Search

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.

Schwab: Shake Off Emotions and Control your Portfolio
That was the exact point of my original posting. It was meant to help others to see other views so to have meaningful discussion. Merely posting performance data without putting them in proper content contributes little to this board.
@DrVenture, those who have lots want more and more. So we have this bifurcation of two economy. For us we try to focus on our financial goals such as college education, retirement, and long term healthcare. A modest gain is often good enough as long the risk is minimized.

Sven November 4 in Other Investing
The REAL Economy: 'Empty shelves, higher prices’- Americans tell cost of Trump’s tariffs
.... This is a very interesting read from 2015. Mass deportations will absolutely accelerate the problems with population decline.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2015/02/17/population-decline-and-the-great-economic-reversal/

What I am fixing to say doesn't change my current concern about the unwinnable situation we are creating for our young people. This is just a random off the cuff incoherent set of thoughts I had after reading the Forbes article and more about the far range future, if there is one.
Yes, we all might have written a similar article ourselves with variations in both imagination and vision. The population issues are monovariant in a polyvariant world projection. The author brings up some of the other variables (e.g. AI) but, without a precedence on which to train, the interactions of the missing variables is subject to speculation. For example, in my childhood I would have had no way to even speculate how I filled my time in retirement since I would have, with my limited vision, not seen the iPhone and computer that fill my retirement days.
Probably because of my own background, my version of the Forbes article would have embedded more AI/robotics in the vision of the direction of a future of declining birth rates. But bi, tri, etc. variations still can never incorporate the future unknowns, e.g. my own transistor world that died with digital evolution and information age.
The author of the Forbes article seems to be wringing his hands over demographic worldwide shifts. I am more optimistic, or have been until recently. (I cannot predict outcomes if time moves backward along with decreased fertility rates. I suppose birth control would need to be outlawed completely to keep wages at poverty levels.) Assuming a more forward projected future, I just see positive change for the human experience. Who says the measure of life is a job? Maybe, with refusal to morph the cast system into something more fun and satisfying, meaningless exchanges of work for subsidence might be unchangeable. I want to believe we just have limited vision about the result of our more powerful, sometimes pessimistic and frightening, imagination.
Coincidentally, this came out in the W.Post today:
The biggest careers that have now vanished, according to data

Anna November 3 in Other Investing
Why buy the S&P 500?
they key is pinpointing these funds ahead of time and capturing the upside. these funds exist in batches of other funds with similar performance/metrics for a specific period of time.
A financial advisor about 5 years ago published a list of mutual funds with a longtime track record of 12% or more returns and that had a very positive previous 10 years. He was very much like see Dave Ramsey was right this is easy! someone looked at those funds 5 years later and did a memorandum. only 12% of those funds (most sector and large growth) beat the sp500. And it was a very popular post in Dave Ramsey circles which tells me tons of people likely built their portfolios around them.
lots of people have caught lightning in a bottle and captured the upside of funds like AIVSX/DODGX as a result of their proliferation in retirement plans.
But timing is everything and I think morningstar stated that most equity mutual funds show Investor return to be less than NAV return over 3-15 yr periods because people buy funds when they've already captured much of the upside over those periods.

mskursh November 2 in Fund Discussions
The REAL Economy: 'Empty shelves, higher prices’- Americans tell cost of Trump’s tariffs
@msf I hear you. But I tend to keep thinking about young people starting out and forming a family while facing job disruptions and high housing costs. Also, from what I can see the direction of the country safety net is headed, they will need to have wages that cover private pay, unsubsidized, of things like healthcare, food and retirement. This means wages that grow from jobs that are secure. What counts is prospering over time. Stagnation won't get them there.
The unemployment rate for youth graduates (20-24) has averaged 8.1% over the last three months, its highest in four years.
And you rightfully point out that employers are eliminating pensions and passing on higher health care costs. The government wants them to be popping out kids to help with labor shortages. The employment/economic conditions do not support this.
This is a very interesting read from 2015. Mass deportations will absolutely accelerate the problems with population decline.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2015/02/17/population-decline-and-the-great-economic-reversal/

