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.
  • Oakhurst Short Duration Bond and Oakhurst Short Duration High Yield Credit Funds will be liquidated
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/831114/000139834425009997/fp0093676-1_497.htm
    497 1 fp0093676-1_497.htm
    THE RBB FUND, INC.
    Oakhurst Short Duration Bond Fund
    Oakhurst Short Duration High Yield Credit Fund
    (each, a “Fund” and together, the “Funds”)
    ______________________________________________________________________________
    Supplement dated May 21, 2025
    to the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”)
    dated December 31, 2024, as supplemented
    ______________________________________________________________________________
    At a meeting of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of The RBB Fund, Inc. (the “Company”) held on May 13-14, 2025, based upon the recommendation of F/m Investments LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to the Funds, the Board approved a Plan of Liquidation and Termination for each Fund (collectively, the “Plan”). The Board determined that it is in the best interests of each Fund and its shareholders that each Fund be closed and liquidated as a series of the Company effective as of the close of business on or about July 30, 2025 (the “Liquidation Date”). The Liquidation Date may be changed without notice at the discretion of the Company’s officers.
    Effective as of May 30, 2025, in anticipation of the liquidation, each Fund will no longer accept purchases into the Fund. In addition, the Adviser is in the process of transitioning each Fund’s portfolio securities to cash and/or cash equivalents and each Fund will no longer be pursuing its stated investment objective.
    Shareholders of the Funds may redeem their investments as described in the Funds’ Prospectus. The redemption of shares will generally be considered a taxable event.
    Pursuant to the Plan, if a Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction prior to the Liquidation Date, your shares will be automatically redeemed on or about the Liquidation Date at the closing net asset value per share, and you will receive your proceeds (the “Proceeds”) from the Fund, subject to any required withholding. These Proceeds will generally be subject to federal and possibly state and local income taxes if the redeemed Fund shares are held in a taxable account, and the Proceeds exceed your adjusted basis in the Fund shares redeemed.
    If you hold shares of a Fund in an IRA account, you have 60 days from the date you receive your Proceeds from the liquidation of the Fund to reinvest or “rollover” your Proceeds into another IRA and maintain their tax-deferred status. You must notify the Funds’ transfer agent by telephone at 1-800-292-6775 (toll free) prior to the Liquidation Date of your intent to rollover your IRA account to avoid withholding deductions from your Proceeds.
    If the redeemed Fund shares are held in a qualified retirement account, such as an IRA, the redemption Proceeds may not be subject to current income taxation. You should consult with your tax advisor on the consequences of this redemption to you.
    Shareholder inquiries should be directed to the Funds at 1-800-292-6775 (toll free).
    Please retain this supplement for your reference.
  • Baillie Gifford International Smaller Companies Fund will be liquidated
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1120543/000110465925051606/tm2515610d1_497.htm
    497 1 tm2515610d1_497.htm 497
    Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
    under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
    Registration File No.: 333-200831
    BAILLIE GIFFORD FUNDS
    Baillie Gifford International Smaller Companies Fund (the “Fund”)
    Supplement dated May 21, 2025, to the Fund’s Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated April 30, 2025, as amended
    This Supplement updates and supersedes any contrary information contained in the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information.
    The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Baillie Gifford Funds (the “Trust”) has approved and adopted a Plan of Liquidation and Termination (the “Plan”) for the Fund. The Fund has ceased selling shares to new investors. The Board has determined to close the Fund and redeem all outstanding shares no later than July 21, 2025 (the “Liquidation Date”). Prior to the Liquidation Date, Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited, the Fund’s investment adviser (“BGOL”), will begin liquidation of the Fund’s investments, and shareholders who have not redeemed their shares prior to the commencement of such liquidation are expected to indirectly bear a portion of transaction costs associated with such liquidation.
    Pursuant to the Plan, the Fund will liquidate its investments and thereafter redeem all of its outstanding shares by distribution of its assets to shareholders in amounts equal to the net asset value of each shareholder’s Fund investment after the Fund has paid or provided for all of its charges, taxes, expenses, and liabilities. BGOL anticipates that the Fund’s assets will be fully liquidated, and all outstanding shares will be redeemed on or about the Fund’s Liquidation Date.
