@Derf "I believe IRA's are not eligible for credit or deductions for foreign taxes paid on Fed taxes. That's why I'm moving to taxable account. Correct me if I'm wrong."
You are correct. Brokerage 1099s usually show foreign taxes paid (there are some peculiar exceptions at Vanguard), so in a taxable account you can claim a credit. Not in IRAs. Hence, I always keep foreign dividend payers in taxable.
Note however that Canada is an exception. There is a US-Canada agreement in place so that Canadian assets held in US IRAs are exempt from tax withholding:
https://www.suredividend.com/canadian-taxes-us-investors/#retirementaccounts
"… the 15% withholding tax that is normally imposed by the Canada Revenue Agency is waived when Canadian securities are held within U.S. retirement accounts. This is an important component of the U.S.-Canada tax treaty ..."
See discussion here:
https://big-bang-investors.proboards.com/post/39582/thread

A quick look at GRID (First Trust Clean Edge®Smart Grid Infrastructure ETF) shows 17% utilities as well as many industrial and tech companies that stand to benefit from what Giroux is talking about, namely the conversion to green energy. GRID does not hold New Era, but it does hold a number of overseas utilities as part of the fund's some 47% allocation to ex-US firms. PRWCX has no more than 4% non-US, so I assume Giroux is talking about finding value in US utilities.

Hank is right in drawing a distinction between the years up to the mid 90s and the time since then. Though I would say that the key difference between then and now is regulation.
Utilities were heavily regulated, vertically integrated companies. Electric utility companies combined power generation with transmission and distribution. Ma Bell designed its own equipment (Bell Labs) and manufactured it (Western Electric) under the 1956 consent decree.
Under regulation, utility companies were granted monopolies and guaranteed a fair rate of return. They were cash cows, very much like bonds with steady payments.

[Through the early 1990s] most public utilities were regulated monopolies. They were guaranteed a fair rate of return, based on their capital investment and costs. ...
in the old days of regulation, a utility like Con Ed would be required to regularly submit a resource plan to a state's public service commission. The two organizations would forecast demand and decide how much money should be invested in power plants and transmission lines. Rates would be adjusted to cover costs. Under deregulation, however, nobody plays that crucial planning role.

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/16/opinion/the-day-the-lights-went-out-an-industry-trapped-by-a-theory.html

Point taken @FD1000. You have said that your timing method isn't for everyone. That is true. And you have said that most should be diversified. But that begs the question, why do you keep posting about your system and trumpeting the great results you have achieved if the majority will lose money with timing. Are you trying to sway them to try when most will lose. Or, are you self-promoting? I have no doubt it works for a small minority. But the majority will never get it right.
Some of your advice is cookie-cutter good. Some, I'm not so sure.

MikeM, please reread my post, I didn't mention or promoted my system.
This site is about all kind of investors. From cookie cutter to advance. From very conservative to all stocks with different goals.
What you or I think is good, others don't agree so much.
2 Easy examples:
1) If you ask Buffet what stocks you should hold, he will say you just the SP500. Ask 100 financial advisers and none will tell you it's correct. Ask posters on this site and none will say, only the SP500.
2) Tell 100 financial advisers that you hold over 40% of your equities in Apple and they will tell you, it's unacceptable. This is what Buffet holds.

I don't know. If there is a bond fund that returned 7.84 over the last 15 years, and 10% over the last three years, like FSUTX has, I'ld like to know the name of it.

Trading is for a small % who can do it with reasonable success. But, the following MAY work for retirees who have enough and don't want to lose much. They don't care about performance, they care a lot more about NOT losing money.

Point taken @FD1000. You have said that your timing method isn't for everyone. That is true. And you have said that most should be diversified. But that begs the question, why do you keep posting about your system and trumpeting the great results you have achieved if the majority will lose money with timing. Are you trying to sway them to try when most will lose. Or, are you self-promoting? I have no doubt it works for a small minority. But the majority will never get it right.
Some of your advice is cookie-cutter good. Some, I'm not so sure.

Mark +1

Some really good discussion here. A couple comments:
@FD1000,

So, just my opinion, good timing/trading is the only choice IF you can do it.

You are always self promoting this option. Fact is, 90% of every-day investors that try timing methods actually end up with less return over time. That is pretty well documented. Lots of people "think" they can do it, at least initially, but I contend there is a very small minority that actually benefit. I'd be the first to say it hasn't worked for me.
@fred495, @Observant1

...This fund (JHQAX) seems to offer appealing risk/reward characteristics and it's less expensive than many "alt" funds.

JHQAX has successfully proven its mettle over the past 9 years by "providing smoother returns by tempering downside and upside returns via a systematically implemented options strategy".

