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.
  • Settlement period & trading question
    Question 1 - If in the illustration below, funds for the purchase of a security were from a sale of another security prior to market close on the same day (Tuesday), can the newly acquired security be sold at market open on the second day (Thursday) without violating the SEC rule? Put in simpler terms, is Thursday at market open in the attached photo the first day the security purchased Tuesday can be sold per the rules? Or is it Friday?
    Question 2 - If one already owned a sizable number of shares of the newly acquired security (bought with settled funds) and only acquired one additional share with unsettled money on Tuesday, does the ban on selling apply to all previously owned shares of the security or only to the most recently purchased one?
    Thanks for any answers / insights.
    image
  • Just noticing such tremendous VOLATILITY in the Markets, "that is all."
    I’m confident @Crash can handle it. :) - But some sage advice.
    What makes sense to me about the heightened volatility comes from Bloomberg media reports this evening: (1) There is a liquidity shortage, (2) As a consequence some hedge funds have had to limit or halt redemptions, (3) The ability to make large transactions is now concentrated in a limited number of hands - far fewer than in normal times. (While Bloomberg identified only one hedge fund that has halted redemptions, they seemed confident others have also halted or restricted them.)
    I generally try not to allow macroeconomics to influence my investment decisions. But I think it would behoove everyone to pay attention to what’s going on in banking and to the words and actions of government officials here and abroad - in particular the central banks.
    Banks Borrow $164.8 Billion from Fed in Rush to Backstop Liquidity
    ”All told, the emergency loans reversed around half of the balance-sheet shrinkage that the Fed has achieved since it began so-called quantitative tightening — allowing its portfolio of assets to run down — in June last year. And the central bank’s reserve balances jumped by some $440 billion in a week — which ‘basically reversed all the Fed’s QT efforts,’ according to Capital Economics.”
    Bair on PBS Frontline - Sheila Bair served as the chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) from 2006 to 2011.
  • Just noticing such tremendous VOLATILITY in the Markets, "that is all."
    2008 09 credit housing crash, 2012 near double dip, 2015 -16 downturn/flat returns, 2000 crashes (decade 000 returns), 2020 Covid crashes also bad....
    Just hold on to the ride
    Drink lots wine/ weekend relaxation
    Keep buying when ItS strikingly low.
    You will be very happy 10 yrs from now if no WW3 and global warming won't kill us
  • Bond Volatility MOVE
    I was tempted to bottom fish in regional bank KRE. BUT its Covid 2020 low is STILL -44% down from here, and there is hardly any support between here and there. So, just watching for now.
  • Bond Volatility MOVE
    @catch22, MOVE is not only a blend but it is normalized, so it doesn't have a direct meaning as VIX.
    But we can look at past values and ranges.
    All-time high 264.60 (GFC, 2008), all-time low 36.62 (Covid, 2020).
    Covid 2020 range 36.62-163.70.
    Now 198.71 (3/15/23 EOD). So, well above its high during the credit-freeze of early-2020.
  • American Beacon AHL TargetRisk Core Fund is to be liquidated
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/809593/000113322823001332/abatrcf-html6116_497.htm
    497 1 abatrcf-html6116_497.htm AMERICAN BEACON AHL TARGETRISK CORE FUND - 497
    American Beacon AHL TargetRisk Core Fund
    Supplement dated March 15, 2023
    to the
    Prospectus, Summary Prospectus, and Statement of Additional Information, each dated May 1, 2022
    The Board of Trustees of American Beacon Funds has approved a plan to liquidate and terminate the American Beacon AHL TargetRisk Core Fund (the “Fund”) on or about July 7, 2023 (the “Liquidation Date”), based on the recommendation of American Beacon Advisors, Inc., the Fund’s investment manager.
    In anticipation of the liquidation, effective immediately, the Fund is closed to new shareholders. In addition, in anticipation of and in preparation for the liquidation of the Fund, AHL Partners LLP, the sub-advisor to the Fund, may need to increase the portion of the Fund's assets held in cash and similar instruments in order to pay for the Fund’s expenses and to meet redemption requests. The Fund may no longer be pursuing its investment objective during this transition. On or about the Liquidation Date, the Fund will distribute cash pro rata to all remaining shareholders. These shareholder distributions may be taxable events. Thereafter, the Fund will terminate.
