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.
  • Why inflation is losing its punch — and why things could get even better

    Following is a current report from NPR:
    Inflation has been bruising Americans for more than two years — and it's finally losing some of its punch.
    The Labor Department reported Wednesday that the consumer prices in June were up just 3% from a year ago — the smallest annual increase since March 2021. What's more, forecasters say inflation could fall further in the months to come.
    But two years of high inflation has left its scars, and people are adjusting their habits, potentially in permanent ways.

    image
    -                                 (Chart courtesy of The New York Times)
    Here are five things to know about the state of inflation today.
    Inflation has fallen sharply from its peak last year
    It was a totally different picture this time last year. Back then, inflation had topped 9%, fueled in part by record-high gasoline prices following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
    Since then, gasoline prices have tumbled more than 26%. And that's having a big impact on the day-to-day lives of many Americans, especially commuters like Kate Blacker from Jersey City, N.J., who travels about an hour each day to her job at a community college.
    "I'm a lot less worried now than I was six months ago, eight months ago, when the prices were rising so rapidly and I didn't know when that was going to cool down," says Blacker.
    Grocery prices also leveled off last month, in a welcome relief to consumers' budgets.
    And in another positive development in the midst of the summer, the price of airline tickets and hotel rooms fell in June, despite strong demand for travel.
    Inflation likely has further to fall
    Here's more good news: Even lower inflation rates are in the pipeline. Rent was a big driver of inflation in June, but people signing new apartment leases this summer are seeing smaller rent increases than they did a year ago.
    That takes time to show up in the government's inflation tally, but the writing is on the wall.
    Likewise, the wholesale price of used cars has been falling for several months, so those savings should continue to produce lower prices on dealers' lots.
    Omair Sharif, who heads the forecasting firm Inflation Insights, believes the next several months will be marked by mild cost-of-living increases, much like June was.
    "This is kind of the leading edge of the summer of disinflation," Sharif says.
    Companies may no longer be able to pad their profits
    Economist Lael Brainard says some companies added to their profit margins during the last two years of strong inflation — a trend that could soon be reversed.
    Brainard served as Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve board before moving to the White House in February to direct the National Economic Council. She points to what she calls a "price-price" spiral, when companies see their costs go up, then raise their own prices even more.
    "It will be important for corporations to continue to bring their markups down after having raised them to unusually elevated levels over the past two years," Brainard told the Economic Club of New York Wednesday.
    Brainard says those higher markups "should unwind if consumers are more price-sensitive and firms have to compete more intensely."
    Many people are becoming more careful shoppers
    Two years of high inflation has left a mark on the way people spend money, and some of those changes may be lasting.
    Blacker, for example, postponed a trip to Los Angeles this summer, hoping to find cheaper plane tickets in the fall. She also canceled her gym membership, and says she and her partner are more thoughtful now about their food purchases than they used to be.
    "We didn't really look so much at the grocery prices before," Blacker says. "It was more like, 'Oh, let's look up a recipe and just get whatever it is that we need.'"
    With restaurant prices still climbing, she's also eating out less often.
    "It's something we have to be much more conscious about, in terms our budgeting for that," Blacker says.
    The Federal Reserve is not ready to declare victory just yet
    The data showing easing inflation on Wednesday will likely be greeted as welcome news to the country's inflation fighters, but the battle is probably not over.
    The Fed has raised interest rates aggressively over the last 16 months in an effort to curb demand and bring prices under control.
    Although the central bank opted to hold rates steady at its last meeting in June, forecasters expect at least one additional, quarter-point rate hike when Fed policymakers meet in two weeks.
    If inflation continues to trend down, however, that may just be the last increase in this cycle.
  • Major Indexes Since 2022
    This rally keeps climbing the walls of worry. It would be interesting to see of the rally collapses before the walls-of-worry.
    So, here are the 5 major indexes since 2022 - you may note a start date in mid-2021 but that is only for the relevant data points to clear the StockCharts legends area on the upper-left.
    The original link that may default after a while to 1 yr, https://stockcharts.com/h-perf/ui?s=$INDU&compare=$COMPQ,$SPX,$TRAN,IWM&id=p58525850702
    Screenshot link https://i.ibb.co/cJxNnZ2/Screenshot-2023-07-12-17-36-42.png
    and by the MFO Image tool magic:
    image
  • Anybody Investing in bond funds?
