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.
  • Vanguard Website
    Well, I logged in to VG this morning and everything was back to normal. Thanks everyone for your replies.
    In this mornings mail I received VGs amended Brokerage Account Agreement.
    $25 commission for telephone trades.
    $100 fee for account closure or transfer of account to another firm.
    Plus several other changes and charges.
    All effective June 1.
    I'll have to study it more later.
    I have been with VG for years. I wonder if other firms charge such fees?
  • 3 Investing Pros Lay Out Their Dividend Strategies—and Stock Picks
    Well. I didn't read the article, but it seems to me that all that is required is a fund that pays higher than a buck 35, and has out performed SPY over the typical M* periods. I'm too lazy to look up 24 month performance this Saturday morning. :).
    From my current watch list, BBLU does the trick with a lower standard deviation and beta, and pays a buck 56 to boot. I'll bet a nickle there are others that beat on the dividend at least.
  • BCSAX. BlackRock commodities
    That's another trick … Have you looked at ETFs of CEFs?
    Yes, there anre some ETFs of CEF’s .
    CCEF appears to be quite risk averse. If I had to recommend one, that would be it - just based on my experience in two other Calimos funds. But it is only a couple months old. Another which @yogibearbull has mentioned before is Boaz Weinstein’s CEFS which I recently sold. For my own purposes the closed end fund (of closed end funds) noted earlier works better.
    Weinstein uses leverage on that one (CEFS) in addition to the leverage inside the CEFs it holds. (”Double your pleasure.”) He’s been very successful at his activist approach. He’s been on Blackrock’s tail recently trying to force them to convert at least one of their CEFs to an OEF and “unlock” shareholder value. He shorted treasuries in recent years which helped the fund greatly. His is a great fund based on past performance and Weinstein’s reputation. Just depends on what you need.
    *The near 5% fee on CEFS is an eye-popper. But the actual management fee is around 1%, with the rest coming from acquired fund fees and interest on leverage,
  • Best Fund Managers?
    @sma3 - I can't argue that about SCHD at all. All I was trying to say originally is that it wasn't paying enough to suit my goals for that type of investment.
    When I set out on this path (i.e. dividend growth investor) I was looking for stocks that had a track record of consistent, long-term dividend growth with the opportunity for capital appreciation as a secondary objective. The funds I scoured (many) all seemed to be paying yields that one could easily increase (often substantially) by simply investing in their top-5 or 10 picks. TIBIX was the fund I was using back then but after a few years of doing as advertised, building their income, it stagnated and eventually came to a halt. I wasn't smart enough to figure out why that happened and I wasn't sure any similar fund wouldn't do exactly the same.
    As also previously mentioned, I get that it's not everyones cup of tea. I'll also admit that holding my current choices may constrain the capital appreciation aspect but the income continues to increase which was my primary objective.
  • BCSAX. BlackRock commodities
    That's another trick.
    CEFs that have managed-distribution policies set an attractive distribution rate. But if that isn't supported by fund income, the difference is ROC - return of capital (i.e. your own money). ROCs aren't taxed on distribution but reduce the cost basis (thankfully, major brokers keep track of this), so when you sell, you end up paying higher tax.
    ROCs are final only after the yearend, but the CEFs must report estimated ROC monthly; see April report for FOF. As FOF is a CEF of CEFs, ROCs can be from FOF or the underlying CEFs.
    https://assets-prod.cohenandsteers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/29181236/FOF-Section-19-Notice-Apr-2024.pdf
    Have you looked at ETFs of CEFs?
    Edit/Add. Interesting that FOF doesn't disclose the ERs attributed to its underlying funds in the usual documents. Its reported fee of 0.95% looks misleading for a CEF of CEFs.
  • BCSAX. BlackRock commodities
    the payout looks pretty variable. 74 cents a share last year but only 22 cents in 2021. I wonder if a lot of this in interest on the Treasuries
    58% in natural resource stocks. Other Natural resource funds have done some better recently
  • 3 Investing Pros Lay Out Their Dividend Strategies—and Stock Picks

    An article from Barrons with apologies for any paywall(s) encountered.
    However, from the comments section there was this posted by a reader (not I):
    "A quote from the article:
    “It’s been a challenging market for dividend investing,” says one of those managers,"
    Yes. It's very challenging to beat the no brainer bread & butter SP500 Index. Which way is better :
    1) Buying a dividend paying fund & holding for the long run? or
    2) Buying the no brainer bread & butter SP500 index & withdraw the % yield difference, & hold for the long run?