    The Fund will be liquidated on or about July 7, 2023. Liquidation proceeds will be delivered in accordance with the existing instructions for your account. No action is needed on your part.
    Please note that you may be eligible to exchange your shares of the Fund at net asset value per share at any time prior to the Liquidation Date for shares of the same share class of another American Beacon Fund under certain limited circumstances. You also may redeem your shares of the Fund at any time prior to the Liquidation Date. No sales charges, redemption fees or termination fees will be imposed in connection with such exchanges and redemptions. In general, exchanges and redemptions are taxable events for shareholders.
    In connection with its liquidation, the Fund may declare distributions of its net investment income and net capital gains in advance of its Liquidation Date, which may be taxable to shareholders. You should consult your tax adviser to discuss the Fund’s liquidation and determine its tax consequences.
    For more information, please contact us at 1-800-658-5811, Option 1. If you purchased shares of the Fund through your financial intermediary, please contact your broker-dealer or other financial intermediary for further details.
    ***********************************************************
    PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
  • Meta to Layoff Another 10,000 Workers
    Didnt it occur to them that the pandemic would not last forever, and their payroll would have to drop back to more normal levels?
    NPR's "doubling" figure likely represented the growth of full-time employees from 2019 (44,942) through 2022 (86,482). Data from Statistia. Confirmed by WP:
    Between the end of 2019 and its peak headcount in 2022, the company nearly doubled in size to some 87,000 employees.
    Data from Statista. Sometimes Statista provides full data w/o subscribing, sometimes not. So here's the data it presented me:
    2004: 7
    2005: 15
    2006: 150
    2007: 450
    2008: 850
    2009: 1,218
    2010: 2,127
    2011: 3,200
    2012: 4,619
    2013: 6,337
    2014: 9,199
    2015: 12,691
    2016: 17,048
    2017: 25,105
    2018: 35,537
    2019: 44,942
    2020: 56,604
    2021: 71,970
    2022: 86:482
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/273563/number-of-facebook-employees/
    Rolling three year hiring rates:
    2007: 64x (2004-2007, 450/7)
    2008: 57x
    2009: 8x
    2010: 5x
    2011: 4x
    2012: 4x
    2013: 3x
    2014: 3x
    2015: 3x
    2016: 3x
    2017: 3x
    2018: 3x
    2019: 3x (2.64)
    2020: 2x (2.25)
    2021: 2x (2.03)
    2022: 2x (1.92)
    Seems pretty "normal" to me. That last hiring rate was not out of line. The rate was not due to the pandemic, but during the pandemic. Parts of the WP piece support the idea that this has to do with tech sector hubris.
    The [Meta] hiring sustained its ambitious (and in some cases seemingly ill-fated) projects like its big bet on the metaverse. ...
    [T]he deep cuts ... reflect a deeper shift in thinking about the metrics that matter in a tech sector that has long been able to make up its own rules.
    During the pandemic, as tech CEOs accelerated their empire building, a massive and growing headcount somehow became equated with a company’s overall health — a sign that it had cash, clout and big ambitions.
    that it had cash - cross check that with SVB and why startups were pulling cash out of their bank accounts. Their cash spigots were drying up.
  • US Plans Emergency Measures To Backstop Banks after SVB
    @WABAC
    But the chance for an average saver to get a safe return of 5-6% on their money will raise Maggie Thatcher from the dead, legitimize neocolonial revanchism, bring back the Cold War order, destroy unions that no longer exist, and, wait for it, throw people out of work.
    Never said any of that, merely pointed out as the article did that the Volcker cure for inflation wasn't all that, and had definite negative consequences. Nor can it be said that only one group of people wants lower rates. Most poor people in the U.S. have little to no savings to collect interest on, and actually have more variable-rate credit card debt that increases their burden as rates rise:https://bankrate.com/banking/savings/emergency-savings-report/#over-1-in-3
    Over a third (36 percent) of people have more credit card debt than emergency savings, the highest percentage in 12 years of Bankrate asking this survey question. In comparison, 22 percent of people had more credit card debt in January 2022, while 28 percent of people had more credit card debt in January 2020, before COVID-19 began to affect the U.S.