    FAFRX (bank loan) continues to do well YTD. Other good ones are GIFIX, then FFRHX. The first two funds...YTD>7%...one year>10-11%...3 year>19-21%. All 3 funds SD is about 4.2.
    But that's not all, compare this to PRCPX+TUHYX and you can see that HY has a much higher volatility. You want to achieve higher performance with lower volatility.
    YTD Chart(https://schrts.co/CuXmBygK)
    To see the volatility use only two funds: BL=FAFRX vs HY=TUHYX. See (https://schrts.co/vsTRCtXv) For YTD from Peaks and troughs, FAFRX was down only 1.5%, but TUHYX lost over 5%
    I have been saying for several weeks that rate hikes are at the end. Another +0.25% isn't going to change much. Bank loans continue going up. FAFRX went up another 0.26% today with YTD=8.1%.
    The 2 biggest things I changed compared to a "normal" market are more trading + staying days-weeks in MM which pays around 5%. I'm also pretty sure that certain categories will do nicely in 2023.
  • Memoriam: Robert Bruce (Bruce Fund)
    We ended our 2020 profile of the Bruce Fund with this note: "Bruce is an enigmatic fund because its managers choose for it to be so. They don’t explain themselves to the public, though do answer calls from their investors." Talked to Jeff Bruce for about 20 minutes today, and nothing has changed. He's very pleasant and agreeable but has spent 38 years with the mantra: we talk to our shareholders, not the outsiders." No interviews with Morningstar since the early 80s when Mr. Mansueto has a two person operation and a newsletter. (The younger Mr Bruce went to high school with Mr Mansueto but they seemed not to be in the same social circle.)
    The takeaway is that Jeff anticipates no change. He and his dad worked together for 38 years. They talked about each idea. If one of them liked it, they bought a little. If both of them liked it, they bought a lot. And vice versa with sells. The support team remains in place and confidence is unshaken.
    He does know that we've commented favorably on the fund's high cash stake. (Currently 25% with substantial overweights in defensive stocks.) He seems to appreciate the understanding. The fund is underwater today, mostly because they had anticipated a hard market. It is, he reports, their fifth-worst performance since launch. He admits that's there's somewhat limited comfort in the observation, "well, we have done worse four other times and always bounced back by striking with the plan."
    It's entirely cool that the manager, in their 450 square foot world headquarters, answers the phone himself on the second ring and enjoys talking with shareholders.
    For what that's worth,
    David
  • INTERESTING WAY TO RUN A BUSINESS
    Back in the glory days when most cities had at least a couple of large and healthy newspapers, the San Francisco Chronicle was actually a fairly decent operation. Today, it's simply a pathetic shadow of itself.
    For many years the Chronicle had a number of good columnists: Herb Cain was probably the best known, but there were two or three others as well. A fellow named Art Hoppe was one of those, and always fun to read. His son, Nick Hoppe, is a successful businessman, not a columnist, but he certainly inherited his father's perspective on life in general. He writes an occasional "column" on the internet, and as a recent one is something of a commentary on business as we now know it, I thought that it was worthy of mention here on MFO.
    I'm so out of touch. I've been running a business for 45 years and it's actually been profitable. What an idiot.
    If I had any brains at all, I would have come up with an idea, raised billions of dollars from investors, and then proceeded to lose money every year, thereby increasing the value tenfold.
    More than 40% of the companies in the S&P 500 lost money in the past year. And these are just the public companies with shares sold on the stock exchange. Imagine how many private tech companies, most funded by venture capital firms, are losing money.
    It's mind-boggling how they operate. My daughter-in-law worked for one of those private startup tech companies. They found their niche in the CAP Table Management software market, which basically means they'll value your business and tell you who owns what percentage.
    Apparently, that's more complicated than it seems. The founders raised $1.2 billion in 2012 and it's now valued at $8.5 billion. They have over 1500 employees and have never been profitable, losing millions and millions every year for 13 years.
    They certainly don't seem to care. Like most tech companies, their employee benefits are off the charts. When my daughter-in-law had her first child not long ago, she was given a six-month paid maternity leave. That's par for the course when it comes to the tech industry, but what really blew me away was when she returned to work.
    "YOU GOT A 30% RAISE??!!" I remember squealing when she told me it took her by surprise. "YOU WEREN'T EVEN THERE!!"
