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.
  • Federal trade court blocks Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs under emergency powers law
    Following are excerpts from a current Associated Press report:
    WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal trade court on Wednesday blocked President Donald Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an emergency-powers law, swiftly throwing into doubt Trump’s signature set of economic policies that have rattled global financial markets, frustrated trade partners and raised broader fears about inflation intensifying and the economy slumping.
    The ruling from a three-judge panel at the New York-based Court of International Trade came after several lawsuits arguing Trump has exceeded his authority and left U.S. trade policy dependent on his whims. But for now, Trump might not have the threat of import taxes to exact his will on the world economy as he had intended, since doing so would require congressional approval. What remains unclear is whether the White House will respond to the ruling by pausing all of its emergency power tariffs in the interim.
    The ruling amounted to a categorical rejection of the legal underpinnings of some of Trump’s signature and most controversial actions of his four-month-old second term. The ruling faces certain appeal — and the Supreme Court will almost certainly be called upon to lend a final answer — but it casts a sharp blow.
    “The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,” the court wrote, referring to the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. While tariffs must typically be approved by Congress, Trump has said he has the power to act to address the trade deficits he calls a national emergency.
    He is facing at least seven lawsuits challenging the levies. The plaintiffs argued that the emergency powers law does not authorize the use of tariffs, and even if it did, the trade deficit is not an emergency because the U.S. has run a trade deficit with the rest of the world for 49 consecutive years.
    Trump imposed tariffs on most of the countries in the world in an effort to reverse America’s massive and long-standing trade deficits. He earlier plastered levies on imports from Canada, China and Mexico to combat the illegal flow of immigrants and the synthetic opioids across the U.S. border.
    The lawsuit was filed by a group of small businesses, including a wine importer, V.O.S. Selections, whose owner has said the tariffs are having a major impact and his company may not survive. A dozen states also filed suit, led by Oregon. “This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can’t be made on the president’s whim,” Attorney General Dan Rayfield said.
  • TETON Westwood SmallCap Equity Fund change
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/796229/000182912625003988/tetonwestwood_497.htm
    97 1 tetonwestwood_497.htm 497
    Filed Pursuant to Rule 497(e)
    Registration No. 033-06790
    The TETON Westwood Funds
    TETON Westwood SmallCap Equity Fund
    (the “Fund”)
    Supplement dated May 28, 2025, to the Fund’s
    Prospectus and Summary Prospectus dated January 28, 2025
    On May 1, 2025, Keeley-Teton Advisors, LLC (“Keeley Teton”) announced that it had agreed to transfer its investment management business to its affiliate, Gabelli Funds, LLC (the “Transaction”). The Transaction will not result in any change to the services provided under the investment advisory agreement. Gabelli Funds, LLC will assume the investment advisory agreement as well as Keeley Teton’s obligations under the Operating Expenses Limitation Agreement.
    Keeley Teton’s Investment Research Advisory Committee (the “Committee”) is currently responsible for the day-to-day management of the Fund’s portfolio. The Committee will not remain in place following the Transaction; however, Joseph Gabelli, a member of the Committee, will serve as portfolio manager of the Fund. Nicholas F. Galluccio, Scott R. Butler, Hendi Susanto, Macrae Sykes, Brian Sponheimer, Thomas Browne, Jr., and Brian Leonard will no longer serve as portfolio managers of the Fund.
    There will be no change of actual control or management of the Fund’s investment adviser. The Transaction will not constitute an “assignment” of the investment advisory agreement for purposes of the Investment Company Act of 1940, and therefore, a shareholder vote is not required. On May 13, 2025, the Board of Trustees of The TETON Westwood Funds approved the re-execution of the investment advisory agreement.
    Accordingly, effective May 28, 2025, the following changes are hereby made to the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus: all references to “Keeley-Teton Advisors, LLC” are replaced with “Gabelli Funds, LLC,” all references to the Investment Research Advisory Committee are removed, Joseph Gabelli is added as portfolio manager of the Fund; Nicholas F. Galluccio, Scott R. Butler, Hendi Susanto, Macrae Sykes, Brian Sponheimer, Thomas Browne, Jr., and Brian Leonard are removed as portfolio managers of the Fund.
    In addition, effective June 27, 2025, the Fund will be renamed as follows:
    Current Name-------------------------------------->New Name
    TETON Westwood SmallCap Equity Fund--->Keeley Small Cap Fund
    Accordingly, effective on such date, all references in the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus to the Fund’s current name are hereby replaced with the new name indicated above.
    *****
    SHAREHOLDERS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
  • Add ETF Share Class To Mutual Funds
    Vanguard filed a patent in 2001 to create ETf share classes for existing mutual funds.
    This exclusive patent expired in 2023.
    Numerous firms have shown interest in adopting this structure and are awaiting SEC approval to proceed.
    There are concerns that mutual fund outflows may increase the likelihood of taxable capital-gains distributions for ETf shareholders.
