@Observant1. Thanks for highlighting David’s article. That’s a wonderful resource of ideas . Can’t believe I missed that. Ben, Mona and Press thanks for sharing your ideas. Both Seafarer funds are on my list. I agree that the value one is quite intriguing. Hell it was positive for 22…

Appears to me that SILVX is available at Schwab and TDA with a $25K minimum, but that the Investor shares (SFVLX) require $1M minimum, which may mean not available. Truly bizarre. I rather like the notion of EM value, but those minima are beyond what I want to spend.

@BenWP I think you meant SIVLX and not SILVX. The former is Institutional Class with a $25,000 minimum. SFVLX is Investor Class and it is not available for purchase at Schwab.

Appears to me that SILVX is available at Schwab and TDA with a $25K minimum, but that the Investor shares (SFVLX) require $1M minimum, which may mean not available. Truly bizarre. I rather like the notion of EM value, but those minima are beyond what I want to spend.

Text LINK1 LINK2

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/890540/000139834423000681/fp0081811-1_497.htm
497 1 fp0081811-1_497.htm
THE ADVISORS’ INNER CIRCLE FUND II
Champlain Mid Cap Fund
(the “Fund”)
Supplement dated January 17, 2023
to the Summary Prospectus and Prospectus,
each dated May 1, 2022
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the
Summary Prospectus and Prospectus and should be read in conjunction with the Summary
Prospectus and Prospectus.
Effective January 17, 2023, Advisor Class Shares and Institutional Class Shares of the Fund are available for purchase by new investors. Accordingly, all references to the contrary are hereby deleted from the Summary Prospectus and Prospectus.
Please retain this supplement for future reference.
CSC-SK-023-0100

CDS payouts are never quick.
A CDS Special Committee has to determine and declare the default first and then anyone gets paid on CDS.
The idea that some T-Bills CDS may be paid quickly while other T-Notes/Bonds may take a while isn't really correct.
Just look at how the Russian default mess progressed.
Russia missed bond payments in April 2022, then a grace period kicked in and that went by May 2022. But in June 2022, the US-OFAC issued clarification on what was meant by the Presidential Executive Order prohibiting dealings with Russian stocks and bonds, and the CDS Committee deferred its determination in June 2022, then in July 2022. In August 2022, some members of the CDS Committee quit and it no longer had a quorum for meeting. Finally, in September, some CDS contracts settled for 44c on $1.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/settlement-of-credit-default-swaps-4470588/
https://www.ifre.com/story/3493591/shrinking-cds-committee-raises-questions-over-markets-future-brtlddgldd
https://www.ifre.com/story/3512897/russia-cds-finally-settles-following-auction-y6tvhqv2yh
https://www.cdsdeterminationscommittees.org/

FYI, here are some excerpts from an article in today's NYT: How Close Is the U.S. to Hitting the Debt Ceiling? How Bad Would That Be?
"Strategists across Wall Street have sent out a raft of research assessing when the United States will exhaust its ability to stay under the debt limit — what’s known as the X-date — and how a default might ripple through asset classes.
T.D. Securities analysts think that the credit rating on U.S. debt is likely to be lowered if negotiations go badly, which could spook some investors. S&P Global Ratings downgraded U.S. debt in 2011, but other major rating agencies still award the sovereign their top assessment. They also expect that people will sell out of risky assets like stocks if a default occurs, while actually piling into some Treasury bonds.
In the month before the debt ceiling was raised in summer 2011, short-dated government bonds called bills swiftly fell in value, pushing their yield — indicative of the government’s cost of borrowing for three months — sharply higher. Stock prices fell, and the 10-year Treasury yield moved in the opposite direction, in part because it was still seen by investors as a safe place to park their cash.
Some investors have begun to look into protection in case the United States does renege on its debts. One trader at BNP Paribas recently sent some investors prices for U.S. credit default swaps, which provide some insurance in return for a small premium, paying out any money they lose if the government does not pay them on time. Such a price list is rare, with interest in protection on American debt usually low given the unlikeliness of default. The price of these contracts has steadily risen over the past six months, implying a higher, though still small, likelihood of a debt ceiling breach."

Getting a bit OT here; I hope people will indulge me as I'm a bit sensitive on this, having grown up in a home in what is now NY's 3rd Congressional district.
In election campaigns, there are two principal, not mutually exclusive, approaches. Persuasion (moving people on the fence into your camp) and getting out the vote GOTV (driving more of "your side" to the polls).
Persuasion in a country hewing to tribal allegiances has lessened in importance. As related by Smircornish, Grant Lally (publisher of the North Shore Leader) said that "Santos benefited from generic voting, people supporting their own label regardless of a candidate's individual merit" (quoting Smircornish).
Voters are so wired to their 'R's and 'D's that papers are ending their practice en masse of making endorsements.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/06/business/media/alden-newspaper-candidate-endorsements.html
Much more important these days is GOTV. Certainly the Democrats could have done more. Still, how much more motivated would Democratic voters have been to vote against a pathological liar than against one who enthusiastically supported a pathological liar?
Santos was a supposedly known quantity, having run for the same position in 2020. People seem to have forgotten that he put out some of the same lies then.
https://ballotpedia.org/George_Devolder-Santos#Campaign_themes
Here's an opinion piece with which I agree. In essence, where was the fourth estate, notably Newsday but also the NY Times during the election cycle? To which I add, or during the last cycle?
https://dankennedy.net/2022/12/23/a-long-island-weekly-had-the-goods-on-santos-several-weeks-before-election-day/