    "Yep, I was shocked," she replied. "Very nice of them."
    Six months later, 15% of the employees got laid off in a cost-cutting move. Nothing made sense.
    But that's the way it goes in this new startup world. These aren't the businesses I grew up watching, nor are they the businesses I run now. We take excellent care of our employees, but we also like to remain profitable. There's a balance in there somewhere.
    The list of deadbeat companies is endless. Uber lost $7.2 billion in 2022, Lyft lost $1.6 billion, Peloton $1.2 billion, WeWork $1.7 billion, Rivian Automotive (Tesla imitator) $6.2 billion. But work at any of those companies and you'll probably get a raise during your maternity or paternity leave.
    Enjoy it, because you're likely to get laid off at some point. No company can endure these losses forever. Between January and May of this year, over 200,000 employees in the tech sector were laid off. Perhaps companies are realizing that the objective is to be profitable.
    They certainly understand that concept at Google and Facebook. Google laid off 12,000 employees in the last 12 months and Facebook laid off 21,000. Maybe that's why Google had net income of $60 billion in that period and Facebook had net income of $23 billion.
    Then there's DoorDash. The food delivery service based in San Francisco lost $468 million in 2021 and a whopping $1.3 billion in 2022. It doesn't take a genius to see it's going in the wrong direction. Someone must have noticed, because DoorDash laid off 1250 employees in November of 2022 in an effort to rein in costs.
    The only problem is that the severance package included paying the employees for 13 weeks after parting ways, along with a lump sum of one month's salary. I don't want to sound insensitive, but NO WONDER THEY'RE LOSING MONEY!
    To make matters worse, I was absent-mindedly scanning the job postings in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle last weekend and up pops DoorDash. The ad said they were looking for "Engineers, including but not limited to: Software, DevOps, Backend, Data. Positions include: Junior, Senior & Management Positions. Telecommuting permitted."
    I wouldn't be too thrilled if I was one of the 1250 that were laid off. And it wouldn't help to see that the positions advertised would pay between $176,000 to $238,000. What is going on here?
    It's all so foreign to me. Investors keep pumping in the money, unconcerned that the losses keep piling up. They keep seeing that light at the end of the tunnel, maybe years or decades ahead. They note that Apple, Google and Facebook all lost money in their early years. But Apple became profitable in two years, Google three years, and Facebook five years. DoorDash has been around for over 10 years.
    In other words, if these companies keep running their business with no concern for costs, that light at the end of the tunnel, as they say, might very well be an oncoming freight train.
  • The Week in Charts | Charlie Bilello
    So here's today's chart of interest, courtesy of The New York Times:
    image
    Looking pretty much the way that Krugman has been saying...
  • TSP G vs F
    I thought I heard the bells toll a few months back. Bought 3 T-notes, due ( 12/24 - 3/25 - 4/26 ) about 8.5% of portfolio. Paying 4.25%, 3.875%, & 3.75%.
    I didn't like the interest rate , but remembered it wasn't that long ago when I was happy to get 3% on 2 year CD. At this time I plan to alternate between short & long purchases as rollovers come in.
  • Et Tu, Bank of America, US regulators fine Bank of America $250 million over junk fees, other.
    @Catch22- I see that your version has 45 views, and mine only 25. Now that really hurts.
  • Nasdaq 100 plans special rebalance to curb dominance of magnificent seven
    From the EXPLAINER piece:
    A special rebalancing, which is part of Nasdaq 100's methodology to maintain compliance with a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rule on fund diversification ...
    The special rebalancing may be conducted at any time if the aggregate weight of companies, each having more than 4.5% weight in the index, tops 48%
    This is to meet a 50% requirement: add together all holdings with weights over 5%, and they must total under 50% of the fund's assets. But this requirement is found in the Internal Revenue Code, not in an SEC fund diversification rule.
    From the SEC site:
    In addition to the diversification test under section 5 of the [1940 Investment Company] Act, many investment companies also seek to satisfy the Internal Revenue Code’s (“the Code”) diversification test to qualify as a regulated investment company (“RIC”).
    ...Funds generally elect to be treated as RICs under section 851 of the [Internal Revenue] Code in order to take advantage of pass-through tax treatment.
    https://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-threshold-limits-diversified-funds.pdf
    Funds tracking the Nasdaq 100 index don't need to satisfy the SEC diversification rule because they declare themselves nondiversified.