    Lets mine the data:
    Fund Yield ER YTD 1yr 2yr 3yr 5yr 10yr Delta
    SPY 1.35 0.10 5.5 20.4 21.4 19.9 70.1 167
    NOBL 1.79 0.35 1.7 3.7 5.6 7.5 40.4 118 -49%
    LCEAX 2.09 0.82 3.4 2.7 -6.7 -18.3 -7.8 4.2 -163%
    INUTX 2.76 1.05 3.6 5.8 -1.8 -6.4 -2.8 -11.8 -179%
    VDIGX 1.69 0.30 1.0 4.4 4.1 4.0 30.9 73.2 -94
    If you own any of the dividend funds you are not a happy investor after reading this post. Because you would would have done much better owning the no brainer bread & butter SP500 Index fund & had the capital appreciation cushion to pay yourself a much higher yield if wanted to."
  • The week that was, global etf's, various categories + heat map. Week ending May 17, 2024.
    The graphic is set for the 5 days ending May 3, Friday; for the best to worst % returns in select etf categories. One may then also select the one month column to align the one month return best to worst; or for the other listed time frame columns.
    ADD an etf performance of your choosing, if you desire. ***
    *** Requested ADD: For the week and YTD
    --- MINT = +.12% / +2.21% Pimco Ultra Short Term Enhanced Bonds
    --- EWW = -.07% / -1.55% (I Shares, Mexico)
    MMKT note: Fidelity core mmkt's yields remain basically unchanged this week, with core acct's yields at 4.96% (SPAXX) and 4.99% (FDRXX).
    NOTE: The broad U.S. equity and bond sectors finished the week with generally positive performance in many sectors through a very erratic market week. China large cap (FXI etf) , had a second week of 'performance+'. Bonds in many sectors ended the total week performance with decent gains. Bond funds ranged from +.12% to a +2.77%, with the ultra short term being the lowest positive (as expected) and the very long term being the best sectors. See the 'graphic' link at the beginning of this write for details of weekly returns.
    NEW: 1 week 'heat map' by sectors. This is an interactive graphic. You may hover the computer pointer over the various blocks to view portions of sectors and/or stocks within those sectors. NOTE: to the left of the graphic, one may change the 1 week performance drop down menu to another time frame. Another example: at the left edge of the graphic, select exchange traded funds and then 1 week or a time period of your choice.
    Remain curious,
    Catch
  • WealthTrack Show
    May 4th Epsiode:
    Part 2 of 2
    Strong demand and limited supply have created long-term opportunities in residential real estate. Top ranked Baron Real Estate Fund manager, Jeff Kolitch shares his highest conviction investments.


  • BCSAX. BlackRock commodities
    A-ha!
    "The investment seeks total return. The adviser utilizes two strategies and under normal circumstances expects to invest approximately 50% of its total assets in each strategy. One strategy focuses on investments in commodity-linked derivatives. To meet coverage and collateral requirements associated with these derivative investments, and to invest excess cash, the fund holds a portion of its portfolio in investment-grade short-term fixed-income securities. The other strategy focuses on equity investments in commodity-related companies, including, but not limited to, companies operating in the mining, energy and agricultural sectors."
  • Fidelity raising fees on Vanguard and Dodge & Cox + several ETFs on 06-03-24
    Fidelity Investments (05-03-24):
    Effective June 3, 2024, the transaction fee for Vanguard and Dodge & Cox mutual funds will increase from $75 to $100 per purchase. Also effective June 3, 2024, participants purchasing shares in applicable ETFs will now be subject to a new service fee of up to $100 per purchase. For purchase orders below $2,000, the service fee will be reduced to an amount that is approximately 5% of the purchase value. The complete list of ETFs currently subject to this service fee can be found here, and will be updated periodically.
    UPDATE 05-09-24: Just got to reading May MFO Commentary and saw that @TheShadow had already highlighted the ETF part in Briefly Noted (05-01-24):
    Fidelity Investments is planning to charge a $100 servicing fee when placing buy orders on exchange-traded funds issued by nine firms. The new servicing charge, which may be imposed on ETFs issued by Simplify Asset Management, AXS Investments, Day Hagan, Sterling Capital, Cambiar, Regents Park, Rayliant, Adaptive, and Running Oak, is set to take effect on June 3. The new fee will apply to ETFs that do not participate in a maintenance arrangement with Fidelity. Fidelity may update its “Surcharge-Eligible ETF” list again.
    It seems like the ETF list had indeed been shortened rather dramatically in just a couple of days, so it might be worth checking the Fidelity link (same as above) periodically to see if they decide to further reduce or entirely eliminate it.
    In the same spirit, I sure hope that they stop at Vanguard and Dodge & Cox with the elevated fees as well. Please post if you see any updates re transaction fee policies on the mutual funds side.
  • Best Fund Managers?
