@FD100 - Have you ever mentioned “trend following” by name in any of your previous posts or recommended the best current trends to chase follow for the benefit of members who read you?
There are successful trend following funds. I have 5-6% so invested . Why anyone would put “all their eggs” in that one basket escapes me. Waiting for a Wiley Coyote moment? Trend following (managed futures) funds invest in a diverse mix of equities, bonds, currencies, commodities, metals, real estate and more. It’s doubtful that whatever you are doing is comparable to what they do.

Carl Kaufman of Osterweis Strategic Income, OSTIX, is more cautious on BBB rated bonds. The fund holds over 10% in cash, a historical high. Excerpt from 4th quarter outlook:

For fixed income investors, the AI-themed names are a cohort that exists largely outside our investment purview (although we did have one very successful investment in an AI-related convertible, which we exited at the end of 2024). Most of the AI-themed names are private, VC-owned cash burners that are not prime candidates for borrowing in the credit markets. The few that have come to market to borrow have very dubious credit profiles and have asked lenders to invest largely based on their future prospects. This is a sensible arrangement for equity holders, who receive unlimited upside in exchange for the risk they take, but for bondholders it is far less appealing, as their upside is limited to the coupon they receive while the risk is the same. We are, however, carefully monitoring this because we believe it is an apt barometer for broad investor sentiment, which is unabashedly risk-on.
The hyperscalers are budgeting hundreds of billions of dollars of CapEx to build data centers, which they hope will power a massive expansion of AI adoption in the years ahead. The numbers are astonishing, and the hype and activity around AI reminds us of the excitement around all things dot-com and dark fiber in the 1990s. The birth of the internet was a society-changing phenomenon, and AI could prove to be the same. However, it is unlikely that AI adoption will pan out exactly as planned. Given the lofty valuations ascribed to these early-stage, unproven companies, any deviation from the expected adoption rate and the ensuing revenue forecasts (many of which are still years away) could trigger at least a tremor, and possibly a much larger quake as winners and losers are parsed by the market. Stay tuned.

https://osterweis.com/outlooks/Strategic_Income_Outlook_Q4
OSTIX has lower drawdowns than typical junk bond funds. He tends to stay in higher quality end of junk bonds that provides more consistent total return.
With respect to Global Wellington and Global Wellesley funds, they share the same bond manager, Loren Moran. Moran tends to hold higher % of long bond for higher yield. This hurt them when the FED hiked rate in 2022. Now the FED is reversing the rate cycle that benefit the long bonds. Something to bear in mind of Wellington funds. On the equity side, they share the same manager but the goals are slightly different that reflect in the selector selection. Global Wellington focuses more on the capital appreciation side while Global Wellesley focus on dividend and value oriented stocks. I own Global Wellington but will buy Wellesley.
@sma3, agree with point on the Active Shares. The passive asset allocation funds are often used as benchmark to other asset allocation funds. I still prefer active management.