DrVenture November 2 in Other Investing
Stable-Value (SV) Rates, 11/1/25
Stable-Value (SV) Rates, 11/1/25
TIAA Traditional Annuity (Accumulation) Rates
25 bps cuts
Restricted RC 4.75%, RA 4.50%
Flexible RCP 4.00%, SRA 3.75%, IRA-101110+ 3.75%
(TIAA Declaration Year 3/1 - 2/28)
TSP G Fund pending (previous 4.250%).
Options outside of workplace retirement plans include m-mkt funds, bank m-mkt accounts (FDIC insured), T-Bills, short-term brokered CDs.
#StableValue #401k #403b #TIAA #TSP
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/2281/thread

yogibearbull October 31 in Fund Discussions
How at risk is this portfolio?
A conservative rule of thumb is to keep anything you expect to need in cash or something very close to cash, between 5 and 10 years in substantially IG bonds, and longer term in equity or near equity (e.g. HY bonds). A more modern rule of thumb is to use timeframes of 0-3 years, 3-7 years, and 7+ years.
However you slice it, 20% in equity is more like a low risk portfolio for the beginning of retirement (age 65) than one half-way through that phase. It's not high risk but adding the equity changes things significantly. Here's Portfolio Visualizer's simulation, I substituted WSHFX for CGDV because CGDV latter has too short a life to work with PV. WSHFX hasn't returned as much as CGDV, but it has a lower std dev and is the best quick hack I could come up with.
This portfolio will almost surely return positive inflation adjusted returns as opposed to an all bond portfolio that gradually loses value over time. The question here is whether that matters since you're looking to fund your wife's expenses after your death, not grow a portfolio. The tradeoff is double the volatility (probably even a bit more with CGDV instead of WSHFX).
Looking at worst case, drawdowns between 3/29/22 and ~~4/30/22~~ 9/30/22 were (from M* charts):
CGDV: -21.81%
SCHD: -15.43%
ICMUX: -4.76%
RSIIX: -4.26%
RCTIX: -3.51%
DHEAX: -1.89%
CBLDX: -1.12%
SWVXX: +0.10% (my guesstimate)
RPHIX: +1.07%
Equally weighted portfolio: -5.73%
I helped nudge an 80 year old I knew into an 80/20 portfolio, so I'm not knocking 80/20. But that portfolio had more than 20% in cash and near cash.
It really depends on how you view risk, both pragmatically (will the portfolio last long enough) and psychologically (can you sleep at night). If you're trying to replace a pension one thought is a (possibly deferred) annuity. An annuity is just a stream of payments like a pension, which is why I bring it up.
An annuity would provide lifetime income to your wife, much as your pension is providing lifetime income to you. If you defer the income (either with a deferred annuity or a deferred income annuity), then there are no income payments until later. Since you're thinking about this portfolio as a replacement for your pension, it doesn't sound like you need the income stream until your pension vanishes.
A deferred fixed annuity can also guarantee that you won't lose money. As always, TANSTAAFL. The safer the investment, the lower the return. But since you expressed concern about bond funds possibly losing money it seemed worth mentioning this feature (drawback?) of some annuities.

msf October 29 in Fund Discussions
Anyone adding to US Equity Funds at this time?
At present we have enough exposure to US and international stocks to generate growth. Our focus is on bonds and how they meet our retirement goals.

Sven October 28 in Fund Discussions
Case for a ‘Good Enough’ Portfolio
Neither. There’s a huge gap between the two.
When I retired, I already had enough — all I needed was a 6% annual return, indefinitely. I could have gone with a simple 50/50 portfolio, but why? That approach would have allowed my portfolio to drop 20–30% from peak to trough.
Instead, I set clear goals:
-Earn at least 6% annually.
-Make money every single year.
-Never lose more than 3% from any recent high.
-Outperform a traditional 50/50 portfolio.
-Achieve the best possible risk-adjusted returns.
I’ve met and exceeded all of those goals.
=============
During the accumulation phase from 1995 to retirement on 2018, my stock portion beat the SP500, and my bond portion did too...and with better risk/adjusted performance.

FD1000 October 27 in Other Investing
Case for a ‘Good Enough’ Portfolio
Christine Benz pondered contradictory feedback after a recent, successful Bogleheads conference.
She came to the conclusion that the conference is attempting to serve two completely different audiences —
portfolio maximizers (or optimizers) and "satisficers."
Maximizers conduct deep research on how to best create a financial plan and manage their portfolios.
They'll often enjoy debating the finer points regarding their financial analysis/decisions.
Satisficers, on the other hand, are seeking acceptable options rather than optimal ones.
They're less interested in the nitty-gritty details and gravitate towards big-picture topics
like finding enough, retirement lifestyle considerations, and leaving a legacy, for example.
Throughout my investment career, I've tended to be a maximizer.
As I've entered the … umm, second half of my life, I'll strive to spend less time and energy managing my investments.
Are you seeking the optimal portfolio and very best investing solutions or will good enough do?
https://www.morningstar.com/personal-finance/case-good-enough-portfolio