    Those are all strong funds. I would add the following to your list which I own:
    FCNTX— large cap growth
    PEQSX— large cap value
    GQEFX— large cap blend
    Each of these are top performers in their style for the 1, 3 and 5 year timeframes. Each have consistency from year to year. And each fund tends to be concentrated in the names they like. They also have good ulcer ratings vs their competition.
  • market commentary from Eric Cinnamond @ PVCMX - May 2024
    From May 1st market commentary by the Palm Valley Capital Fund (PVCMX) co-manager Eric Cinnamond.
    Original blog post can be found here: https://www.palmvalleycapital.com/post/undateable
    *****************************************************************************************************************************
    Undateable
    May 1, 2024
    You can learn a lot about the financial markets by watching Seinfeld. In season 7 episode 114, Jerry and Elaine have a conversation about the lack of dating opportunities. Although they were talking about the percentage of people they consider dateable, by making some minor changes to the script, their conversation fits the current stock market perfectly.
    Jerry: Elaine, what percentage of people [stocks] would you say are good looking [attractively priced]?
    Elaine: 25%
    Jerry: 25%? No way. It’s like 4% to 6%. It’s a 20 to 1 shot.
    Elaine: You’re way off.
    Jerry: Way off? Have you been to the motor vehicle bureau [screened through stocks]? It’s a leper colony down there [horrendous opportunity set].
    Elaine: Basically, what you’re saying is 95% of the population [the stock market] is undateable [overvalued]?
    Jerry: Undateable [overvalued]!
    Elaine: Then how are all of these people getting together [why are all these people buying stocks]?
    Jerry: Alcohol
    As if our dating scene couldn’t get much worse, the S&P 600 soared 15% in the fourth quarter of 2023. Encouraged by the Federal Reserve’s year-end pivot, investors piled into stocks, attempting to front run the return of easy money.
    At the time, we were baffled as to why the Fed was in such a rush to cut rates. For the most part, corporate earnings remained inflated. Financial conditions were already loosening, with equity valuations elevated and credit spreads tight. Home prices were also rising and remained out of reach for millions of Americans. And while the rate of inflation had declined, many of the items helping inflation moderate were plateauing, and in some cases, reversing. Further, accumulated inflation remained a serious problem, putting pressure on middle- and lower-income consumers and keeping inflation expectations elevated.
    Unsurprisingly, by pivoting before the inflation battle was won, the Fed unleashed another round of asset inflation, bolstering demand and pricing power. Instead of declining back to the Fed’s 2% target, inflation bottomed and is on the rise again. To date, the Fed’s 2023 preemptive pivot is aging about as well as its “inflation is transitory” assurances in 2021.
    Instead of declaring victory on inflation, we believe the Fed prematurely signaled rate cuts to head off building threats to asset prices and the economy. While there are many risks to defuse, we believe refinancing risk was, and remains, near the top of the Fed’s list of concerns. With each passing day, the amount of low-cost government and corporate debt nearing maturity grows.
    Extremely low interest rates allowed the U.S. government to borrow aggressively, supporting massive fiscal deficits and artificially inflating economic growth. Corporations also benefited from elevated government spending and lower rates. Low-cost debt allowed companies to acquire, fund generous dividends, and turbocharge earnings per share (EPS) through buybacks and depressed interest expense.
    As accumulated inflation continues to build, along with a seemingly endless supply of U.S. Treasuries, we believe the era of ultra-low interest rates has ended. With interest rates remaining higher for longer, a growing number of businesses are facing difficult refinancing decisions as their maturity walls approach. While some are pushing off the decision—hoping rates will decline—the market isn’t waiting and is beginning to sniff out companies that require funding over the next 1-2 years.
    As we search through our opportunity set of small cap companies, many of the stocks that have performed poorly have bonds approaching maturity or have refinancing risk. For example, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store’s stock (symbol: CBRL) has fallen 45% over the past year and 61% from its 2021 high. Cracker Barrel operates restaurants that are typically located along interstate highways. We know their home-style country food well, as we hold Palm Valley’s annual founders meeting at a local Cracker Barrel (and yes, we all order from the value menu!).
    image
    Similar to many consumer companies that cater to the middle class, Cracker Barrel’s traffic growth has slowed and has recently turned negative. Accumulated inflation has placed stress on discretionary spending and many of the casual dining companies we follow. Management expects industry and traffic challenges to continue. Based on analyst estimates, adjusted EPS is expected to decline from $5.47 in fiscal 2023 (ending July 31) to $4.60/share in fiscal 2024.
    Even as operating results have weakened, Cracker Barrel has remained committed to its generous quarterly dividend of $1.30/share. If maintained, the $5.20/share in annual dividends will exceed this year’s expected net income. The company has also been an active buyer of its stock, purchasing $184 million over the past three fiscal years (2021-2023). Combined, dividends and buybacks have consumed $447 million in cash over the past three years versus $461 million of free cash flow.
