cigarettes to stationery products, prices continue to climb briskly, suggesting consumers are still willing to pay up.
  • What “Bubble”? ARKK closing in on 70% for one year
    From my OP - “This isn’t to rag on the fund and manager. But just to lend support to the idea that there certainly appears to have been a genuine “bubble” in this sector of the market.”
    No disputing it was a bubble. That’s what my modest post meant to address. Is 70% off the price of a year ago still a bubble? Remains to be seen. We all try hard here to steer clear of partisan politics. There’s enough blame to go around when it comes to falling equity and bond prices. I don’t think either party owns those issues 100%.
    Personal belief: I think we’ve all become too short term focused. Instant prices / up to date gains & losses / fund flows / interest rates / everything’s at our finger tips today, and trade on it we do. So what happens is that many markets “run to extremes” as the “smart money” latches on to the trend. ARKK’s meteoric rise is but one example. And it works in reverse too with short sellers owning the day now. Eventually over time prices sort themselves out to where there’s some rationality. I’m confident that in 5-7 years folks who bought ARKK at these prices will be glad they did. But it’s damn hard just to sit and not look. I think most equities will do better over 5-7 years. That’s the optimist in me. John Templeton was my very first fund manager.
  • I-Bond Rate, 5/1/22-10/31/22
    Given that the price of a barrel of oil (WTI) dropped 22.3% in the six months from March through Sept, and that overall energy prices dropped slightly (0.3%) in the same period of time, an overall positive increase in prices over the same six months does seem questionable. Perhaps it takes the impact of energy prices a bit of time to propagate through the entire economy, especially to sectors where it is a secondary or tertiary factor?
    It's not as though the government doesn't have its thumb on the scales. While the CPI went up just 0.2% between August (296.171) to September (296.808), the headline number it pushed out was double that, 0.4%, month over month. It "seasonally adjusted" the figures and made inflation look worse.
  • I-Bond Rate, 5/1/22-10/31/22
    @JD_co, for the variable part, guessing has ended today as Mar-Sep CPI data are in. The fixed part is entirely up to Treasury (Yellen) & it tracks 5-yr real rates (TIPS yields) with some lag - it was negative in Mar but is positive now (+1.8%). So, my est are for fixed range 0-1.5%.
  • I-Bond Rate, 5/1/22-10/31/22
    Bloomberg headline today mentions that the I-Bond rate could essentially fall as low as 6.47% on November 1 (as Yogi mentions), down from 9.62%. Even if they tack on another 1% or so for the fixed rate portion (so, closer to 7.5%), Series I Savings bond investors seem to be getting the short end of the stick here.
    Inflation rages, but the govt reporting is simply inaccurate. Same as (un)employment and every other metric they issue to the public.
    7.5% would not be a terrible return, but their calculation of the inflation rate is questionable at best.
  • Thoughts on Oakmark?
    Cub stink?
    Value investing covers a lot of territory if you're just going by the M* style boxes. SCHD fits their large cap value box, but that isn't what guides the strategy. Per etf.com:
    SCHD is a market-cap-weighted fund whose selection universe only includes firms with a 10-year history of paying dividends. Within that universe, SCHD uses fundamental screens (cash-flow to debt ratio, ROE, dividend yield, and dividend growth rate) to build its portfolio. The objective is to focus on quality companies with sustainable dividends. As such, this approach gives the fund a modest large cap tilt and excludes REITs entirely. Individual securities are capped at 4% and sectors capped at 25% of the portfolio.
    I'll add that they're lighter on energy companies than a lot of dividend funds.
    Read their prospectuses to see if their theses still make sense to you. Look at the companies they own to see if they make sense to you.
  • Thoughts on Oakmark?
    I owned OAKIX for years. I'm not sure you should pay any attention to my experience or opinion but since you asked . . . . That fund is exceptionally volatile. Periods of outperformance were always followed by periods of underperformance. Talk about reversion to the mean. Over the past 15 years it has delivered 2% annual returns. (Of course it's in an asset class that has similarly anemic short, medium, and long term returns.) It's awfully expensive for that level of performance. I've sort of assumed that the gold star it gets from M* has something to do with hometown bias. Having sold it all I have no regrets. I went index. That hasn't exactly boomed but at least I'm paying over 90% less in annual operating expenses.
  • What “Bubble”? ARKK closing in on 70% for one year
    Tip of the iceberg perhaps? How many zombie companies are there out there that are publically traded? Maybe 15-20% of companies? Can't service their debt? At what rates will they have to refinance? Peloton, Carvana, etc. I'd be looking for another job if I worked there.
    More to come? Meaning the downdraft? Who knows?
  • What “Bubble”? ARKK closing in on 70% for one year
    Another view of ARKK's collapse....
    image
    Scroll down to #4 in the link for more details....
    4. ARK runs aground
  • I-Bond Rate, 5/1/22-10/31/22
    September CPI was +8.2% y-o-y
    Updating calculations for unadjusted CPI,
    New fixed rate (November 1) 0-1.5% est
    New I-Bond Rate (November 1) 6.47-8.02% est