@Crash and @Observant1 et al
Only a question to AI and what 'it' can find.....
Question: BBB bond quality over past 5 years
----- Over the past five years, the quality of BBB bonds has seen mixed signals: yields have decreased overall, but their risk profile has been a subject of debate. Some sources suggest that while yields have declined from historical highs, the underlying corporate fundamentals of many BBB-rated companies are stronger, with a notable increase in the overall market share of BBB bonds, often attributed to a shift from higher-rated bonds and an abundance of issuance in shorter-term maturities. However, the increasing popularity of this market segment raises concerns about the potential for a future downgrade, especially as market conditions fluctuate.
Yields and returns
Decreased yields: The effective yield for US corporate BBB bonds has fallen over the last five years, though it remains above the long-term average, according to data from YCharts.
Mixed returns: ETFs tracking BBB-rated corporate bonds have shown a range of returns over the last five years, depending on the specific fund's focus, such as maturity or duration. For example, the Bondbloxx BBB Rated 1-5 Year Corporate Bond ETF (BBBS) had a 5-year return of 2.49% while the iShares BBB Rated Corporate Bond ETF (LQDB) has a 5-year return of 0.00% as of a recent reporting date, highlighting the impact of bond-specific factors, such as maturity, on performance.
Higher income: Despite lower yields, some analyses suggest that BBB-rated corporate bonds have historically provided higher average coupon income compared to other investment-grade bonds.
Quality and risk
Increasing market share: The overall market share of BBB-rated debt has increased, as a larger number of companies issue more debt within this rating bracket, potentially making it a more accessible and liquid investment class.
Mixed fundamentals: Some analysis suggests that the quality of BBB-rated companies has improved, with many former A-rated companies maintaining strong cash flows despite their lower credit rating.
Contingent risk: The shift in the market toward BBB-rated bonds has sparked concerns among some analysts about potential downgrades in the future, particularly if market conditions were to worsen.
Focus on specific segments: Some sources recommend focusing on shorter-dated BBB-rated bonds while avoiding the long end of the maturity curve to limit downside risk, especially in more leveraged sectors.
Low default rates: Despite concerns about potential downgrades, BBB bonds still have historically low default rates, typically below 0.36%.
Key takeaway
Increased market share: Over the past five years, BBB-rated bonds have become a more prominent part of the investment landscape, driven by factors like increased issuance and a shift toward shorter-dated maturities.
Divergent performance: Performance has been mixed, with some ETFs showing positive returns while others have been flat or even negative, underscoring the importance of evaluating individual bonds or fund holdings based on their specific characteristics.
Mixed quality concerns: While some BBB-rated companies are considered fundamentally sound, the increased market share has raised concerns about potential future downgrades and market volatility.
Need for careful selection: Investors should conduct thorough due diligence before investing in this asset class to identify the highest-quality issuers and mitigate risks.