    Ultimately, rate cuts are economically stimulative while raising rates constricts. There needs to be consideration on both sides of the consequences. And you yourself by acknowledging labor has little power today compared to the 1970s have pointed out the reason we shouldn't perhaps be too fixated on raising rates too high.
    Given the choice, I would rather see targeted fiscal stimulus than monetary stimulus to help the specific areas of our economy that are struggling via government programs, and tax hikes to constrict things when we get overstimulated. But there are obvious political roadblocks to fiscal stimulus. Interest rates are a blunt instrument that helps and hurts multiple parties.
    As for SVB, I am fine with making all depositors whole just so long as the rich people getting bailed out stop complaining about the "moral hazard" of helping poor people. Moreover, the capital standards from Dodd Frank need to be restored and SVB should be nationalized, and the government collect all future profits to give back to taxpayers.
  • Dow futures fall 500 points as Credit Suisse shares drop more than 20%
    Apparently something broke in the banking sector not just in US…
    Excerpt from article:
    In recent days, a crisis in the financial sector has centered around regional banks as Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank collapsed, both casualties of poor management in the face of eight interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve in the last 12 months. Wednesday morning attention turned to the big banks with shares of Credit Suisse hitting an all-time low.
    Saudi National Bank, Credit Suisse’s largest investor, said Wednesday it could not provide any more funding, according to a Reuters report. This comes after the Swiss lender said Tuesday it had found “certain material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting” for the years 2021 and 2022.
    As Credit Suisse dragged down the European Bank sector, U.S. big bank shares declined in sympathy. Citigroup and Wells Fargo shed 3%, while Goldman Sachs and Bank of America fell 2%. The Financial Select Sector SPDR Fund lost 2.9% in premarket trading, giving up its 2% pop on Tuesday.
    Regional Banks, whose rebounded helped lift sentiment for the broader market on Tuesday, fell back into the red again. The SPDR S&P Regional Banking ETF (KRE) was down 3% in the premarket, led by losses in Old National Bancorp, Zions Bancorp and Fifth Third Bancorp. To be sure, shares of First Republic Bank were clinging to gains.
    https://cnbc.com/2023/03/14/stock-market-today-live-updates.html
    From Reuters:
    Credit Suisse on Tuesday published its annual report for 2022 saying the bank had identified "material weaknesses" in controls over financial reporting and not yet stemmed customer outflows.
    Switzerland's second-biggest bank is seeking to recover from a string of scandals that have undermined the confidence of investors and clients. Customer outflows in the fourth quarter rose to more than 110 billion Swiss francs ($120 billion).

  • US Plans Emergency Measures To Backstop Banks after SVB
    Inflation can indeed be a real PITA for average people, but not having a job to pay for anything is worse for many people than being employed but having to pay more for everything. A balance of these interests needs to be recognized in the rate discussion. From the article on after Volcker jacked up rates to double digits:
    The economic results of this counterrevolution were far from unambiguous. Growth in the early 1980s slumped. Entire industrial sectors were rendered uncompetitive by soaring interest rates and surging exchange rates. Unemployment hit postwar records. It was painful, but on the conservative reading there was, as British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher liked to say, no alternative. If the struggles of the 1970s had continued, she suggested, the result would have been a slide toward ever more rapid inflation and threats to the institutional status quo. Ultimately, the Cold War order was in peril, and if avoiding that fate required turning monetary policy into a more blunt-force form of political struggle, then so be it. In fighting the mineworkers into submission in 1984-85, she was waging war on enemies within, as she waged war on the Soviet enemy without. The prize was nothing less than a permanent shift in the balance of social and economic power and the exclusion of alternatives to the rule of private property and markets.
    As for labor having much power, it is a shadow of what it was in the 1970s:
    image
  • US Plans Emergency Measures To Backstop Banks after SVB
    @hank
    But you might make an argument that inflation harms the wealthy more than the working class.