    According to the NASDAQ 100 methodology, "a special rebalancing of the Index may be conducted at any time if it is determined necessary to maintain the integrity of the Index."
    Otherwise, the index is rebalanced at most quarterly. Each quarter a rebalancing is triggered if the index is close to violating the 50% rule, or close to violating a separate 25% rule (not more than 25% of a fund may be invested in a single security).
    Nasdaq 100 methodology (See Section 5.1)
  • Buy Sell Why: ad infinitum.
    100 shares more of BHB just bought.

    Any particular reason? Are you averaging down? Sorry, I don’t follow this particular stock.
    Personally, I’m down to just 2 stocks - both small speculative mid-cap plays. Prefer managed funds for the most part. Less risk.
    I’ve been consolidating all year. More committed today to a static hands-off approach and less to f*** around with stuff. Down from 18-20 holdings a year ago to 14 today - counting the core money market. I think it was the big sell-off in 2022 that prompted me to pick up a lot of different things that were temporarily depressed and do some gambling on individual stocks. Gets crazy. (And, I’d prefer not to re-live that year.)
    Unless Henny Penny has her day, BHB will be a long-term holding. The purchase was a consolidation, but not by much: I eliminated just two tiny ETF positions that were doing less than nothing for me. HYDB and SCHP. I exited them both after a tiny loss. So, after a few months of keeping tabs on them, I dumped them and threw the proceeds into BHB. .......So, that's 2 line-items eliminated. Consolidating.
    Our own @MikeM has noted that BHB has been following the Regional Bank ETF, KRE. I believe him. And that's ok. I want to grow my stake while the stock is depressed by -31% (according to M*.) The Market Cap on BHB is still just $371M. It's not in the same League as RF Regions at $17.5B. Or ZION at $4.5B. Or HBAN Huntington at $16B. (numbers from M*.). But I did not want to be competing in that league, anyhow. I'm more comfortable with "Crash Davis" and "Annie Savoy" and "Nuke LaLoosh" down in single-A Durham. (But these days, the Bulls have moved up in the world: AAA status.)
    The BHB dividend is up by just a bit: a product of its fallen share price, but the bank has raised the div. by just a couple of pennies, as well. Payout ratio is sustainable at 33.12......Currently, shares are selling for less than Book Price. VOLUME in the Markets today was a bit higher than the 65-day avg... P/E is still just 7.81. "Short" interest is just 0.81%....14 day Relative Strength: 47.5%. (source: Barchart.) ...Price to Sales is 2.34. (Does that apply to banks?)...Earnings Yield is rather higher than in previous years, at 13.06...Net Margin = 30.52%.
    I am VERY slowly but steadily growing the size of the brokerage account. Apart from an annual small chunk removed from the T-IRA each year in January, I'm letting that one just sit, to grow. ("Hands-off.") PRWCX is tonight back down to just below 39% of my total. I own 5 OEFs in the T-IRA. That's not TOO many irons in the fire. (Wife has a T-IRA with BRUFX, but it's only just over $10k.) There's a sweep account in the brokerage, but there's never much in there, apart from a period earlier in the year, when PRTXX yielded almost 5%. But for the long-term, I can do better deploying money outside of the Treasuries and Treasury futures.
    Why grow that taxable account? Taxes for us are simply not a worry. Wifey can "get at" the $$$ in the JOINT brokerage account without worrying about inherited IRA rules, when that time comes. So, why not? It puts her at ease. There are 5 single-stocks in taxable. I deliberately wanted to cover the waterfront with sector-investments, the best I could without managing so many that I might as well be running my own mutual fund:
    BHB regional banks.
    NHYDY aluminum, green energy, recycling.
    ET oil/gas midstream.
    JRSH clothing manufacturer. Absolutely getting crushed in 2023. Tiny holding.
    PSTL Real Estate.
    Other considerations: this is for heirs. I don't need it to live on. She's already fixed up nicely back in the home country. She won't stay here after I'm gone. She's not quite yet eligible for SS (40 quarters,) but I think she just doesn't care.
    Sorry, this is way more than you asked for. Just thinking "out loud," I guess.
  • Tech mania …
    I've never contributed to Wikipedia, so I haven't tried straightening out the page(s).
    It is possible to parse the original wording in a way that makes sense, so I would call what was written poor wording in part. That is, the index rose a lot (800% stated) from the start of 1995, and then declined by 740% of that original value.
