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.
  • BHB Management to meet w/Piper Sandler
    Next day, now. No reply. (21st March, 2023.).....Already 7:23 p.m. in the East.
  • Don't believe --- Bruce Fund
    I hold Bruce, too, in wife's T-IRA.
    WSJ website reports for 2022:
    Income distrib. $13.09
    CG. $58.66
    Thanks for the heads-up.
    Yes, over the longer-term, Bruce has served us very well.
  • Janet Yellen to Reassure Bankers
    NO BANK is totally immune to a run in deposits. It's simply the innate nature of the beast. It's a bug, not a feature, and this is not a secret.
    From Matt Levine, in his Bloomberg Money Stuff column:

    Banking is a confidence trick. You put money in the bank today because you are confident you can take it out tomorrow; to you, a dollar that you have deposited in the bank is just as good — just as much money — as a dollar bill in your wallet. If you show up at the ATM at any time of day or night, you expect it to give you your dollars.
    But the bank doesn’t just put your dollars in a box and wait for you to take them out; the bank uses its depositors’ money to make loans or buy bonds, and just keeps a little bit around for people who need cash. If everyone asked for their money back tomorrow, the bank wouldn’t have it.
    But everyone is confident that, if they ask for their money back tomorrow, the bank will have it. So they mostly don’t ask for it, so when they do, the bank does have it. The widespread belief that banks have the money is what makes it true.
    This is obvious stuff. Also obvious, and famous, is that it is an unstable equilibrium. If people stop believing it, it stops being true. If everyone stops believing in a bank, they will all rush to get their money out, and the bank won’t have it, and their lack of belief will be retrospectively justified. Whereas if they had kept believing, their belief would also have been justified.
    Isn’t this ridiculous? But there is a deep social purpose to the confidence trick. Banking is a way for people collectively to make long-term, risky bets without noticing them, a way to pool risks so that everyone is safer and better-off.
    You and I put our money in the bank because it is “money in the bank,” it is very safe, and we can use it tomorrow to pay rent or buy a sandwich. And then the bank goes around making 30-year fixed-rate mortgage loans: Homeowners could never borrow money from me for 30 years, because I might need the money for a sandwich tomorrow, but they can borrow from us collectively because the bank has diversified that liquidity risk among lots of depositors.
    Or the bank makes small-business loans to businesses that might go bankrupt: Those businesses could never borrow from me, because I need the money and don’t want to take the risk of losing it, but they can borrow from us collectively because the bank has diversified that credit risk among lots of depositors and also lots of borrowers.
    But the basic problem remains: the confidence trick, where trust in banks makes them trustworthy and distrust in banks makes them fail.
    Bankers and bank regulators tend not to talk in these terms... because talking about it ruins the magic. But they know it in their bones; at a deep level they understand that preserving that confidence is their most important job.
    More specifically they know that if there is a run on a bank, and that bank goes bust and doesn’t pay depositors, then there will be a run on other banks. And they know that the run can start with a bank that is bad, that is undercapitalized and made poor decisions and in some sense deserves to fail, but that it can spread to other banks that are good.
    And they know that “good” and “bad” are not really the things that matter: What makes a bank good is not just its capital ratios and liquidity position but also confidence, and however good the ratios it is hard for a bank to survive a loss of confidence. They know that they are all interconnected, that they are players in an essentially social game, and that the goal of the game is not to win but to keep playing.
    The above are edited excerpts from Matt Levine's Money Stuff column of March 17, 2023. Text emphasis has been added.
  • Don't believe --- Bruce Fund
    From @NumbersGal linked article:
    Bruce Fund (BRUFX)
    Inception date: 3/20/1968
    Capital gain in 2022: 58.7%
    This fund invests in domestic stocks and bonds, along with zero-coupon government bonds. It currently has about $505 million in assets, and its price declined 20% last year. With a current NAV of $520, an investor with 10 shares worth would have a capital gains bill of about $3,100 to then pay taxes on.
    Per M*:
    BRUFX had a loss of (8.76%) while the Category average was a loss of (14.96%).
    NAV can be impacted by distributions. BRUFX distributed both LT gains and a dividend but $3100 on 10 shares? This article seems a bit off. More Like $1000 on 10 shares. Maybe the author is a ChatGPT 'bot?