Observant1 October 27 in Other Investing
Blackstone and Apollo Court Small-Time Investors They Used to Snub
To me, this screams "run fast, run far (away)!" and/or suggests the need to make sure your investment's watertight doors are working and the lifeboats are at least uncovered and stocked with provisions......
Per BBG:
Blackstone Inc. and other private equity firms are launching a campaign to sell their investments to everyday Americans, with ads, emails, and sports sponsorships.
The firms are trying to tap into the $13 trillion market for US defined-contribution retirement plans, after regulators opened it up to private equity and other alternative assets.
Despite concerns about the timing and potential returns, alternative asset managers are aggressively courting small-time investors, with some wealth advisers reporting being inundated with emails, calls, and other solicitations.
Full article @ https://archive.ph/vbmnF

rforno October 27 in Other Investing
The REAL Economy: 'Empty shelves, higher prices’- Americans tell cost of Trump’s tariffs
@msf I hear you. But I tend to keep thinking about young people starting out and forming a family while facing job disruptions and high housing costs. Also, from what I can see the direction of the country safety net is headed, they will need to have wages that cover private pay, unsubsidized, of things like healthcare, food and retirement. This means wages that grow from jobs that are secure. What counts is prospering over time. Stagnation won't get them there.

Anna October 26 in Other Investing
I guess he didn’t learn from liberation day!
@FD100 - Why hasn’t some big mutual fund company snatched you up yet to run some of their funds? I’d imagine you could make David Giroux look like a rank amateur. Quite amazing TRP hasn’t lured you in with a big singing bonus …
I retired with enough money to cover our expenses for 25 years, not including SS.
Then I doubled our portfolio.
I don't need a job. We have enough for all the good stuff.
Retirement is the best job I have ever had.
Many investors still haven't learned the lesson, stop investing based on politics and complaining about it.

FD1000 October 17 in Fund Discussions
Why Gold Will Lose Its Luster
YTD: GLD=62.7%...SPY=13.8%
1 Month: GLD=16.5%...SPY=0.3%
So, you can doubt the future of GLD, but in 2025 it's so much better, and that's why I have based my investments on current markets. I don't care about the past either.
I don't own risky stuff anymore since retirement in 2018.
It doesn't mean you must own a high %. A 10-15% is all you need.

FD1000 October 16 in Other Investing
Alert on Fund ERs
I'm happy to discuss what expenses should be counted as fund expenses. But we can do without the rhetoric, especially in the passive voice: "There is concern that" (which comes from the cited article).
The second line of Zweig's piece reads: "A bill passed by the House and pending in the Senate would authorize portfolios often used in retirement accounts to skip reporting the expenses of certain funds they may invest in." There is nothing in the bill that is specific to retirement accounts; this was thrown in to agitate not to enlighten.
On to the main question: what should be counted as fund expenses?
I think most people agree that direct expenses incurred by the fund should be counted. Manager salaries, paying to keep the lights on, brokerage fees (not currently counted), borrowing costs regardless of use (including borrowing costs to short securities).
Most people seem to feel that some indirect fees should not be counted. Such as Warren Buffet's salary (if a fund owns BRK), even though people may view the company as a conglomerate or holding company. How about Fernando Fernandez's compensation at Unilever?
Moving on to BDCs, Zweig writes that "Being regulated as funds gives BDCs special tax privileges". Just like REITs. Zweig is concerned that BDC expenses might not be counted with mutual fund acquired expenses. Just like REITs today. And just like REITs their special tax privileges extend to being treated as pass-through entities.
While the current bill proposal deals only with BDCs, it's still curious that he didn't say anything about how it would merely harmonize BDCs with REITs. Especially since OBBB just made the "special tax privileges" of BDCs even closer to REITs' by giving them the same 20% deduction (Section 199A) that REITs have.
https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/tax-insights/tax-bills-section-199a-expansion-would-boost-bdcs
If one is going to count some indirect (acquired securities) expenses as fund costs, then where and why does one draw the line? Why don't we include REITs? Conversely, why should we count any indirect costs? They're explicitly excluded from the financial statements precisely because their impact is already reflected in the portfolio's performance.
Yogi suggests that many investors don't read even summary prospectuses. If we go down that path to the lowest common denominator, then why worry about this at all? Many people just look at performance, d**n the expenses. In which case this whole discussion is moot.