    The numeric values, however, don't make sense no matter how one tries to interpret them. I thought perhaps the writer was conflating Nasdaq composite with Nasdaq 100, but the numbers didn't match the latter. Or perhaps a different, common error was involved - confusing multiplying by 8 (a seven-fold increase) with an 8-fold increase (up 800%).
    Regardless of the actual numbers, the broad point was correct: the stock market shot up and came (mostly) down to earth even faster. That's how I tend to read Wiki pages - usually okay in sweeping generalities, often questionable in details.
  • Anybody Investing in bond funds?
    Hey Fred, how far out are you going with your CD selections?
    Max. of two years, dt, and only from large national banks (i.e., "too big to fail"). During that period I expect there to be a stock market correction and, perhaps, some additional opportunities in the equity market will present themselves. Hope springs eternal.
    Good luck,
    Fred
    Thanks Fred--I have several CDs maturing in the next 6 months, and if I can get CD rates at 5+%, I will likely buy new CDs with that money. 2024 is a big question mark for me, regarding future investing in CDs.
  • Anybody Investing in bond funds?
    As a retired and conservative investor, and as long as the Fed keeps raising interest rates, I am staying in risk-free MM's and CD's. In the future, I might be looking at bond OEF's like CBLDX, RCTIX and TSIIX, for example.
    But, in the meantime, I see no urgency to invest in bond funds, and since I don't need a lot more money, I prefer to err on the side of caution.
    Fred

    Hey Fred, how far out are you going with your CD selections?

    Max. of two years, dt, and only from large national banks (i.e., "too big to fail"). During that period I expect there to be a stock market correction and, perhaps, some additional opportunities in the equity market will present themselves. Hope springs eternal.
    Good luck,
    Fred
  • Bank of America to pay $250 million for illegal fees, fake accounts

    The following is a current NPR report:
    Bank of America, the nation's second largest bank, has been ordered to pay more than $100 million to customers for double charging insufficient fund fees, withholding reward bonuses and opening accounts without customers' knowledge or permission. The bank is also on the hook for an additional $150 million in penalties for the same violations.
    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced Tuesday that an investigation found that Bank of America harmed hundreds of thousands of customers across multiple product lines over a period of several years through a series of illegal practices. As a result, Bank of America was ordered to pay over $100 million to customers and another $90 million in penalties. A separate $60 million fine has been ordered by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for violating laws around overdraft fees.
    CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in a news release that Bank of America's double-dipping on fees, opening accounts without customer consent and withholding rewards "are illegal and undermine customer trust," practices he said the CFPB will put an end to across the banking system.
    Bank of America's "double-dipping scheme"
    According to the CFPB, Bank of America utilized a "double-dipping scheme" to "harvest junk fees" from customers. It did so by charging people $35 whenever they didn't have enough funds available, but repeatedly charged customers for the same transaction, which the CFPB said generated "substantial additional revenue".
    Chopra told NPR Business Correspondent David Gura, "Building a business model by double dipping on fees is simply not legal, and that's why we've sanctioned Bank of America and ordered them to pay back the customers they cheated."
    The OCC said it found that the bank charged "tens of millions of dollars" in fees in resubmitted transactions, in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prevents financial institutions from using unfair or deceptive acts and practices.
    "Overdraft programs should help, not harm, consumers," Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu said in a news release. "Today's action demonstrates the OCC's commitment to protecting consumers and promoting fairness and trust in banking. We expect banks to conduct their activities in compliance with all applicable laws and standards, and when they don't, we will act accordingly."
    Bank of America Senior Vice President of Media Relations Naomi R. Patton told NPR that the bank voluntarily reduced overdraft fees and eliminated "all non-sufficient fund fees" in the first half of 2022. She said the changes have resulted in a drop in revenue from these fees of over 90%. The bank also dropped the overdraft fee from $35 to $10 in May 2022.
    Withholding credit card cash and point rewards
    The CFPB said Bank of America targeted potential-customers by offering special cash and point rewards if they signed up for a credit card, a common signing bonus used by competing credit card companies. However, according to the CFPB, Bank of America illegally withheld those bonuses from tens of thousands of customers.
    Chopra said Bank of America has been ordered to follow through on those promises.