I'm definitely on the same page as you guys. I don't expect it to make the same return over 10 years as say the S&P 500, but you can say the same for most balanced, allocation or bond funds too. At my age, a smoother contributor in a portfolio with good upside/downside risk stats is valued.

Well, if you read my posts, I said the following hundred of times. Most should own a limited number of funds (mostly in indexes and low ER) based on their risk and goals and hardy trade. Trading is for a small % who can do it with reasonable success. But, the following MAY work for retirees who have enough and don't want to lose much. They don't care about performance, they care a lot more about NOT losing money.
BTW, I never said that JHQAX isn't a good idea. As always the whole portfolio matters more than one fund. Example: suppose someone has 5 funds, each at 20%, he/she can own 20% in JHQAX per their EXPLORE portion.
Basically, there are all kinds of investors, there is no one size fits all. Someone can use one of the following lazy portfolios(link), do nothing for decades and stop reading everything about investing.
This site and other investment sites, in contradiction to the Boglehead, are about thinking about other choices.

Taking the new thread for a spin . . .
My foray into T-Bills came due today in the IRA. Used the proceeds to top off PRWCX and open a position in FBALX. I already have VWINX and VWELX covering the longer side of duration. These positions are now roughly equal in size.
FBALX is the new ornament on the retirement tree. I said I would be trimming, and I will. I am looking forward to just a little bit more cooperation from GISYX at 1.04% of the portfolio. Proceeds will likely be split between IYK and PSCC.

Some really good discussion here. A couple comments:
@FD1000,

So, just my opinion, good timing/trading is the only choice IF you can do it.

You are always self promoting this option. Fact is, 90% of every-day investors that try timing methods actually end up with less return over time. That is pretty well documented. Lots of people "think" they can do it, at least initially, but I contend there is a very small minority that actually benefit. I'd be the first to say it hasn't worked for me.
@fred495, @Observant1

...This fund (JHQAX) seems to offer appealing risk/reward characteristics and it's less expensive than many "alt" funds.

JHQAX has successfully proven its mettle over the past 9 years by "providing smoother returns by tempering downside and upside returns via a systematically implemented options strategy".

I'm definitely on the same page as you guys. I don't expect it to make the same return over 10 years as say the S&P 500, but you can say the same for most balanced, allocation or bond funds too. At my age, a smoother contributor in a portfolio with good upside/downside risk stats is valued.

Charles Lynn Bolin does an excellent job explaining risk/volatility/unique funds and how to build a portfolio. If you pay attention, it's not static, his view keeps changing because markets keep changing. See below 2 good examples:
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2022/10/shining-the-light-into-black-box-funds/
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2023/03/to-sell-or-not-to-sell-remix-pqtax-gpanx-cotzx/
BTW, 2022 was one of the easiest years to time markets = sell a big % to MM. We had High inflation, high prices (gas, oil, food, housing, vehicles), terrible supply chain issues around the world, and war in Europe. The Fed screams it will raise rates by several % in the coming months. Lastly, both bond+stock funds go down slowly for weeks letting you sell.

AAII Sentiment Survey, 7/19/23
Bullish remained the top sentiment (51.4%; high) & bearish remained the bottom sentiment (21.5%; low); neutral remained the middle sentiment (27.1%; below average); Bull-Bear Spread was +29.9% (high; the highest since 4-8-21). Investor concerns: Inflation (moderating but high); economy; the Fed; dollar; crypto regulations; market volatility (VIX, VXN, MOVE); Russia-Ukraine war (73+ weeks, 2/24/22-now); geopolitical. For the Survey week (Th-Wed), stocks were up, bonds up, oil down, gold up, dollar down. This stock rally continues towards new highs. The Fed will hike rates by +25 bps on Wednesday next week. #AAII #Sentiment #Markets
LINK