    The liquidation of the Fund will be a taxable event for shareholders holding shares through taxable accounts. A shareholder in a taxable account who receives an amount in liquidation that is in excess of the shareholder’s tax basis will realize a capital gain, and if such amount is less than the shareholder’s tax basis, a capital loss. In addition to the liquidating distribution, a separate distribution to shareholders may be required prior to the Liquidation Date to the extent the Fund has undistributed net taxable income and capital gains (including as a result of the Fund’s conversion of portfolio securities to cash in connection with the liquidation), which distribution will generally be taxable to shareholders in the same manner as an ordinary course distribution. Please refer to the sections in the Prospectus entitled “Tax” for general information. The foregoing discussion is intended for Fund shareholders who acquired their shares through the Fund’s public offering. You may wish to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation.
    Until the Liquidation Date, the Fund will be closed to all purchases except by dividend reinvestment or other automatic investment plan programs. At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may redeem their shares of the Fund, at net asset value, as described in the section in the Prospectus entitled “Shares—How to Sell Shares.” Class K or Institutional Class shareholders invested via a financial intermediary may be permitted to exchange their Fund shares for either Class K or Institutional Class shares, as the case may be, in another series of the Trust, as described in and subject to any restrictions set forth in the section in the Prospectus entitled “Restrictions on Buying or Exchanging Shares.”
    As a result of the intent to liquidate the Fund, the Fund is expected to deviate from its stated investment strategy and policy and will no longer pursue its stated investment objective. The Fund will begin liquidating its investment portfolio on or after the date of this Supplement and will hold cash and cash equivalents, such as money market funds, until all investments have been converted to cash and all shares have been redeemed. During this period, your investment in the Fund will not experience the gains (or losses) that would be typical if the Fund was still pursuing its investment objective.
    If you are invested in the Fund through a financial intermediary, please contact that financial intermediary if you have any questions.
    ANY LIQUIDATING DISTRIBUTION, WHICH MAY BE IN CASH OR CASH EQUIVALENTS EQUAL TO EACH RECORD SHAREHOLDER’S PROPORTIONATE INTEREST OF THE NET ASSETS OF THE FUND, DUE TO THE FUND’S SHAREHOLDERS WILL BE SENT TO THE FUND SHAREHOLDER’S ADDRESS OF RECORD. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR DIRECTLY OR THE FUND AT 1-844-394-6127.
    ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO THE LIQUIDATION DATE WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THAT DATE, AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OF RECORD.
    For additional information regarding the liquidation, shareholders of the Fund may call 1-844-394-6127.
    ***
    This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information and should be read in conjunction with those documents.
    PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
  • Buy Sell Why: ad infinitum.
    For now, yields on long bonds are rising quickly. 20 years treasury is being auction today with 5.0 % yield, an all time high. If the sale does not go well, it will be messy tomorrow. Bond traders are not so happy with the increased deficit from this tax cut bill. If bond market goes, so does the stock market. So we are watching closely.
    Edits: From CNBC at market close:
    The bill could increase the U.S. government's debt by trillions and raise the deficit at a time when fears of a flare-up in inflation due to Trump tariffs are already weighing on bond prices and boosting yields.
    The 30-year Treasury bond yield jumped again Wednesday to hit 5.09%, touching the highest level going back to October 2023. The benchmark 10-year Treasury note yield traded at 4.59%.

  • US Treasury Holders
    #1-Japan, #2-UK, #3-China (used to be #1). UK came up from far behind.
    LinkedIn
    image
  • Moody's Downgraded US Debt From Aaa to Aa1
    Thanks @msf.
    Yesterday, having raises my cash level recently, I moved about 50% of it into NEAR. I realize that’s not the same as cash, but willing to go out a little farther on the curve for my purposes. It’s in the Traditional IRA. Most of my trading takes place in the Roth.
    Incidentally, @msf first mentioned NEAR several months ago as a possible replacement for my Loomis Sayles fund which shuttered a while back. I did compare this choice with half dozen other short / ultra short bond funds before deciding. In the end, didn’t want a fund that includes a lot of BBB / BB rated paper in search of yield. Everything I hear is that spreads are very tight.