    With practically all of Cracker Barrel’s free cash flow being consumed by dividends and buybacks, debt reduction doesn’t appear to be a priority. As of January 26, 2024, debt was $452 million. Based on 2024 estimated EBITDA of $242 million, debt to EBITDA is 1.87x, or slightly above the high-end of the company’s target range of 1.3x to 1.7x.
    On June 18, 2021, Cracker Barrel opportunistically issued a $300 million convertible bond with a 0.625% coupon. At the time of issuance, its stock was trading at $150.51. With a conversion price of $188, the bonds had a conversion premium of 25%. Currently, Cracker Barrel’s stock is trading near $59; therefore, the odds of the bond converting to equity before maturity are low. With a maturity of June 15, 2026, refinancing will likely become an increasingly important issue for the company and investors.
    image
    Cracker Barrel has $511 million available on its $700 million credit facility that could be used to fund its convertible bond maturity. However, the weighted average interest rate on the credit facility is currently 6.96% versus the 0.625% coupon on the convertible bond. Assuming the credit facility is used to fund its bond maturity, at current rates, Cracker Barrel’s interest expense would increase $19 million, causing a meaningful hit to earnings. For reference, earnings before interest expense and taxes (EBIT) in 2023 were $120.6 million. Like many companies with debt, Cracker Barrel’s cost of borrowing has shifted from an earnings tailwind to headwind.
    We classify Cracker Barrel as a cyclical business. To consider cyclical businesses for purchase, we require a debt to normalized free cash flow ratio of 3x or less. Based on our free cash flow estimate, Cracker Barrel currently has too much financial leverage for our absolute return strategy. Nevertheless, its substantially lower market capitalization has caught our attention, and we’ll monitor its balance sheet closely for potential deleveraging catalysts, such as a cut in its dividend or sale-leasebacks of owned properties.
    The small cap dating scene remains unattractive, in our opinion. However, for many consumer discretionary companies with debt, equity prices have fallen sharply, and valuations have become more attractive. That said, these aren’t dream dates! Cyclical companies with debt often come with a lot of baggage and potential drama. Before committing and getting too serious, we recommend stress testing the balance sheet and cash flow by including periods with high unemployment and tightening credit conditions. And if alcohol is needed to stomach the risk, we suggest patience and waiting for a better match. When it comes to leveraged cyclicals, there are plenty of fish in the sea!
    Eric Cinnamond
    [email protected]
  • TCW New America Premier Equities and Artificial Intelligence Equity Funds closed to investors...
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/892071/000119312524130869/d807363d497.htm
    497 1 d807363d497.htm 497
    TCW FUNDS, INC
    TCW Artificial Intelligence Equity Fund
    (Class I: TGFTX; Class N: TGJNX)
    TCW New America Premier Equities Fund
    (Class I: TGUSX; Class N: TGUNX)
    Supplement dated May 3, 2024 to the Prospectus
    dated March 1, 2024, as supplemented
    Disclosure for the TCW Artificial Intelligence Equity Fund and TCW New America Premier Equities Fund (the “Funds”)
    Effective at the close of business on May 3, 2024, TCW Artificial Intelligence Equity Fund and TCW New America Premier Equities Fund are closed to investors and all references to the Funds are hereby removed.
    Please retain this Supplement for future reference.
  • The bucket strategy is flawed …
    A retirement article that doesn't mention Social Security seems odd, but it's common. SS and my Mom's RMDs cover her needs, for the most part. The RMDs force the Traditional IRA/401k holder to take out between about 3-5% annually, each year with a different factor to calculate the RMD; based on the Retirement Account Amount on Dec 31st. We both wish she had converted more to a ROTH during her working life but ....spilled milk.
  • U.S. job growth totaled 175,000 in April
    This is the “seasonally adjusted number”. The actual estimate was +803,000. It is interesting that everyone accepts the BLS’s adjustments & no one offers an alternative.
    The unadjusted numbers show that annually roughly 2.8 million quit their jobs every year end and then the job totals slowly rebuild. OTOH, the adjusted numbers are much lower in December and the increase roughly 250,000 every January.
  • Buy Sell Why: ad infinitum.
    Limit order went through on PSTL (sell.) At a -6.39% loss. It stung for half of a moment. It feels like a burden is lifted. I'll put a bit of the proceeds in gummint MM SNVXX and sit on the rest of it, waiting for a DOWN day. Everything is pretty much UP today. Near 52-week highs.
    ......And the lovely message on the trade ticket warns me to wait until settlement, anyhow. ORK. I've seen that happen to some of you others in here, too. :(
  • U.S. job growth totaled 175,000 in April
    Why is the stock market surging when 175,000 is much less than the 240,000 estimated?