msf October 11 in Fund Discussions
Otter Creek Focus Strategy ETF will be liquidated
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/811030/000089418925010867/ottercreekfocusstrategyetf.htm
497 1 ottercreekfocusstrategyetf.htm 497E
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
Registration Nos. 033-12213; 811-05037
Otter Creek Focus Strategy ETF (the “Fund”)
Ticker: OCFS
Listed on NYSE Arca, Inc.
a series of Professionally Managed Portfolios (the “Trust”)
Supplement dated October 9, 2025
to the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information
each dated February 28, 2025
The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of Professionally Managed Portfolios, based upon the recommendation of Otter Creek Advisors, LLC (the “Advisor”), the investment advisor to the Fund, has determined to close and liquidate the Fund. The Board concluded that it would be in the best interest of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund be closed to new purchases, except for purchases made through an automatic investment program or the reinvestment of any distributions, as of the close of business on October 9, 2025 (the “Closing Date”) and liquidated as a series of the Trust effective as of the close of business on October 30, 2025 (the “Liquidation Date”).
The Board approved a Plan of Liquidation (the “Plan”) that determines the manner in which the Fund will be liquidated. Pursuant to the Plan and in anticipation of the Fund’s liquidation, the Fund will be closed to new purchases, except for purchases made through an automatic investment program or a purchase exception that is approved by Trust officers, effective as of the close of business on the Closing Date, after which the Fund’s assets may be entirely invested in money market instruments or held in cash or cash equivalents. Accordingly, the Fund will no longer be pursuing its investment objective. Any distributions declared to shareholders of the Fund after the Closing Date and until the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange on the Liquidation Date will be automatically reinvested in additional shares of the Fund unless a shareholder specifically requests that such distributions be paid in cash. Although the Fund will be closed to new purchases as of the Closing Date, you may continue to redeem your shares of the Fund until the Liquidation Date, as described in “How to Sell Shares” in the Fund’s Prospectus.
Pursuant to the Plan, if the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction prior to the close of business on the Liquidation Date, your shares will be redeemed and you will receive proceeds representing your proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund as of the Liquidation Date after the Fund has paid or provided for all taxes, expenses, and any other liabilities, subject to any required withholdings. As is the case with any redemption of Fund shares, these liquidation proceeds will generally be subject to federal and, as applicable, state and local income taxes if the redeemed shares are held in a taxable account and the liquidation proceeds exceed your adjusted basis in the shares redeemed. If the redeemed shares are held in a qualified retirement account such as an IRA, the liquidation proceeds may not be subject to current income taxation under certain conditions. You should consult with your tax advisor for further information regarding the federal, state and/or local income tax consequences of this liquidation that are relevant to your specific situation.
The Advisor will bear all of the expenses incurred in carrying out the Plan.
Shareholder inquiries should be directed to the Fund at 1-800-617-0004.
* * * * *
Please retain this supplement for future reference.

TheShadow October 10 in Fund Discussions
Otter Creek Long/Short Opportunity Fund will be liquidated
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/811030/000089418925010868/ottercreeklongshortopportu.htm
497 1 ottercreeklongshortopportu.htm 497E
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
Registration Nos. 033-12213; 811-05037
Otter Creek Long/Short Opportunity Fund (the “Fund”)
Institutional Class – Ticker: OTTRX
Investor Class – Ticker: OTCRX
a series of Professionally Managed Portfolios (the “Trust”)
Supplement dated October 9, 2025
to the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information
each dated February 28, 2025
The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of Professionally Managed Portfolios, based upon the recommendation of Otter Creek Advisors, LLC (the “Advisor”), the investment advisor to the Fund, has determined to close and liquidate the Fund. The Board concluded that it would be in the best interest of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund be closed to new purchases, except for purchases made through an automatic investment program or the reinvestment of any distributions, as of the close of business on October 9, 2025 (the “Closing Date”) and liquidated as a series of the Trust effective as of the close of business on October 30, 2025 (the “Liquidation Date”).
The Board approved a Plan of Liquidation (the “Plan”) that determines the manner in which the Fund will be liquidated. Pursuant to the Plan and in anticipation of the Fund’s liquidation, the Fund will be closed to new purchases, except for purchases made through an automatic investment program or a purchase exception that is approved by Trust officers, effective as of the close of business on the Closing Date, after which the Fund’s assets may be entirely invested in money market instruments or held in cash or cash equivalents. Accordingly, the Fund will no longer be pursuing its investment objective. Any distributions declared to shareholders of the Fund after the Closing Date and until the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange on the Liquidation Date will be automatically reinvested in additional shares of the Fund unless a shareholder specifically requests that such distributions be paid in cash. Although the Fund will be closed to new purchases as of the Closing Date, you may continue to redeem your shares of the Fund until the Liquidation Date, as described in “How to Sell Shares” in the Fund’s Prospectus.
Pursuant to the Plan, if the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction prior to the close of business on the Liquidation Date, your shares will be redeemed and you will receive proceeds representing your proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund as of the Liquidation Date after the Fund has paid or provided for all taxes, expenses, and any other liabilities, subject to any required withholdings. As is the case with any redemption of Fund shares, these liquidation proceeds will generally be subject to federal and, as applicable, state and local income taxes if the redeemed shares are held in a taxable account and the liquidation proceeds exceed your adjusted basis in the shares redeemed. If the redeemed shares are held in a qualified retirement account such as an IRA, the liquidation proceeds may not be subject to current income taxation under certain conditions. You should consult with your tax advisor for further information regarding the federal, state and/or local income tax consequences of this liquidation that are relevant to your specific situation.
The Advisor will bear all of the expenses incurred in carrying out the Plan.
Shareholder inquiries should be directed to the Fund at 1-855-681-5261.
* * * * *
Please retain this supplement for future reference.