    Re JAAA - I’d used it as a cash sub leading up to the late March meltdown in equities. Unfortunately, just when I needed the money the most to add equities to the portfolio, JAAA took a nose dive. Lost about 0.50% in a single day. So I ended up selling it at a loss to reinvest the money into equities which were down substantially more. Lesson learned. Generally, however, JAAA is probably a decent choice for some cash.
  • Changes to Social Security Payment Schedule Will Affect Millions in May
    This info in OP link is false:
    "Starting this May, the Social Security Administration (SSA) is updating its payment schedule, and millions of Americans are going to notice the difference..."
    There is no change by SSA - the schedule is similar for 2024, 2025, 2026. The same DOB based schedule for 2nd, 3rd, 4th Wednesday applies.
  • Moody's Downgraded US Debt From Aaa to Aa1
    Credit come before debt
    Producers love credit
    Consumers love to spend / buy (especially on credit)
    Consumers get into debt
    More income is needed to service more debt
    Instead of more income, how about we create more debt?
    OK...
    This ends badly...I'm paraphrasing from Ray Dalio's interview below:

    Ray's 3% Solution:
    ray-dalios-3-prescription-blueprint-us-fiscal-revival
  • Reality Check 2 - Interesting Inflation Calculator
    This inflation issue has been tossed around (flogged to death) repeatedly here and at FA and everywhere else over the years.
    Some believe the govt. numbers adequately reflect inflation. Many dispute them. There are many variables that enter in. What state / city do you live in? How old are you? Home owner or renter? Taxes where you reside. Even the “official” CPI has undergone revision over the years. So, I was simply trying to get a rough idea of how far a dollar might go today vs 25 years ago. Nothing precise necessary. Just a rough idea. All inflation calculators are valuable and welcome here if people want to share others.
    As I said earlier, our lifestyles are much different today than 25 years ago. Cars and homes today are loaded with electronics that didn’t exist 25 years ago. Think what that does to automobile repair / replacement costs and insurance rates. So, even the “same” purchasing power you had 25 years ago may not afford you the “same” lifestyle in today’s world.
    Try to find a new or used car today without airbags, rear view camera, side-view mirrors or air conditioning.
  • Changes to Social Security Payment Schedule Will Affect Millions in May
    It's clear that info in the OP link isn't correct. SSA website publishes SSA payment calendar on the 1st of the prior year, and there hasn't been any changes to that (2024, 2025, 2026 calendars).
    https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/calendar.htm
    Then, I searched the web for what could cause the confusion and here is what I found:
    1. SSA payments are on 2nd, 3rd, 4th Wednesdays of the month. But the 2nd Wednesday in May 2025 is farther out (14th) than the typical 2nd Wednesday. So, people may feel that SSA payments are delayed, but are not.
    2. Some get SSA and SSI, so 2 checks in a month. But SSI calendar makes 2 payments in May 2025, none in June 2025. So, some people may get 3 SSA checks in May 2025, only 1 in June 2025.
    So, those are the details of why May 2025 is in the news, but details sometimes get lost in headlines. Be aware that authors don't write final headlines, editors do.
  • Moody's Downgraded US Debt From Aaa to Aa1
    Gosh, so many reasons. But what was posed was a rhetorical question not really seeking an answer. So I'll offer just one of many reasons.
    Many institutions have (or had) a rule that they could only invest in securities rated AAA by at least two of the big three NRSROs. A downgrade by one wouldn't have triggered this rule.
    If you're really interested in some of these rules, here's one place to start (Pace University Security Law Research Guide):
    https://libraryguides.law.pace.edu/c.php?g=319368&p=2133759
    Now go forth and learn.
  • Tariffs
    You omitted a link to the May 18 post you quoted, here it is:
    https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/deindustrialization-causes-and-consequences
    What I'm assuming is that Krugman meant something. You might have stopped with "hard to tell exactly what".
    Here's the fuller context of the sentence (or phrase) in question:
    A century and a half ago, despite the growth of manufacturing, America was still largely a nation of farmers. Today hardly any of us work on the land:
    image
    Oh, and many, possibly a majority of farm workers are foreign-born, and many of them undocumented.