Investors Are Walking a Tightrope
"Even though the Fed is saying they will not cut interest rates, the market is saying that in three to six months we will have recession, we will have moderating inflation and you will be singing a different tune,” said Andrzej Skiba, head of U.S. fixed income at BlueBay Asset Management. “There is a massive difference between what we are hearing from the Fed, and what the market is thinking will occur.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/13/business/stock-market-gains.html

@MikeW,
Professor Snowball mentioned several EM stock funds in his recent Investor's Guide to 2023 article.
Seafarer Overseas Value (SIVLX) seems to be a good choice in this category.
Link

@Observant1 and @LewisBraham thanks very much for your inputs here. I wasn’t aware that quantitative modeling was the basis for stock selection for DODEX. Also as you say a much larger portfolio than their other stock funds. For emerging markets I prefer to go with an active manager that utilizes fundamental analysis and that is focused on valuation. I think I’ll dig a bit more into Seafarer and Rondure as options. Both have done quite well in risk adjusted performance. Please let me know if you have inputs on other funds to consider in this space.

Last year was tough for junk bond funds and those I followed were in double digit loss YTD. Only bank loan/floating rate funds had about 0.4% loss. The expectation of junk bonds to do well in rising rates simply failed. This year could be better as the rate hikes may be peaking with a few smaller hikes. If that is the case, buying in now with several increments may be ok.

+1.

You've identified a key reason why people can come out ahead by doing conversions.
I showed the arithmetic in my Jan 14 post. Basically by pre-paying taxes (via conversion), you're moving tax money from outside into your Roth. So you never again pay taxes on that money's growth. More money sheltered means more money after taxes in the end.
2010 was actually the second time the government allowed the taxes on conversions to be spread over multiple years. You were allowed to declare half of the 2010 conversion amount as part of your 2011 (not 2010) income, and the other half as part of your 2012 income.
https://www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/t046-c001-s001-faqs-on-the-new-roth-conversion-rules.html
2010 Pub 590 (see p. 2 - What's new for 2010)
The first time the government allowed people to spread taxes on conversions over multiple years was in 1998. Then you were allowed to split the amount converted equally among four years: 1998-2001.
1998 Pub 590 (see p. 39).

According to Tipswatch, non-seasonal inflation usually picks up from January to March.
Consequently, the May 1 variable rate for I Bonds might not be heading to 0.0%.
We'll see what happens...
Link

@sven, I-Bond rate on 5/1/23 will be determined by the CPI index change from 09/2022-03/2023. The 3 month change from Sep-Dec so far is near 0% and changes over the next 3 months aren't expected to add much. What you see reported are CPI yoy change and that was +6.5% in Dec, but that isn't how the I-Bond rate is determined. That is what my alert is about - you could very well have +4% to +5% reported CPI (yoy change) around May 2023, but still have 0-1% rate for I-Bonds. You will then read media articles explaining why that is.

@LewisBraham,
Several Morningstar articles had mentioned the use of quantitative research for DODEX.
"Dodge & Cox isn’t normally associated with quantitative work, but quant analysis can serve fundamental strategies just as well as tactical trading strategies. Robert Turley, who holds a doctorate in business economics, has had a big impact on the firm’s quantitative and risk management work. He’s one of six named managers on Dodge & Cox Emerging Markets Stock (DODEX). This fund has made quantitative research more central to the process than it is at other funds."
Link
"Unlike the firm’s other offerings, however, this one relies on a quantitative model—developed by committee member Robert Turley—to find attractive stocks. The firm’s vaunted analyst team doesn’t dive deeply into the model’s recommendations; it simply checks if those stocks meet the team’s expectations for valuation, management, and business prospects."
Link
Dodge & Cox communications emphasize the use of fundamental research for DODEX.
I did not find quantitative research explicitly mentioned.
"Dodge & Cox relies on fundamental research to select investments for the Fund’s portfolio, supplemented by financial screening models that help identify companies from within the Fund’s investment universe for further consideration by research analysts."
Summary Prospectus
"The Fund is constructed based on Dodge & Cox’s strict valuation discipline and fundamental approach to stock selection, with a portfolio built on the expertise of our global industry analysts. In the years we have spent investing in emerging market companies for other Dodge & Cox mutual funds, we have built tools to enhance our analysts’ ability to identify risks and opportunities in emerging markets."
Link

@Observant1 I never heard DODEX relies on quantitative research. Where does Dodge state that?

If the rates become very low, then the penalty will be much easier to accept. for example if the rate were 2%, the 3 month interest penalty on your $10,000 I-Bond would be $50.

Stock selection for Dodge & Cox Emerging Markets Stock (DODEX) relies on quantitative research
but the firm's other funds mostly depend on fundamental analysis.
DODEX also has far more holdings than other Dodge & Cox equity funds.
Not saying this is good or bad, just something to be aware of.
Link

DECEMBER 4, 2000
Effective immediately, Vanguard Health Care Fund has raised its minimum initial
investment amount to $25,000 for all new accounts, including IRAs and custodial
accounts for minors.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/734383/000093247100000798/0000932471-00-000798.txt
Before that (starting Dec 20, 1999 when the fund reopened), the min was $10,000, and before that, $3,000
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/734383/000093247199000519/0000932471-99-000519.txt
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/734383/0000893220-98-000900.txt