    "The US Securities and Exchange Commission is expected to approve applications for dual-share-class structures, perhaps as soon as this summer, allowing managers to add an ETF sleeve to an existing mutual fund. More than 50 firms, including BlackRock Inc. and State Street Corp., are waiting for the regulator’s greenlight to deploy the hybrid structure —made possible after Vanguard Group Inc.’s exclusive patent
    expired two years ago."

    https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2025/05/28/wall-streets-vanguard-style-funds-draws-warnings
  • Private-Equity Wants a Piece of Your 401(k)
    Obs "This fund gained 7.2% a year from 07/01/2023 - 04/30/2025 with a standard deviation of just 0.5%!"
    FD: Welcome to my world :-)
    Take a look at HOSIX, the volatility is minimal = 1.2, performance at 9.8% annually.
    https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=17HLSk91w93309cdcjzCe5
  • Talk about privacy
    @Derf - Your topic heading (”Talk About Privacy”) might be a little more focused? Or, are you trying to emulate Vanguard’s more generic approach? :)
    I’d say that procedure is pretty normal @Derf. Most, but not all, of my financial institutions, including Fidelity, do that as an extra layer of security. And I have a hospital network / medical provider that does the same. Email: “We have a new clinical note for you. Log into your account to read it.”
    With 14 CEFs in a basket at Fido, I log in a couple times a week (and pull up “recent activity”) to track the dividends as they stagger in. Basket case! So rarely bother to look at the “confirmation” (?) emails that arrive.
    @Old_Joe, I think, noted a while back that he views logging into his brokerage account more often as a “plus” in terms of security. I see the point. Although I wonder if logging in more frequently might also expose one to more risk?
    A good time to remind folks to consider an “authentication app” as an added security measure. Plenty of information online about those.
  • Talk about privacy
    Find the partial reply from Vanguard after I made a purchase.
    "Your Vanguard brokerage transaction confirmation for the purchase of 100 shares of stock X on 05/27/2025 is now available online."
    Why not say "HERE" is your conformation. Meaning go to VG & check it out?
    Wondering if I'm the only receiving this message?
  • Covered-Call Funds
    Good investigation there msf! Almost became a sucker, er too late for that.
    I should have listed the Ishares funds that use simple SP500 put options or DIVO that was mentioned in another thread.
    MAXJ -July 1 2024 till June 30,2025 - guaranteed rate 0-10.6% for one year period.
    MAXJ thus far has about 7% return compared to 11% for SP500.
    https://www.ishares.com/us/strategies/investing-for-outcomes#navigate-risk
  • What's Predicted Funds' Performance?
    Good read. My conclusion over decades is that good funds will continue to be top funds
    in the future until markets change and why I started investing this way in 2000.

    sounds as though you have done some backtesting.
    I held a lot of tweix, cgmfx, fairx, glrbx, and mapox back then.
    My ORIGINAL system is based on funds with good 1-3 years of performance and selecting the ones with the best 3-6 months of momo.
    During 2000-10, I held the following 3 funds for between 7-9 years. FAIRX,OAKBX,SGIIX. The rest of the history is at (link).
  • Tariffs

    without bribes, its clear to all but china that 10% tariffs is now benchmark par, based on trump's recent quote if nothing else :
    “I’m not looking for a deal. We’ve set the deal — it’s at 50 percent.”
  • Covered-Call Funds
    Say you owned GSPKX and SPY on Oct 9, 2007. That's one of just a few covered call funds that existed and used covered calls back then.
    Between then and March 9, 2009, you would have lost 55.17% with SPY. GSPKX would have provided you around 3% of protection with its covered call income. You still would have lost 52.22%.
    Yogi has pointed out that the downside protection provided by covered calls is limited. That limitation is no more apparent than when losses are large. The two funds track all the way down. That's not diversification; the call writing just gives a little daylight between the lines. (Data from M* chart.)
    In case one wonders (as I did) whether GSPKX was really a covered call fund during the GFC, here are excerpts from its prospectus, then and now:
    From its prospectus, April 29, 2008:
    The Fund invests primarily in a diversified portfolio of common stocks of large-cap U.S. issuers represented in the S&P 500 Index and maintains industry weightings similar to those of the Index. The Fund seeks to generate additional cash flow by the sale of call options on the S&P 500 Index or related ETFs. The volatility of the Fund’s portfolio is expected to be reduced by the Fund’s sale of call options. .
    From its current summary prospectus:
    The Fund invests, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of its net assets plus any borrowings for investment purposes (measured at the time of purchase) (“Net Assets”) in dividend-paying equity investments in large-cap U.S. issuers. ... The Fund seeks to generate additional cash flow and may reduce volatility by the sale of call options on the S&P 500® Index or other national or regional stock market indices (or related exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”)). The Fund expects that, under normal circumstances, it will sell call options in an amount that is between 20% and 75% of the value of the Fund’s portfolio. As the seller of the call options, the Fund will receive cash (the “premium”) from the purchaser
    Not quite identical (the lawyers have had two decades to tweak the wording :-)) but close enough.
