https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-where-investors-made-a-risk-free-6-6-return-in-the-past-four-u-s-recessions-11670280571?mod=home-page
Google incognito search for full article
https://chof360.com/heres-where-investors-made-a-risk-free-6-6-return-in-the-past-four-u-s-recessions/
Sticky inflation
Poor Er and recession
Perhaps UST, GOVT bonds and high grade Corp Bonds best next 12 months
Bought Corp bond BA mama acct yesterday ytm 5.1% think A rated no insurance
097024bh7
https://markets.businessinsider.com/bonds/boeing_codl-notes_202020-27-bond-2027-us097023cu76

Source: Barrons
"Small-caps outperformed during recessions in the 1970s and early 1980s, when the Federal Reserve was fighting high inflation, as it is now. The group has higher proportional exposure than large-caps to inflation beneficiaries, like energy. It’s also more domestic and more tied to capital spending, which is a plus if U.S.-based manufacturers continue moving factories home. But small companies generally have less financial flexibility than large ones, which is a negative if borrowing rates stay elevated.
One way for investors to add small- cap exposure is with a low-fee index fund like the iShares Russell 2000IWM –2.75% exchange-traded fund (ticker: IWM). Then again, switching indexes might be an upgrade. The S&P SmallCap 600SP600EQ –2.60% index has outperformed the Russell 2000 index by more than a percentage point a year over the past five, 10, and 20 years, and has generally been less volatile. The biggest reason: S&P uses a profitability screen to admit index members. SPDR S&P 600 Small CapSLY –2.81% ETF (SLY) is one fund option there.
If a profitability screen helps, how about a value tilt? The aforementioned indexes weight small-caps by market cap. Asset manager Research Affiliates has an index that weights them by fundamental measures of value like sales, cash flow, and dividends. Investors can buy in through Schwab Fundamental U.S. Small Company Index ETF (FNDA). It’s more expensive than the other funds, but still cheap, with yearly expenses of 0.25%. Since inception in 2013, the fund has returned 7.4% a year, beating the Russell 2000 by nearly a point through Sept. 30."
"For actively managed funds that are open to new money, Columbia Small Cap Value II (NSVAX) and Wasatch Core Growth (WGROX) get high marks from Morningstar. Each costs a little more than 1% a year and has beaten its category by about a point a year over the past decade."

CELFX did not exist in March 2020. Just saying. Inception date is July 1, 2021
Swedroe is certainly a known name but the conclusion of his linked AP article is as per below.
"Bond investors can avoid the risks and costs created by stale pricing in mutual funds by either building their own individual portfolios or engaging a separate account manager."
First suggestion isn't actionable by the vast majority of individual investors due to the size of the individual bond portfolio needed for adequate diversification and the second suggestion is Swedroe and Advisor Perspectives hawking their wares (nothing wrong with that, just pointing it out). There are no free lunches.
So would one rather avoid bond funds altogether due to losing 0.04% or invest through RIA who will cost a lot more than 0.04%?
To each their own.

+1

+1

The two stats that caught my eye from the links posted by @Lewis were
-- $1.2B aggregate loss to buy and holders due to traders gaming the illiquidity
-- 4 bips of return loss
Admittedly these numbers are above zero but in the context of the bond market $1.2B is less than a rounding error and I personally would not let "theft" of 0.04% deter me from investing in an asset class plus interval funds have lower exposure to the theft.
But that's just me and my 2c on the topic. Over and out.

It’s not what CELFX is investing in that is the problem I am identifying but how much it’s yielding above Treasuries, i.e., the yield spread, after deducting significant fees without showing any apparent volatility while public markets invested in similar low credit quality debt show significant volatility. Its NAV is behaving as though it invests in high quality low risk credit while it is actually investing in the opposite. You can’t earn 11% today before fees when Treasuries are yielding 4% without taking significant default risk. I don’t think the pricing of the fund reflects that risk. And I am fairly certain it didn’t reflect that risk in March of 2020.