TheShadow October 10 in Fund Discussions
Are PM prices near their peak?
The first time I invested in gold and silver (CEF, IAU, and SIVR -- all in my retirement portfolios) was because I followed Rono on this Board. I've stuck with those investments for 15+years and I'm glad I did.
THANK YOU, Rono -- for sharing your wisdom and perspective here. I'm glad to see you posting again.

VirtueRunsDeep October 7 in Other Investing
Peter Lynch with Joshua Brown
I try to remind myself of these fees each time I am offered a "free" steak dinner from these wealth management companies.
In my world, management fees would only be allowed on positive performance (the gains), not the initial investment amount (the principal).
For example, If I give you $10K to invest and that investment becomes $11K in a year, I am willing to pay you 1% on the gain (1% of $1K or $10), not 1% on the entire $11K.
You helped me make $1K... I brought you $10K.
Conversely, If you lost money for me that year, you get $0 fee.
Or even better, how about you pay me 1% of AUM in the years when my portfolio had negative returns. We are a team, right? If "we do better when you do better" is true, than how about "we both do worse when you suffer a loss (do worse)".
In terms of retirement Safe Withdrawal Rate (SWR) of say 4%, a typical 1% management fee equates to 25% of that SWR (1% of the 4%). That a significant reduction in retirement income.
I'll take that steak dinner to go please!
Yeah, well said!
Maybe I am just a cheapskate, but I am not paying for anything that I can do myself, that doesn't involve a septic tank.
A free steak is not worth hours of my time and enduring a sales pitch.

DrVenture October 6 in Other Investing
Peter Lynch with Joshua Brown
I try to remind myself of these fees each time I am offered a "free" steak dinner from these wealth management companies.
In my world, management fees would only be allowed on positive performance (the gains), not the initial investment amount (the principal).
For example, If I give you $10K to invest and that investment becomes $11K in a year, I am willing to pay you 1% on the gain (1% of $1K or $10), not 1% on the entire $11K.
You helped me make $1K... I brought you $10K.
Conversely, If you lost money for me that year, you get $0 fee.
Or even better, how about you pay me 1% of AUM in the years when my portfolio had negative returns. We are a team, right? If "we do better when you do better" is true, than how about "we both do worse when you suffer a loss (do worse)".
In terms of retirement Safe Withdrawal Rate (SWR) of say 4%, a typical 1% management fee equates to 25% of that SWR (1% of the 4%). That a significant reduction in retirement income.
I'll take that steak dinner to go please!

bee October 6 in Other Investing
E-File's 2025 Tax Calculator & Vanguard's Roth Conversion Calculator
@bee Thanks. Timely for me, as I contemplate Roth conversions starting possibly 2026 or 2027.
My goal is to stay below the 24% tax bracket at RMD time. The calculator forces some assumptions, of course. And I previously determined that a Roth conversion adds to your income for that tax year. So, I may delay conversions an additional year to try and use the 0% LTCG rate and sell some highly appreciated stock.
What complicates things is that my state does not tax retirement income, but does tax LTCG at ordinary income tax rates. So, one strategy sort of offsets the other. I definitely need to study this more.
Between the assumptions and unknown variables (age, tax rates, mortality, income levels) I think that one needs to make, at best, an educated guess.
I like this calculator too: https://www.irscalculators.com/tax-calculator

DrVenture October 5 in Other Investing