  • What's Predicted Funds' Performance?
    Good read. My conclusion over decades is that good funds will continue to be top funds
    in the future until markets change and why I started investing this way in 2000.
    sounds as though you have done some backtesting.
    I held a lot of tweix, cgmfx, fairx, glrbx, and mapox back then.
  • Changes to Social Security Payment Schedule Will Affect Millions in May
    Same here. Never the 1st or 3rd of the month.
    We have continued to receive our SS checks on the scheduled dates — second Wednesdays for my wife and third Wednesdays for me. These have been our payment dates since we started drawing SS.
  • Tariffs
    The current president and his acolyte FD1000 are living proof that there are those who know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.
    Oscar Wilde knew the type when he saw them.
    +1.
  • Tariffs
    The current president and his acolyte FD1000 are living proof that there are those who know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.
    Oscar Wilde knew the type when he saw them.
  • Options for liquidity beyond cash …. ?
    Funny you should mention GABXX @msf. I was looking at another of their funds, GABCX, last evening and when I ran it on Fidelity’s site I learned they don’t offer it, nor do they offer GABXX. Not a huge fan of Gabelli, but have owned / do own 1 or 2 of their CEFs.
    You make excellent points. Complicating things is that I’ve stashed about a year’s anticipated IRA distributions in SPAXX. A slug of that is anticipated for infrastructure. Absolutely want that $$ in a money market fund. Just don’t want to actually “distribute” it until needed. So my question hinged more on cash as a longer term portfolio position, equal in weight to several other holdings (with occasional rebalancing back to neutral).
    Re trading - I lost a bit when I sold JAAA in late April in order to buy equities and other risk assets.. JAAA dropped then (but much less than equities). So no! Don’t rely on it for trading needs. (I no longer own it.) I also lost on PRIHX which I loaded up on in my taxable account roughly 5-6 years ago. It had appeared so “safe” based on past performance. Yet when I finally sold out 3 or 4 years later it was worth less then at purchase.
    Oh. Excuse me. I realize you’re not supposed to confess past mistakes here! :)
  • What Type of Fund might survive or thrive in this unprecedented environment?
    The following article provides several suggestions on how to secure your retirement portfolio
    when market anxiety is high.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/top-stocks/market-anxiety-is-running-high-how-to-secure-your-retirement-portfolio/ar-AA1Fk9bO
    Lord, talk about covering everything
  • Options for liquidity beyond cash …. ?
    The approach depends on one's objectives. For day-to-day, checking account type usage (or hank's trading), IMHO only a MMF, like GABXX (7 day yield 4.30%) or VUSXX (7 day yield 4.23%), are a good match. I'm assuming a "checking usage" occurs in a taxable account where pure treasury holdings (state exempt) add value. And like bank accounts, these will not lose money (unless the underlying treasuries default).
    What to use beyond that depends on one's objective(s). If one is looking at making periodic payments within the next few months (e.g. property taxes, mortgage payments, insurance premiums, income tax estimates, etc.) then buying individual treasuries maturing at the right time look good. The treasury yield curve is flat out to six months (around 4.35%)
    If one is looking at opportunistically replenishing one's "checking" account, then looking at funds with durations up to two years (NEAR being at the outer fringe) makes sense. I'd focus more on drawdown recovery times than volatility risk. Alternatively, one might want to optimize risk/reward.
    I asked Portfolio Visualizer to do that with eight funds. Four of those were mentioned here: USFR, PULS, TBUX, NEAR. Since PV doesn't optimize cash, I substituted ICSH for a MMF. For the other three I added two floating rate non-treasury funds, FFRHX (bank loan, junk) and FLRN (IG). Finally I added CBUDX which has gotten some mention on MFO.
    PV reports that one optimizes reward/risk generally with a mix of CBUDX and FFRHX - the more risk one is willing to take, the more one adds FFRHX. It's only at the low end of risk (very low portfolio volatility) that one emphasizes USFR. And there's a narrow range of risks (volatility) of risk where ~10% in PULS helps. If it makes you feel more comfortable, an equal allocation of all eight of these funds is not far off the efficient frontier, so that works too.
    If anyone is wondering why I didn't include RPHIX, it's because the results aren't that much different from using CBUDX. Substituting RPHIX for CBUDX, the mixture graph (which funds for what volatility) is fairly unchanged. Though the max Sharpe ratio is a higher as are the returns with RPHIX.
  • Buy Sell Why: ad infinitum.
    Sold CMCSA for a 10% ST gain
    Nice. I’m usually happy to snatch up a quick 10% gain.
  • Buy Sell Why: ad infinitum.
    Raised portfolio cash from 10% to 15% with withdrawals from more aggressive holdings across the board. That somewhat understates actual short-term fixed income exposure because some of my ”investments” hold or attempt to replicate fixed income as well.
    Another Marvell line: “But at my back I always hear Time’s winged chariot …