    Interestingly, the last time BRUFX had an NAV of $520 (aside from the COVID hiccup) was 2/4/2019. Yesterday its NAV was $520, but had you owed the fund over that time period you would have gained almost 35%. I personally own this fund in an HSA so I pay no taxes on these gains.
    image
    BRUFX, long term, has been berry berry good to me.
    image
  • Morningstar charts not working
    @sma3 - LINK (Direct link to the IOS / Portfolio Trader Stock Tracker website.)
    Also, here’s a link to a MFO Discussion last June after M* announced an end to the free tracker.
    In my second comment beginning “Not a website. But $1.99 a month gets you a fantastic tracker …” I described the tracker. Further into the discussion some were having trouble locating it (some had the wrong app) and I tried to further describe it.
    So after 8+ months I’m still in awe. It’s never failed to produce accurate up to date pricing. The colorful pie-charts it automatically produces allow 2 different way to look at allocations - in numbers or percentages (just tap the screen). I’ll say it is a “pistol” to learn. As I mentioned in one post, I spent several hours one weekend playing around with it before inputting real data. It would be easy to get discouraged and give up.
    A glimpse into how I use it: I have 4 overall sleeves - Growth, Income, Alternatives, Hedges. Each sleeve appears in aggregate on a combined pie chart w / % or sum. Then each of those subsets has its own pie chart which is further broken down into the funds or stocks held inside. Have only sent off 1 question to support. It came back within 24 hours with actually more information than requested. One more nice feature is that it automatically syncs across all your IOS devices. Password protected of course.
  • Don't believe --- Bruce Fund
    A new article at https://www.fa-mag.com/news/you-re-facing-a-big-tax-bill-if-you-hold-these-mutual-funds-72481.html, which claims the data is from Bloomberg and Morningstar, alleges that the Bruce fund had a 58.70% capital gains distribution in 2022 ---- in fact it was $58.70
  • Janet Yellen to Reassure Bankers
    Story
    (Or as FDR put it, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself ...”)
  • PIMCO and Invesco Among Biggest Losers in Credit Suisse AT1 Bond Write Down
    Well, JPM has but people say that's "because" it may hold some AT1/CoCo bonds itself. Of course, we have the hindsight-wiser Gundlach/DL saying that investors should have known (about how the Swiss FINMA would act?).
    https://twitter.com/jeuasommenulle/status/1638095409678540800
  • PIMCO and Invesco Among Biggest Losers in Credit Suisse AT1 Bond Write Down
    Isn't it odd for bond holders to take the shellacking before stock holders?
    EU and England react: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/20/17-billion-of-credit-suisse-bonds-worthless-following-ubs-takeover.html
    “In particular, common equity instruments are the first ones to absorb losses, and only after their full use would Additional Tier 1 be required to be written down. This approach has been consistently applied in past cases and will continue to guide the actions of the SRB [Single Resolution Board] and ECB [European Central Bank] banking supervision in crisis interventions,” their statement read.
    And
    The Bank of England has also distanced itself from FINMA’s decision, stating that the U.K. “has a clear statutory order” detailing which shareholders and creditors were expected to take on losses. AT1 bonds “rank ahead” of equity investments, the statement noted, adding that they had followed this process in the unwinding of SVB UK.
    Haven't seen any comments from our side of the globe.
  • PIMCO and Invesco Among Biggest Losers in Credit Suisse AT1 Bond Write Down
    I don't think that AT1 or CoCo bonds are approved by the SEC for the US market. Any regular Credit Suisse bonds would now be the responsibility of UBS. Of course, selling them before maturity could be a problem right now.
    A guy on the Fidelity Investor Community (a closed/private group) had a similar question about the Credit Suisse Notes he/she bought through Fidelity. I responded with a similar comment.
  • PIMCO and Invesco Among Biggest Losers in Credit Suisse AT1 Bond Write Down
    I am not sure that lawsuits will help. These bonds did have a clause that the Swiss FINMA could declare a credit-event and that decision will be irrevocable. But nobody thought that FINMA will do that for political convenience. I have read that Swiss did it to keep some if its Middle Eastern investors happy, but they won't be with 80-90% equity losses (some bought into, or added to, Credit Suisse just in Fall 2022). Remember, Saudis were even approached this time for a further rescue of Credit Suisse, but their very strong NO may have added to problems (in fairness to them, Saudis didn't want to go over 10% and then face lots of regulatory headaches). But in the process, the Swiss really made everybody unhappy - not only the AT1/CoCo bond holders, but the EU, the UK, and some US investors.