    There are a number of I think mistaken assumptions in your post. One is that the wealthiest keep most of their money on deposit. The more money someone has, the more risks they can take with that money to keep up with inflation. It is the middle class and poor who need to keep most of their assets in bank accounts, not the wealthiest, as the middle class and poor need to have liquid capital in case of emergencies. A wealthy investor can afford to tie their money up for several years in far less liquid but very lucrative investments with returns that exceed inflation.
    On the other hand, if you have lots of debt (assuming at a fixed-rate) you are helped by inflation as you pay back the debt with cheaper dollars.
    That assumes the poorest people's wages keep up with inflation. That is often not the case as the unskilled or low-skilled labor have the least bargaining power when it comes to wages. If you're not making more money to pay back the fixed amount of debt, that doesn't work. Moreover, much of the debt poorer people often assume like credit card debt is often variable rate that rises with interest rates and inflation.
    The poor spend almost all of their wages on items they consume, and the prices of those items are going up. They have no means of saving in ways that can keep up with inflation.
  • Grim take from M* Yet another SVB thread
    I only mention this because M* typically wears rose-colored glasses . . .
    Here's a taste. No sugar.
    https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1144082/why-investors-should-care-about-the-banking-scare
    It’s easy for investors to dismiss the ripples from the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank SVIB as contained and nothing to worry about when it comes to a broader portfolio.
    But if there’s one thing to know about banking crises, it’s that they are never just about the banks. They may start there, but they don’t end there. Easy financial conditions tend to lead to higher risk-taking and a complacency that long-established patterns will continue. Until they don’t.
    As Warren Buffett has been known to observe, only when the tide goes out do you see who’s been swimming naked.
    The Worry Is Fear
    The failure of two major regional banks since Friday threatens to erode investor and consumer confidence to a degree that could spiral in unexpected ways. And with inflation still raging at the highest levels in 40 years and the Federal Reserve raising interest rates at the most accelerated pace since those years, things are starting to break.
    “The worry is about fear,” says Tim Murray, capital markets strategist for multi-asset portfolios at investment manager T. Rowe Price.
    In good times, too, policymakers get lax and tend to feel like it is safe to repeal or reduce important protections designed to prevent systemic events and consumer safeguards.
    My grandfather used to say the business cycle was driven by how long it took to forget lessons learned the hard way. He rolled up banks working for The Comptroller of the Currency during the Great Depression.
    Ah, the good old days, when depositors money was vaporized.
  • Managed Futures Funds Would Not Have Protected You
    I watch from the sidelines several managed futures and alternative strategies, but hold only REMIX and PGAEX. For what it is worth, the following three managed futures strategies crashed along with the market in the past few days; namely, CTA, DBMF, and PQTAX. In my limited experience, these funds have produced gains on days when equities have crashed. Not so during this SVB crisis. In fact, the two ETFs are up smartly today with the rally in stocks.
  • Bank Rescue Plan
    Easy to say when you don't have to worry about spreading many millions of dollars of operating capital around, and yet also need to have that money quickly available when required. That's the way that a significant part of the national business community operates.
    Example: A company needs to safely deposit $20 million, and yet have it easily available, perhaps within a tight timeframe. So they're supposed to break that into eighty separate 250k deposits and find eighty separate banks to use, and yet have all of that quickly and easily available?
    Right.
    Given that reality maybe the federal financial administration ought to put in place a suitable mechanism for that type of business instead of playing games and taking the entire financial system right to the brink of disaster.
    Not all that hard for the fed money masters to do, either.
  • Blood in the Streets SCHW etc
    I bought some SCHW at 51+ this morning. I had considered it on Friday but decided to see how the weekend went. It touched 45 early this morning, but I spent some time looking for data and opinions before pulling the trigger.
    I'm somewhat nervous about taking this position, because this is not an industry I've followed (even though I've had some BAC for years).
    Everything in the financial industry has been tarnished. I considered adding to my AXP position (down about 10% in the last month) but don't really see this as a big buying opportunity (yet).
    CNBC has had some interesting guests through the day. Brad Gerstner of Altimeter Capital for one.
    The world of big banks seems much more complicated than the banking issues most of us have encountered in our lives. So their "governance/regulation" is pretty complex.