@StayCalm The smoothness of the returns of NICHX and CELFX during periods of distress makes me less comfortable, not more, about investing in them. Here is how various publicly traded debt markets traded in March of 2020 during the worst of the pandemic decline: https://wstam.com/news/market-updates/march-2020-fixed-income-market-review/
Yet CELFX, which invests in junk rated credits only fell 2%. The public floating rate market fell 8% and the high yield market 11%. They invest in comparable credits from a risk of default perspective. That indicates to me stale pricing in illiquid assets in CELFX. It is arguable that public markets oversold, yet by how much? In a period of true long-term distress instead of a flash followed by a government bailout like March of 2020, defaults rise, liquidity dries up and even private debt as interval fund shareholders gradually redeem will need to reflect market pricing as opposed to some stale assessment of valuation by a fund board or pricing service hired by the board. All of which is to say I do not think those March 2020 numbers reflected reality as to what those assets were worth at that moment.
Meanwhile, CELFX is charging a 2.5% total expense ratio including acquired fund fees and administrative costs while currently yielding 8.9%. With Treasuries yielding 4% without fees subtracted, a fund cannot yield 8.9% today without taking on significant credit and/or leverage risk. Pricing of its assets should reflect those risks when public debt markets slide.

No problem- we either hang together or we hang separately. (Somebody important said that back in the 1700s.)

@Old_Joe, A static allocation would not be appropriate without taking the business cycle into consideration. That is the main reason I don’t use target dated funds since we are probably entering the matured phase of the market. I initiated several small cap funds as their valuation became much cheaper comparing to those of the large caps. So it is a value play. My plan is to build their positions in the next 6-12 months. Think I am getting off track from this trend.

OK, you two... here's the "missing link". :)

Hi @Sven I believe you didn't insert the link within the words.......I've done this, too.

Global Markets and ETF Inflows Build Momentum in November.

Is it this M* report?

Interest read to see money flow as investors rebalancing their portfolio and defensive positioning.
https://morningstar.com/articles/1128135/global-markets-and-etf-inflows-build-momentum-in-november

Banks & financials can count preferred as Tier 1 capital only when they are noncumulative; some exceptions may apply. So, there are rarely any bank/financial preferreds that are cumulative.
https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I21061766ef0811e28578f7ccc38dcbee/Tier-1-Capital?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)

Hello
Was quite busy today
I Quit trading last few months heavy loss
-50s% w trading acct and -30% w passive acct (mid Oct). Lucky I have large bond portfolio cushioned the loss last 12 months...group I followed traders each loss 50 - 70%. Too much Time vested w poor returns.
Last 4 6 wks been doing what have been working last 14 yrs (before heavily trading last 2 yrs). Been dca into indexes, Corp Bonds, Sp500, Vang vgstx vpccx 2045 techs etf Tsla snow LCID Rivn techs..
We do have Pff and schd. Will look at AEL.PB HT Dfp jps PFFA JPM-M more closely, but likely stick to previous basics buying.
Mine 401k surprised only down - 8% due to dca and market rebounded 18% since mid Oct, whereas the trading portfolio came back Little it still down - 19% but I just left it alone last few months.
I think next 12 months after new year maybe dismal returns Sp500 won't do well maybe max 5 7% most but we can never time market (expected recession /jobs loss, and diminish ER) . Lots folk could be wrong market timer and market may go haywire +20s% returns end 2023 (like 2010 lots pundits expected poor performance but it went up quite remarkable).
Short terms maybe good for gold since usd took heavy beatings. Short terms if Sp500 200 days MA hold and Market breadth hold /melt slowly up we may indeed get nice Xmas rally and hope finish 2022 strong.
Imho all these youtubers/traders /Seeking alpha writers all want your subscriptions 15-99$ per month and their performance are disappointing. Very difficult beat index or Buffet
Happy holidays

@kings53man, JPM-M pays you $0.26/share every quarter for a total of $1.25/share/year. Still a good deal.

This is what I have done recently (reported on another thread).
I bought a preferred stock JPM-M, the company is very safe from default for US$ 16.998 per share, coupon is 4.2% with first call date being 9/1/2026.
Income is 6% to me based on my cost so I collect 6% till 9/1/26 (I get US$ .26 every quarter per share). This will not be paid only if JPM doesn't pay the dividend on the regular share (I think the chances are very remote but this is the little risk with any preferred).
If JPM calls the preferred stock after 9/1/26, I will get US$ 25 for each share - potential capital gain.
This is invested in Roth so 6% income and subsequent CG will be tax free.
Do you see any issue with this?
Mark - corrected & thanks for correcting me.
Thanks,

@Observant1, interesting info about REFLX REIT under the newer interval-fund structure, not the older, opaque Nontraded-REIT structure.
So, DAILY valuations, DAILY purchases at NAV at market close (may include applicable sales load), minimum 5% REDEMPTION per quarter. Purchase MINIMUM of $1 million mentioned in the prospectus but not in other web or PR documents (brokers and financial advisors may have other minimums); institutional class only for now.
Prospectus

+1.