Hi @larryB
For the search words: best fund with mix of tech and financial services
A quasi AI answer. Two sections. This first below doesn't include the word 'global', the second section does.
Regards,
Catch
--- Funds that provide exposure to both technology and financial services generally fall under the Fintech (Financial Technology) thematic category. These funds invest in companies leveraging technology to transform financial services like payments, banking, and investing.
Here are some of the best-known and top-performing Fintech ETFs:
Top Fintech Funds
Fund Name Ticker Description
ARK Fintech Innovation ETF ARKF An actively managed ETF that invests in companies at the forefront of innovation in the fintech space, with holdings like Block, PayPal, and Coinbase. It is known for its focus on disruptive innovation and has shown strong returns over a three-year period despite high volatility.
Global X FinTech ETF FINX This fund seeks to invest in companies using technology to help banks and other financial firms digitize their operations. It offers broad exposure to companies involved in payment processing, peer-to-peer lending, and digital banking globally.
Amplify Digital Payments ETF IPAY A "pure-play" on the digital and mobile payments industry, this ETF includes traditional credit card companies like Visa and Mastercard, as well as emerging consumer payment companies like PayPal and Block.
iShares FinTech Active ETF BPAY This actively managed fund invests in a range of innovative companies, including payment processors and traditional financial institutions adopting new technologies.
Capital Link Global Fintech Leaders ETF KOIN This fund invests in a mix of traditional tech companies (e.g., Microsoft, Oracle) that provide the underlying technology for financial firms, and companies that use fintech internally.
Key Considerations
Thematic Focus: These funds are thematic and thus more concentrated than broad market or even single-sector funds. They are designed to capture growth in the intersection of two dynamic sectors.
Risk Profile: Fintech funds can be volatile due to the nature of technology and the evolving regulatory landscape of the financial sector. The performance has been mixed across different funds and time periods.
Active vs. Passive: Some, like ARKF and BPAY, are actively managed, relying on management expertise to pick stocks. Others like FINX are index funds, aiming to track a specific index.
Before investing, consider your risk tolerance and investment objectives, and review the specific holdings and expense ratios of each fund
--- USING THE WORD 'GLOBAL'
Finding a single "best" fund is difficult as performance and suitability depend on market conditions and individual risk tolerance. However, several global funds invest significantly in both technology and financial services, offering exposure to both sectors.
Funds with a mix of Technology and Financial Services
Funds that explicitly target a blend of technology and financial services are often called "fintech" funds. These funds focus on the intersection of the two sectors.
ARK Fintech Innovation ETF (ARKF): This active ETF invests in companies that focus on disruptive innovation in the financial services sector, which inherently includes a large technology component. It has shown strong long-term performance (50.09% three-year total return) but comes with high volatility.
Global X FinTech ETF (FINX): This ETF offers exposure to companies providing financial technology products and services.
Capital Link Global Fintech Leaders ETF (KOIN): This fund divides its investments into two groups: traditional financial companies adopting new technology and technology firms providing the code/hardware for fintech systems. Its top holdings include a mix of large tech companies like Microsoft and financial service infrastructure providers.
General Global Technology Funds with Diversification
Many general global technology funds include financial technology companies as part of their diversified technology holdings. These often have strong long-term performance and high ratings.
Janus Henderson Global Technology And Innovation Fund (JNGTX, JGLTX): This highly-rated fund invests in domestic and foreign companies that benefit from technological advances. It has strong three-year annualized returns (32.4%) and is a good option for global technology exposure.
T. Rowe Price Global Technology Fund (PRGTX): This fund seeks long-term capital growth by investing globally in technology companies. It has a reasonable expense ratio and good performance.
Putnam Global Technology Fund (PGTAX): Another global fund focused on capital appreciation through investments in large and mid-size companies in the technology sector.
Important Considerations
Global vs. US Focus: Most top-performing, large-asset tech funds are heavily US-focused (e.g., Vanguard Information Technology ETF, FTEC, XLK), often with over 60% of assets in the top few large-cap tech stocks like Apple, Nvidia, and Microsoft. Funds with a true "global" mandate will have more exposure to international markets.
Risk: Sector-specific funds, especially in high-growth areas like technology and fintech, can be more volatile than a broadly diversified global index fund.
Expense Ratios: ETFs generally have lower expense ratios than actively managed mutual funds, which can impact long-term returns.
It is recommended to evaluate the specific holdings, risk profiles, and expense ratios of these funds to determine which best fits your investment goals.

@Observant1. That is a very interesting read, and it is what I believe is likely. That the hype will be overblown in many investors minds, there will be corrections, maybe a few really big ones. But overall, this could be a sea change. Most of us watched precisely that happen, in 2000, and the following decades.
Imagine if here are big breakthroughs in quantum computing, along the way.
"In the late 1990s and early 2000s, dot-com-related stocks went through a correction and digestion phase. But in the next 20 years, the internet became embedded in everything we do, creating value over time. That is the road map I’m using to think about generative AI.
I am a believer in [futurist Roy] Amara’s Law: We tend to overestimate the impact of technologies in the short term but underestimate them in the long term. I use Netscape, the internet-browser company, as an example. It went public in 1995 and brought the internet to the masses—similar to ChatGPT. That was the starting line [of the internet cycle]."

Post FOMC Presser Notes
Rates: Fed fund rate cut -25 bps to 3.75-4.00%, bank reserves rate at 3.90% (generous), discount rate at 4.00%. On December 1, the Treasury QT of -$5 billion/mo will drop to $0, & MBS QT at -$35 billion/mo to $0 but futures reinvestments will be in Treasuries (not MBS). Fed balance sheet has declined by -$2.2 trillion so far.
DC shutdown effects should be temporary. Lack of government data is a concern but for now, there are estimates from state and private data & surveys.
Tariffs effects should be one-time. They are in goods inflation, but not in services.
Inflation is sticky. Unknowable neutral rate may be between 3-4%. Financial conditions are restrictive despite huge capex seen in AI. Fed is more concerned about financial stability, not market levels.
Labor market has been soft. Announced layoffs by companies aren't showing in unemployment claims. Economy is bifurcated (like K) & there is more spending by higher income earners that by lower income earners.
Banking losses from low-rated debt are being monitored, but that isn't a broader issue.
December FOMC looks very cloudy.
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/2277/thread