  • PIMCO and Invesco Among Biggest Losers in Credit Suisse AT1 Bond Write Down
    +1 Invesco bought Oppenheimer several years ago. Some of the excessive risk taking in fixed income appears to have come along for the ride. Relieved to have so little with them at this point. Suspect one fund I still own may have been adversely affected. A year ago it surely would have hurt quite a bit more. Hope somebody publishes a list of which specific funds got hammered / degree of exposure each had to these ”idiot bonds.”
    I’ve added a story to the OP which cites Lazard and Fidelity among those with substantial holdings in these bonds.
  • PIMCO and Invesco Among Biggest Losers in Credit Suisse AT1 Bond Write Down
    Swiss regulator FINMA declared a credit-event during the negotiations to trigger default of AT1/CoCo (contingent-convertible) bonds that are AHEAD of common stock in the capital structure. The rescue left some residual equity.
    That of course, caused a selloff in ALL CoCo bonds in Europe.
    The EU - ECB, SRB, EBA issued statements that what happened in Switzerland CANNOT happen in the EU (meaning that in the EU, the equity must be wiped out first, and then only the AT1/CoCo bonds). The BOE also issued a similar statement for the UK. But damage has been done to this CoCo class of bonds.
    Jeffery Gundlach of DoubleLine wasn't into these bonds and tweeted LINK (with great hindsight):
    "Jeffrey Gundlach
    @TruthGundlach
    ·
    Mar 19
    Bloomberg reports the gunslingers who foolishly kept holding Credit Suisse’s bail-in bonds are angry they are being wiped out. Seriously? Put on your big boy pants and look in the mirror. That’s where the “blame” lies. Learn how to manage risk!"
  • PIMCO and Invesco Among Biggest Losers in Credit Suisse AT1 Bond Write Down
    ”Pacific Investment Management Co. and Invesco Ltd. are among the largest holders of Credit Suisse’s so-called Additional Tier 1 bonds that have been wiped out after the bank’s takeover by UBS Group AG.”
    Bloomberg
    Related Story
    This Story lists Lazard and Fidelity as also having large stakes in Credit Suissie AT1 bonds
  • U.S. lawmakers to examine merits of higher FDIC bank deposit insurance cap
    ”Four prominent U.S. lawmakers on banking matters said on Sunday they would consider whether a higher federal insurance limit on bank deposits was needed to stem a financial crisis marked by a drain of large, uninsured deposits away from smaller and regional banks.”
    Story
    Bloomberg is reporting this evening that Fed officials are also actively considering a plan to extend FDIC insurance to all bank account balances, regardless of amount. And there was one report on Bloomberg that money has now begun fleeing the largest banks. Where will all this end?
    Shelia Bair Weighs in
  • Just noticing such tremendous VOLATILITY in the Markets, "that is all."
    @Old_Joe. My car style is to buy minimalistic cars and keep them forever. We sail a 1999 boat as well. So my habit is to check fluids every time we take her out and the cars on Sunday. Just an old habit. So when we got the car to replace the totaled one I checked it on the next Sunday. The coolant tank was dry and the oil didn’t look clean. I escalated my concern with the manufacturer and at the dealership and documented the empty tank with pix. Eventually the owner said they would run a whole new certification and three engine tests. The compression was low and I said I wanted a refund. By this time we had the car for a month. The owner immediately said yes,,,, I think to avoid bad publicity. But I really had to grind to get the tests.
  • Polen Global Emerging Markets Growth Fund changes
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1388485/000182912623002136/polenemerging_497.htm
    One of the changes to the fund is name:
    Effective March 13, 2023, the Fund’s name was changed from “Polen Global Emerging Markets Growth Fund” to “Polen Emerging Markets Growth Fund” and all references in the Prospectus and SAI are hereby changed to the new name as of that date. There have been no changes to the Fund’s investment objective or principal investment strategies in connection with the name change.
  • Just noticing such tremendous VOLATILITY in the Markets, "that is all."
    I like to sleep well at night. 10 years in bucket #1 is the best sleeping aid.
    My allocation model is so fragmented & complicated that I fall asleep at night just trying to figure it all out.
    Great sleep inducer.
    I’ve been burned more than once on used cars, Usually buy new. Then I know what I’m getting. There’s an old expression that when you buy used you’re “Buying somebody else’s problems.”