    Although some politicians still portray rural areas and small towns as the “real America,” you don’t hear a lot of nostalgia for the days when agriculture dominated American employment. (If you ask me, Queens, New York comes a lot closer to being who we are now.)
    ISTM he's writing about rural vs. urban and foreign-born vs. home-grown. And percentage of people working on farms.
    I addressed the foreign vs native, albeit somewhat indirectly. For completeness, let me address the other two metrics. Farming? The only (semi) active farm in Queens is the Queens County Farm Museum. The land, all 47 acres of it, is owned by NYC. I feel confident that far fewer than 1% of Queens residents farm that land (that would be over 20,000 workers). So Queens is not representative of agricultural employment in the US. I doubt anyone would suggest otherwise.
    "But there was active farm life in Queens until at least 1910," he said. "The museum is the last existing example of agricultural life in Queens."
    The museum site operated as a truck farm from 1850 to 1910. The produce was grown specifically for markets in Manhattan. Crops are still to be found growing on the farm, but now the site is used mostly for educational purposes.
    https://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/06/nyregion/playing-in-the-neighborhood-floral-park-down-on-the-farm-in-the-big-city.html
    Rural vs. urban? Queens has long been known as the bedroom borough of NYC. That's meant as a put down. But it does mean that Queens does not fit the urban image that many people have of NYC. Why it even has a farm :-)
    Still, in terms of population, it is far more densely populated than the typical county in the US. Here's a 2010 population density map:
    https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/thematic/us_popdensity_2010map.pdf
    If you squint very hard, you'll see a few counties that are colored deep purple (2,000 or more people per square mile). Queens has ten times that (22,000). Despite its "bedroom" reputation, Queens is far more urban than is the US generally (who we are).
    One aspect of Queens that is close to who we are now is its household income. The Census Bureau estimates the median household income in the US in 2022 at $77.5K. The figure it gives for Queens based on its five year American Community Survey ending in 2022 is $82.4K. While an economist might be very likely to think in terms of numbers like these, this statistic does not fit into the subject matter of his post.
    So what do you think Krugman meant by "who we are now"? What metric did his writing communicate to you?
  • Reality Check 2 - Interesting Inflation Calculator
    Hi @WABAC
    Thanks for the site. But, I don't care for the wording for an answer.
    $1,000 in 2000 'has the same buying power' as $1,900 has in 2025.
    Very misleading IMHO.
    The real close answer with proper wording is that $1,000 in the year 2000 would require $1,900 in the year 2025 for similar purchasing power. A CPI of about 86% for the time period.
    I suppose this should be expected from some functions of the government.
    I imagine we should take advantage right now of all things government, cause we surely don't know what their functions will be in the future.
  • Reality Check 2 - Interesting Inflation Calculator
    Side note: I traveled round trip from NYC to Luxembourg for $400 in 1973. I don't how that compares to prices today; but that was a hell of a lot of money at the time. And as you note, market places vary a lot depending on the product or service.
    It's a little unfair to compare 1973 airline prices with ones today. The industry deregulated in 1978 and prices, um, crashed. It's sort of like comparing brokerage prices in 1973 with ones in the 1990s, with deregulation starting in 1975.
    It used to be that you could get a nice steak and a comfortable seat in economy, even shortly post deregulation. Now you're crammed into a seat so tight that the government has looked into it as a safety hazard.
    https://www.popsci.com/science/why-are-airline-seats-so-small/ (starting in 1978)
    It used to be that you could talk with a broker, get help with transactions, phone in a trade (heck, just get a phone call answered, cf Vanguard). Now it's all DIY.
  • Reality check (closed, this has sort of run its course)
    “ … the only investment site I’ve seen where political posts—by a huge margin from one side of the aisle—have hijacked the conversation and driven incivility to the forefront.”
    @FD1000 - I just counted the threads directly under this one and saw 15 consecutive ones that focus entirely on investment related topics. While there was a period following the Inauguration when I’d have agreed to some extent with your assessment, that is no longer the case.
    Civility? I don’t read the off-topic section anymore and try to skip political posts on this side of the board, so can’t comment. But all of the investing threads (the vast majority of threads now) sound civil to me.