"It’s about being able to stay near fully invested - even at an advanced age - and doing better than you would if parked 100% in cash (or cash-like investments)"
You are now going to the other extreme of only cash. There is a lot going on between 0% to 100% stocks. Your goal is to stay invested, my goal is different.
Let's explore several questions
1) How comfortable are you with JHQAX? The following question is the most revealing, what % are you going to invest in JHQAX for the next 20 years? I have more confidence investing in 50/50 PRWCX/VWIAX for many retirees that it meets their goals. In fact, I don't even trust PRWCX, because I don't know how long Giroux will be in charge. This is why my wife has instructions to invest in 3 funds if I'm gone, 2 indexes and VWIAX because I can trust them for decades.
2) You made a good observation, DODBX lost 33% in 2008. But why stop there, stocks+bonds lost over 15% at the bottom of 2022, and many lost over 10% by year-end. In 03/2020, many bond funds lost 10% and stocks over 30% at the bottom. Are you going to get rid of all of them?
3) You made another good point "the various approaches attempted by funds are unpredictable "
Bingo. and why I research it for many years. I talked to many people, especially investors who have enough, and most told me they don't want to ever lose more than 10% from any last top, but they still want their portfolio to make a decent return. They must give up either performance or lower risk.
So, just my opinion, good timing/trading is the only choice IF you can do it. Timing doesn't have to be all or none, you can trade 20-30-50%. BTW, I'm almost sure that Fred was probably in high % in MM for months, just like I did in 2022. When markets don't make sense, I'm out. I don't trust any funds/managers and I don't believe in relative performance, only absolute. If 50/50 PRWCX/VWIAX lost about 10-11% in 2022, it doesn't comfort me compared to -18% for SPY. I don't tolerate this decline.
Another subject we must discuss is how much you have in retirement and let's assume no pension. Smaller portfolios must be at a higher % in stocks to survive. WTF portfolio can be in 20/80 to 80/20. The biggest problem is in the middle.

Not to digress, active JHQAX had very low distributions but decent portfolio turnover (44% as of 6/30/22 per M*). Distributions shown in M* from 2019 onwards show no year end distributions - I think partly because there were no meaningful redemptions /withdrawals prior to 2022. Some of the otherwise distributable monies are absorbed by the ER (reasonable) and hedging costs, resulting in low distributions per year. There were meaningful redemptions in 2022 but no cap gain distributions, showing the fund kept an eye on tax efficiency.
Having said that I would be cautious against holding this in a taxable account. 2022 distributions of JHDAX is illustrative of the potential for cap gain distributions.

If there was a “sure” way to make even a penny profit on a trade with 0 risk of loss, people would scale in. (So there isn’t.)
Closest to this I’ve ever achieved was an apparently defective slot machine years ago while visiting a casino with relatives. It actually was consistently paying out a quarter for every 15 or 20 cents cents put in. Played maybe 30 minutes and probably walked away with $3-$4 gain. I’d have stayed longer, but the rest of the group couldn’t see the merit of this exercise and so we moved on.
However, the schemes outlined by Old Joe and msf certainly sound like hedging taken to the extreme.

These may be the first ETFs to wrap this sort of strategy, but vehicles using it have been around "forever". See, e.g. principal protected notes, market linked CDs, indexed annuities, etc.
The particular strategy you described (provide protection via Treasuries, purchase at-the-money call options) is one way of structuring investments. This ETF uses a slightly different strategy (see pp. 19 et seq. in the prospectus).
It purchases at-the-money call and put options and sells an out-of-the-money put option to raise some cash. The put option provides protection against the market declining. The call option purchased provides market exposure for a 100% participation rate. The call option sold creates a cap - if the market goes up higher than the strike price, the buyer of the call will exercise, thus limiting the fund's upside potential.
This variant is independent of interest rates. It should work in ZIRP.
As the Bloomberg piece intimates, a "buffer"ed vehicle does not get 100% protection. (See the principal protected note link above for more on buffers.) So calling this first ETF a "buffer" ETF is somewhat of a misnomer. It does suggest that subsequent ETFs will not have 100% principal protection.

Well said @fred495 -
To me it’s all about doing better than cash over the short-intermediate term (approximately 3 years) with a risk profile you can tolerate. It’s not about beating the market or beating @FD1000 - or beating anyone else. It’s not a game. It’s about being able to stay near fully invested - even at an advanced age - and doing better than you would if parked 100% in cash (or cash-like investments). Why bother? Because inflation is unpredictable. Investing in something beyond “0 risk” cash is one way of hedging against an unknown rate of inflation.
All the criticisms of hedging are true. It does cost more and it does detract from your total return. And the various approaches attempted by funds are unpredictable … You think a balanced fund is more predictable? DODBX fell over 33% in 2008.
My purpose in posting wasn’t to find out whether you can make more money by hedging (You can’t). I just wanted to pick people’s brains about whether they ever engage in the practice and, if so, how they go about it. Thanks to all who offered an opinion.

I've noticed JHQAX (several others mentioned it) a while ago.
This fund seems to offer appealing risk/reward characteristics and it's less expensive than many "alt" funds.