Wow. Crazy. Can count about a half-dozen harrowing experiences in my long life that could / should have ended it. Escaped thus far. Was not aware of the shock hazard. Did a lot of foolish stuff with electricity as a kid but never tried replacing a tube. I do have a large bug zapper that even unplugged for several minutes retains quite a charge as I’ve learned the hard way. Suspect vacuum tubes may also be that way.
...

The shock you can get from a bug zapper is due to capacitors. The hold a charge, like a battery, but give it up all at once. And the charge is much higher in voltage. The risk with vacuum tubes is mainly while under power, as they are essentially amplifiers. With standard line voltages of 120VAC, they can generate hundreds or thousands of volts in output. And because of the high voltages, they can get quite hot. The risk in sticking one's hand into an old TV, was they also used capacitors to filter/store energy. Those needed to be discharged before handling.
In some of the old power plant equipment that I worked with, you would "charge" the capacitors on the equipment being fed by putting a plain old incandescent light bulb in series with the power feeder. Then you could insert the main fuse, remove the bulb and insert the pilot fuse in its place. Failure to do so would pop the main fuse on initial insertion, due to the surge of the capacitor charging suddenly. You could tell that the capacitor was charged when the light bulb went out. If the bulb did not extinguish, there was a short or power drain somewhere. Or the capacitor was blown (dead short).
Next lesson:diodes... LOL

https://wolfstreet.com/2025/10/21/the-23-bigger-cities-where-condo-prices-dropped-by-12-to-28-through-september/
Condo prices in the markets on this list have dropped by 12% to 28% from their respective peaks in 2021, 2022, 2023, or 2024. Each city has its own chart below, with some additional data. Prices through September, seasonally adjusted.
The 23 bigger cities where condo prices fell 12% to 28% from their peaks:
Oakland, CA: -28% (2022)
Cape Coral, FL: -28% (2024)
Austin, TX: -25% (2022)
St. Petersburg, FL: -25% (2022)
San Francisco, CA: -16% (2022)
Jacksonville, FL: -16% (2022)
Tampa, FL: -16% (2022)
Denver, CO: -15% (2022)
Detroit, MI: -15% (2021)
Arlington, TX: -15% (2024)

Great insights into the tech company landscape across the US, EU, and China—thanks for sharing!
When student deadlines pile up and I’m juggling work and study, I’ll pay someone to do my assignment at MyAssignmentHelp so I can keep the focus on understanding industry trends like these.

looking outside the service sector....
the american tangible economy is being propped up NOT by the decades-long reliable mass market consumer, but by more fragile forces.
1. IT\AI capex , which is the first ever displacement of mass consumer spending since ? end of WWII ?
2. accelerated spend by the wealthiest
on the latter, the middle market spender is losing headcount to the poor, and gaining some dropouts from the top tier. but their spend has become a less meaningful % with concurrent rising debt.
the tangible economy is effectively relying on even greater excesses from the deca-millionaire class, and more than several businesses have indicated they will attempt to cater exclusively to the mass affluent.
call me skeptical, but i doubt its the bulk of MAGA voters that have made this wealth climb regardless of market index levels; just as during delusions of milk&honey in trump 1.0
https://www.mbi-deepdives.com/the-resilience-of-consumer-spending-in-the-us/

What good will more passports do you in a detention camp for "left-wing terrorists"?