    My advice to @FD: ”When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!”
    And also, “Become a part of the change you seek to bring about.
  • MMNIX - Miller Market Neutral Income Fund
    Here's another theory. Lipper data is stale.
    I went back and checked old docs. While the May 1, 2025 prospectus (and Schwab and Fidelity) report ERs of 1.61 (gross) and 1.30 (net), the May 1, 2024 prospectus reports ERs of 4.24% (gross) and 3.78% (net). It looks like this old prospectus is where Lipper got its 3.78% figure.
    Regarding M*, in addition to reporting an adjusted ER of 1.26% as you described (i.e. excluding leverage/shorting costs), M* reports an "unadulterated" ER of 3.55%.
    According to M*, that figure comes straight from the 2024 annual report.
    Morningstar does not calculate fund expense ratios. The figure is culled directly from the financial section of the most recent annual shareholder report."
    https://awgmain.morningstar.com/webhelp/glossary_definitions/va_vl/Fund_Expense_Ratio.html
    There are multiple errors here. The first is mine - I misread the Dec 2024 annual report., quoting the ER for open (retail) shares, not institutional shares (LEOIX). The other errors are Lazard's.
    According to this excerpt of the annual report for LEOIX, the 2024 annual costs were 3.52%. But in the more detailed financial tables, on p. 48, Lazard reports the net expense ratio as 3.55%. So that's where M* got this figure.
    Lazard also misreported the NAV of LEOIX for several days in 1Q25.
    https://www.lazardassetmanagement.com/content/dam/lazard-asset-management/lmap-documents/257770/LazardEnhancedOpportunitiesPortfolioReprocessingLetter.pdf
  • Reality Check 2 - Interesting Inflation Calculator
    Results of the 2 calculators seem pretty close. Thanks Catch. Were I to believe this nonsense, my accrued savings / investments are worth more in buying power today than when I retired 25+ years ago, despite generous withdrawals for all sorts of things over that time.
    No way, Jose!
    Some thoughts why one might feel poorer today than 25 years ago despite having the equivalent amount of “purchasing power”
    - Look at the quality of and features on new cars today compared to 1998. In the case of trucks, a late 90s pickup bears little resemblance to the big rigs of today. My last 2 new cars had limited self-driving features, anti-collision systems, larger wheels & tires than common 25 years ago for better driving. Plus much more in the way of entertainment / navigation features.
    - The cost for the data we consume today for streaming video, audio, cellphones and the like. Few possessed cellphones or internet connectivity in the 90s.
    - We take air travel for granted today. In the 90s air travel was more limited. There were fare wars as I recall that kept costs lower. (I actually date back to before wheeled luggage appeared. We carried our hefty luggage!)
  • Private-Equity Wants a Piece of Your 401(k)
    Jeffrey Ptak from M* discovered that the Redwood Private Real Estate Debt interval fund
    recorded a loss on just three days since its June 2023 inception.
    This fund gained 7.2% a year from 07/01/2023 - 04/30/2025 with a standard deviation of just 0.5%!
    Only thirteen OEFs/ETFs had a higher Sharpe Ratio (4.0) over this time period.
    As it turns out, seven other interval funds (out of 79 total) delivered a higher Sharpe Ratio
    than the Redwood fund during the same period.
    Are some interval funds too good to be true?
    Caveat emptor!
    https://jeffreyptak.substack.com/p/what-new-sorcery-is-this
  • MMNIX - Miller Market Neutral Income Fund
    Along a different vein, ISTM that when it comes to “funds of funds” M* reports the fees differently for CEFs than for ETFs or OEFs. FOF, a CEF that invests in other CEFs has only a 0.95% ER at M*. That very unlikely does not include the fees of the underlying funds.
    Now look at what happens with ETFs or OEFs that invest in CEFs. Both have the misfortune of M* including underlying fund fees in their ER leading to negative ratings.
    Sabra’s CEFS - ER from M* 3.46% leading to a negative rating
    MDFIX (mentioned in this week’s Barron’s) - ER from M* 3.33% - also a negative rating
    In the later two the underlying funds’ fees count towards the fund’s ER. But in the first instance I don’t believe those underlying fees are included.