    "We know in the U.S. many people are really closely scrutinizing which credit card they sign up for based on rewards, whether it's cash, bonuses at enrollment, or airline points, or other proprietary point systems," Chopra said. "The fact that Bank of America advertised these signup bonuses and then did a bait and switch completely undermines the the fair market and consumer choice."
    Bank of America employees opened accounts without consumers' knowledge
    As far back as at least 2012, Bank of America employees illegally applied for and enrolled consumers for credit cards without their knowledge or permission to reach sales-based incentive goals and evaluation criteria, according to the CFPB. Employees illegally signed up customers by using or obtaining consumers' credit reports and completed applications without their permission, which resulted in unjust fees and negative impacts to customers' credit scores.
    "That's essentially taking over someone's identity and exploiting it financially, and it's totally improper," Chopra told NPR. "It's totally inexcusable. So, whether it is happening to just a handful to thousands or to millions, we find this extremely serious."
    Bank of America is a repeat offender
    This isn't the first time the bank has been penalized for conducting illegal practices. Bank of America shelled out $727 million to the CFPB in 2014 for illegally deceiving roughly 1.4 million customers through deceptive marketing products. The bank was also ordered to pay a $20 million civil money penalty for charging 1.9 million consumers for a credit monitoring and credit reporting services they never received, according to the CFPB.
    The bank was also slapped with two other penalties in 2022 totaling $235 million: a $10 million civil penalty for unlawfully processing out-of-state garnishments--removing customer funds for debts--against customer bank accounts; a $225 million fine for automatically and unlawfully freezing customer accounts with a fraud detection program during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    "Bank of America is a repeat offender. Being a household name that has been punished before didn't stop it from allegedly cheating customers out of tens of millions of dollars in fees and credit card rewards and opening up accounts without their authorization," U.S. Public Interest Research Groups Consumer Campaign Director Mike Litt said in a statement Tuesday. "The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's strong enforcement action shows why it makes a difference to have a federal agency monitoring the financial marketplace day in and day out."
    Comment: B of A must be trying to catch up with Wells Fargo in the "screw the customer" department.
  • Anybody Investing in bond funds?
    @Fred495 + 1. It seems as though risk free 5% is possibly the “ magic number “ for many conservative investors . Which leads me to ponder what is a win? For me I am starting to think in terms of dollars instead of an arbitrary per cent.
  • Anybody Investing in bond funds?
    As a retired and conservative investor, and as long as the Fed keeps raising interest rates, I am staying in risk-free MM's and CD's. In the future, I might be looking at bond OEF's like CBLDX, RCTIX and TSIIX, for example.
    But, in the meantime, I see no urgency to invest in bond funds, and since I don't need a lot more money, I prefer to err on the side of caution.
    Fred
    Hey Fred, how far out are you going with your CD selections?
  • CD Renewals
    https://www.reuters.com/markets/rates-bonds/fed-seen-raising-rates-this-month-traders-less-sure-further-hike-2023-07-07/
    At least one reputable news source thinks that it is almost certain the Feds will raise rates in July, but less certain about a second hike. Most of the articles I have read thinks the Fed rates will be around 5.6% by the end of the calendar year.
  • Et Tu, Bank of America, US regulators fine Bank of America $250 million over junk fees, other.
    Come on folks, you all try'in to be a Wells Fargo??? Trust factor continues to go to hell.
    Article
  • Tech mania …
    If you gain 800% and then lose 740% of that gain, then you're still way below zero. Impossible.
    Starting with $N, you gain 800% ($8N), so you have $9N.
    You can't give back more than $9N or 112.5% (i.e. 9/8) of the $8N gain.
    740%? No way. Unless it is 740% of the starting amount in 1995. Then you gain 800% of the starting amount, give back 740% of the starting amount, and wind up with a net gain over nearly 8 years of 60% (800% - 740%).
    The Wiki Nasdaq composite page, as with the dot com bubble page, gives no citation for its purported 400% gain:
    Between 1995 and 2000, the peak of the dot-com bubble, the Nasdaq Composite stock market index rose 400%
    The intraday low for 1995 was hit on the second trading day, Jan 4, 1995 at 740.47. The intraday peak in 2000, as stated in the Wiki piece, was 5,132.52. According to my handy dandy calculator, that's 6.93 times 740.47, for a gain of 593%. That 400% figure isn't accurate even to a single digit.
    No citation, innumerate writers, and inconsistent pages. Don'tcha just love Wikipedia?