Difficult for me to think that you missed my point. A choice of passports permits the holder to land elsewhere in order to escape the mountain of Orange feces.

of course. fund managers have interest rate strategies, no one would claim they set interest rates.
but i am searching for bond fund managers who have considered a minor fed rate cut will have trivial impact , and trump's most likely (only?) move to kick the can and avoid pain is suppressing long rates via ycc. so very specific to that.
several good recent posts exist :
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe-could-escape-bond-doom-loop-us-not-so-much-2025-09-09/
am also open to the fact that trump may not care re:long rates, given its non-factor on his family grifting, but this goes against his initial trade taco move, as well as the truss experience in the UK.

very clever, that trump.
forcing foreign companies to bring over talent unavailable locally means continuous fodder for his ICE gestapo newly funded with $billions. (or frozen sunk capex gone towards gop infrastructure PR, ala foxconn)
there is no taxpayer limit for the MAGA entertainment budget.

given self tax and wealth scenario...tax-free bonds (narrowly) escaped being targets for trump grift and chaos.
consider active bond funds as managers selecting the economically best among thousands of american infrastructure projects, many of which are immune to (even supported by) local conservatives who dont need to rely on trump bribes or his mood.

One concern has been what if the Gov provide all this "assistance" to INTC for its chip foundries & then INTC just sells majority stake or all of its foundries.
After all, INTC efforts to become contract manufacturer for others failed miserably. It was actually worse - INTC setup contract manufacturing production, but customers didn't come, so lot of that capex went down the drain.
Previous Administration's approach was to slow the release of promised "grants", demand to see actual customer orders, put restrictions on any foundry sales, etc.
This Administration has a different approach - convert "grants" into equity stakes. But it has released all of the promised money to INTC (to lose or profit) and got 9.99% stake for now.
One overlooked provision of this new deal is that if INTC sells majority stake or all of its chip foundries (where the Gov "assistance" is going), the Gov will get ADDITIONAL 5% stake. So, the Gov may end up with 9.99-14.99% stake in INTC.

Following are edited excerpts from a current report in The Wall Street Journal: (The link to the full report should be free.)
The European Commission warns that a chiller trade landscape represents a major headwind to economic recovery

The eurozone economy is set to grow a little more slowly than previously forecast next year, but even that downbeat projection could prove optimistic if exporters face higher U.S. tariffs, according to new forecasts from the European Union.
All of the eurozone’s major economies are projected to see steady growth next year, despite political and fiscal challenges in France and a likely downturn this year in Germany. Spain is set to outpace its peers, expanding 3% this year and 2.3% in 2025, according to the forecasts laid out Friday in the commission’s autumn forecasts.
The European Commission further said-
 • The Euro nations should book an increase in their gross domestic output of 1.3% in 2025
 • This year, the currency union should grow by 0.8%
 • A chillier trade landscape represents a major headwind to the eurozone’s economic recovery
 • The ravages of a changing climate also threaten Europe
 • Inflation should average 2.4% in 2024 and 2.1% in 2025
 • Lower growth means less state revenue, adding to the strain on EU governments’ budgets
 • Still-high deficits and steeper interest payments will keep the debt-to-GDP ratio climbing
The dimmer outlook for growth and inflation will likely reassure the ECB that it can continue to lower borrowing rates, albeit at a gradual pace. The forecasts are the first since May and in the meantime, the ECB has begun a cycle of lower interest rates, taking the deposit rate to 3.25% from 4%, where it had stood since last September. The bank has indicated it will continue to trim borrowing costs as it looks to ease some of the burden on investment and activity.
The eurozone’s manufacturing sector in particular is struggling to recover from the blow it was dealt in 2022 when Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine triggered a surge in energy prices. It again produced less in the third quarter of the year compared with the previous quarter, figures showed this week. Compared with January 2022, just before the invasion, eurozone industrial production has fallen a steep 6%.
While the European authorities base their projections on existing policy, a looming trade battle could add insult to injury for the beleaguered industrial sector and further depress eurozone growth. President-elect Trump has threatened to impose tariffs of 10% on European goods imported into the U.S. in what he says would be a measure to safeguard American manufacturers and manufacturing jobs.
Those tariffs could cost Germany some 1% of its GDP, Bundesbank President Joachim Nagel warned this week. And the reverberations would likely be felt across eurozone industry, hitting smaller suppliers. Nearly 25 billion euros’ worth of German exports would be at risk in the event of an out-and-out trade war next year, according to projections from insurer Allianz. French and Italian exports would also suffer a major blow.
Economists are nevertheless divided on the effects of potential new tariffs, with some even suggesting a stronger U.S. dollar could outweigh the higher duties and boost demand for European goods.