    Like many other "large" issues in our economy, there are often no easy answers.
    David
  • How much fear is in the air about SVB and the greater implications?
    Depositors with big cash holdings are – reasonably – expected to be aware of the risks and spread their cash around several institutions. Businesses backed by venture capital, such as the customers of SVB, ought to have been advised how to manage their liquid holdings.
    ... the sight of depositors being made whole ... provides a disincentive for both depositors and banks to be prudent. There’s no reward here for SVB customers who banked more carefully.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/03/13/svb-crisis-backstop-revives-the-specter-of-moral-hazard/bb2731c6-c188-11ed-82a7-6a87555c1878_story.html
    As I wrote above, I take a darker view. It's not just the presence of reward (higher returns) but the absence of punishment that's a problem with risky deposits. There's no penalty (loss) for large depositors to be reckless with their savings.
    However, it's not every bank failure that gets protection. It's not automatic. It's just the banks that take the most outrageous risks and lose that are directly protected by the government. On infrequent occasions, uninsured depositors lose money. That happens when a failed bank is not TBTF, but the the FDIC can't find a buyer that will assume all of the bank's deposit liabilities.
    https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/bank/
    This unequal treatment has its own problems, as discussed in this 1990 paper (near the end of the quoted section):
    A good first step... would be to cease the present practice of fully paying out uninsured depositors when bank failures occur. This practice, of course, is de facto insurance [emphasis in original] ... Paul Duke, Jr. reports that "many [bankers] support proposals to give depositors a 'haircut' a 10% of 15% loss on deposits above the [FDIC insurance limit] — when a bank fails. Two of banking's biggest guns, Citicorp Chairman John Reed and Chase Manhattan President Thomas Lebrecque, support variations of this proposal (WSJ, Aug 3, 'S9, A16). ... Such a shift in policy should not encounter insuperable opposition since it falls far short of enforcing the insurance limitations which legally already exist.
    Since the Continental Illinois bankruptcy the federal banking and S&L authorities have adopted a too—big—to-fail policy. The policy is closely related to the unwritten policy of rescuing any faltering American corporation if it is large enough. The most notable cases so far have been Continental Illinois and Chrysler.
    ...In the beginning this de facto extension of coverage only applied to the banks and S&Ls which were large enough to have a wide financial influence. ... only the eleven largest banks were originally covered, hence the designation "too-big—t o—fail". The government however was rightfully criticized for this policy on the grounds that it put smaller banks at a competitive disadvantage, so, to correct this inequity the government has for several years made it a general policy to pay off all depositors in both large and small failed banks.
    https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10130&context=etd
  • How much fear is in the air about SVB and the greater implications?
    Check this out .
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
    EXCHANGE STABILIZATION FUND
    Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited)
    Fiscal Year 2021
    8
    (Continued)
    reestimates (see Note 11). Amounts due to the General Fund also decreased by $9.6 billion, reflecting a
    decrease in the downward subsidy accrual compared to FY 2020.
    Net Position
    The Net Position of $42.2 billion at September 30, 2021 represents the combined total of the ESF’s
    unexpended appropriations and cumulative results of operations. The $479.3 billion (or 91.9%) decrease
    in FY 2021 was driven by the $478.8 billion rescission of CARES Act appropriated funds.
    2022 report should be coming out soon, March .
    Seems to me to be a bit under funded
  • How much fear is in the air about SVB and the greater implications?
    Andrew Ross Sorkin writes in NY Times DealBook:
    "So far, Silicon Valley Bank seems like an outlier, given its unique circumstances and unusual client base — it had very few typical retail customers, as JPMorgan’s Michael Cembalest wrote in a note to investors on Friday. But there is already nervousness about some other small and regional banks."
    "In the immediate term, the most pressing problem this presents is for Silicon Valley itself: Venture capital firms that used the bank may struggle to gain access to their money — and possibly that of their limited partners, including pension funds, that had forwarded money intended for investments. This, in turn, may make it hard to fund current and new investments — or to rescue other companies inside and outside their portfolios.
    DealBook is already hearing about secondary sales of private shares to fund both businesses and individuals."

    Link (paywalled)