And, JHQAX has successfully proven its mettle over the past 9 years by "providing smoother returns by tempering downside and upside returns via a systematically implemented options strategy".
Of course, it obviously all depends on your personal goals. At this stage of my life, I prefer to err on the side of caution since I don't need a lot more money.
Hence, I prefer to invest in a fund like JHQAX which had a total return of 8.2%, and a modest standard deviation of 8.6%, over the past 5 years. Whereas SPY, for example, gained 12.2%, but had a significantly higher standard deviation of 18.7%.
I find that sleeping well at night is more important to my wellbeing than making a lot of money.
Fred

Unfortunately M* has been off for years about PIMIX. I downloaded the last PIMCO+Bond+Stats+2023+06.xlsx from Pimco.
M* uses all the SEC filing information to present exposure by asset class. PIMCO mechanically sums market value figures, disregarding the effect of derivatives. Of course these figures don't match. One set informs investors about how the fund behaves (which is the theme running through this thead), the other is a pro forma summation.
The significance of this distinction can be seen easily using DSENX as a model. This fund uses nearly all its cash to purchase bonds (100% fixed income exposure), and then for next to nothing buys derivative exposure to the CAPE index (100% equity exposure). Cash exposure is thus -100%. The prospectus explains this and M* shows the fund to have approximately these exposures.
DSENX filings show that about 97% of the fund consists of fixed income, and 0% is equity. Those market value (MV) figures are accurate, just as the MV figures for PIMIX given in a post above are accurate. And they're all misleading.
No one thinks of DSENX as a bond fund. Rather it is presented (rightly) as a CAPE index fund with a bond kicker (100% added fixed income exposure). While PIMCO funds are more inscrutable, they similarly use derivatives to achieve behaviors that are belied by simple market value summaries.

Buffer Fund
A well-known bit of derivatives magic — a great, simple party trick that derivatives structurers can use to impress their friends — is that if you give me $100 today, I can invest $91 of it in two-year Treasury notes paying 4.75% interest, and in two years I will have $100. And I can invest the other $9 in two-year at-the-money call options on the S&P 500 stock index, options that gain value if the S&P goes up over those two years. Those options cost, let’s say, 13% of the price of the S&P today, so spending $9 on options will get me an option on about $70 worth of the index. And so I can offer you the following trade:
• You give me $100 today.
• In two years, I give you back (1) $100, no matter what, plus (2) 70% of the return on the S&P 500 index, if it’s up.
If stocks go up, you get the gains (well, 70% of them). If stocks go down, you don’t get the losses. What a great trade!
And because I can do this efficiently in size, and because I thought of it and you didn’t, and because I advertised it to you with a cool brochure, I can charge you like 1% of your money for putting this trade together. It is a very good trade, honestly. If you are a sophisticated investor you can quibble with it, but at a simple intuitive level it is just nice. “You get [much of] the upside of stocks, but no downside” is a clean and satisfying pitch. The shape of the payoff graph is pleasing.
Bloomberg’s Vildana Hajric and Emily Graffeo report:

The pioneer of the world’s first “buffer ETFs” — exchange-traded funds that are supposed to limit losses during market selloffs — has launched a new product which it says offers investors complete downside protection.
Investors in the $7.5 trillion ETF universe can now put money behind the Innovator Equity Defined Protection ETF, which began trading under the ticker TJUL on Tuesday. The offering comes from Innovator Capital Management, which launched the first so-called buffer ETFs, also sometimes referred to as defined-outcome funds, in 2018.
Buffer funds, as the name suggests, offer buffered exposure to stocks by limiting investors’ downside risk while also capping upside potential. …
Yet, Innovator says that its TJUL fund — which will track S&P 500 returns up to a capped percentage over a two-year period — will be the first of its kind to protect against 100% of stock losses. TJUL’s cap on potential gains is estimated at about 15% after fees.
Specifically, the fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets in options on the $423 billion SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (ticker SPY), according to the fund’s prospectus. TJUL can purchase and sell a combination of call and put options in an effort to cushion against market volatility.
The outcomes set by the fund may only be realized by investors who continuously hold shares of TJUL from the first day of the “outcome period” — July 18 — to the end of the two-year period, which is June 30, 2025, reads the prospectus.

They give you 100% of the gains up to the cap, rather than 70% of uncapped gains, but same basic idea.
There is a reason that this product is the first of its kind: If interest rates are zero, I can’t invest $91 in Treasuries to get back $100, so I don’t have $9 to spend on options to get S&P 500 upside. (I have to put, like, $99 in Treasuries, and the only way to get you any meaningful upside is by giving you some downside risk too.) But as interest rates have gone up, products like this look better, and so people are offering them.
Of course as interest rates have gone up, products like this are in some sense less attractive: Putting up $100 and getting back $100 in two years is worse if I missed out on 4.75% interest than it would be if interest rates were zero. But that’s not the point! The point is that a trade like “I will give you some stock upside and take 75% of the downside between down 5% and down 20% blah blah blah” is annoying and complicated, while “I will give you the upside of stocks and you can’t lose any money” is nice and simple and intuitively attractive. “Buffer fund” is complicated, “stock fund but you can’t lose money” has an obvious appeal.