Grantham has been wrong for over 15 years.
Hussman and Arnott have been wrong for as long.
These people forgot that markets collapse many times based on special conditions/situations.
2008-MBS
2018-Fed raised rates 3-4 times within a year.
2020-Covid
2022-Inflation made the Fed raise rates very rapidly.
Valuation models aren’t gospel. They’re frameworks, often rigid ones. Markets don’t “obey” a PE ratio, a CAPE model, or any single metric. They move based on flows, positioning, liquidity, sentiment, and risk appetite — none of which those “experts” fully capture.
Articulation ≠ expertise. Some people build reputations on talking smoothly on CNBC or writing clever papers. But if you look under the hood, their track records are mediocre or not disclosed at all. A true expert has numbers behind them, not just words.
Macro talk rarely drives short-term results. Tariffs, inflation debates, and political narratives — they sound convincing, but the link between those stories and stock prices in the next 1–12 months is weak. Liquidity and momentum can swamp those factors.
The real experts are rare. They don’t talk much because they’re too busy managing money. They know the limits of prediction and don’t oversell their opinions.
So, how can anyone listen or invest with these guys?

If you're a puppet haven't you given up whatever prestige or respectability you might have had? I'm guessing they all just figured Powell would rollover like they all did while also forgetting that he is just one vote of many.

And one can extend this to the new FED chair. Anyone competent will know that doing political bidding/messaging can only lead to massive reputational harm. The term "scapegoat" immediately comes to mind.

Excellent post this a.m. from Krugman about the attempted tariff extortion on Brazil to save his authoritarian pal Bolsonaro from trial, conviction, and prison.
Short version: It's delusions of grandeur to an absurd level: Dump doesn't have "the juice" to pull it off. Brazil isn't dependent enough on the U.S. to get them to blow up their legal landscape to please Dump. And it's clearly illegal to use tariffs to interfere in the entirely internal affairs of another nation.
Oh, and if anyone's worried about orange juice prices, it's exempted from the 50%, making the extortion demand even more absurd.
Investment implications: Don't need to worry overly much about investments in Brazil or in OJ, e.g., Tropicana (PepsiCo) and Simply Orange (Coca-Cola).

And yet ol' Donnie would absolutely blow a screed-laced gasket if some country 'sanctioned' a judge here for something similar.
This is not 'his' government for 'his' personal use and benefit. Sadly, few in this town are willing to publicly agree with that sentiment.

Excellent post this a.m. from Krugman about the attempted tariff extortion on Brazil to save his authoritarian pal Bolsonaro from trial, conviction, and prison.
Short version: It's delusions of grandeur to an absurd level: Dump doesn't have "the juice" to pull it off. Brazil isn't dependent enough on the U.S. to get them to blow up their legal landscape to please Dump. And it's clearly illegal to use tariffs to interfere in the entirely internal affairs of another nation.
Oh, and if anyone's worried about orange juice prices, it's exempted from the 50%, making the extortion demand even more absurd.
Investment implications: Don't need to worry overly much about investments in Brazil or in OJ, e.g., Tropicana (PepsiCo) and Simply Orange (Coca-Cola).