@Mark I also sold a large longtime VZ position today to lock in some offsetting capital losses heading into EOY.

They've been around since the 80's but it largely appears that they put you in individual stocks. They hold 2.2 billion and have 1200 clients(per other sources had 200 million in 2002) thats an avg of 1.8 mil per. for them to legally charge this way requires at least 1.1 mil under management OR 2.2 in assets.
thats all from their website. They are rated as a top planner from CNBC.
here is info on their holdings :
https://hedgefollow.com/funds/Check+Capital+Management+Inc+Ca

Check Capital is interesting. Anyone know what their track record is and what they invest in? Also they have listed qualification criteria but not what minimum account size they want.

Many people vowed they would not invest in Janus funds after its participation in the early 2000s market timing scandal. But there were a lot of changes made at the top of Janus. Heartland was and is at the other end of the spectrum. So I haven't taken a good look at the Heartland funds in decades.

One Web site, FundAlarm.com, has been running what it calls a Whiston Watch, or a tally of how long Mr. Whiston has declined to explain "his role in the Janus market timing scandal, including what he knew and when he knew it." Mr. Whiston's departure means "another ghost of the past is gone," said Robert A. Olstein, whose Olstein Financial Alert fund has been buying Janus stock. "It shows me they are moving in the right direction."

https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/2004/04/21/chief-executive-janus-capital-steps/28801376007/
As I recall, only HRTVX impressed. And there are enough other fish in that sea.

Re: Josh Brown
I started listening to Animal Spirits with his colleagues in 2018. I started listening to the Compound when it began in 2020. I feel like they are one of the best financial podcast groups out there. its always interesting. they interview everyone, stay very topical to whats going on and seem to have a solid grasp of most of these concepts.
They are a growing wealth management firm. I believe they opened an office in Chicago last year and are opening one in Charlotte next year. So of course growing AUM is important. what I appreciate about this group is they are largely "active strategy while being more index forward" advisors, which helps a person not pay double "AUM" if you will (compounding 1% ER with 1% AUM can be quite a portfolio drag).
the Ritholtz team are great interviewers IMO. it is funny that they will often be like "I'm going to talk for an hour about why you should invest in target date funds...that hour is brought to you by INNOVATOR BUFFER 3X TSLA ETFS"

In this environment, I like my PRPFX. But adding to it here is tough. PM and equities are in bubble territory.
The markets can allow these bubbles to expand for a lengthy time as "fundamentals are so passe".
Its a dangerous game at this point. Will you find a chair when the music stops?

Ah Global Crossing. Lost $5000 on that one. What about MCI.
I sold CSCO in my IRA at a profit of something like $40,000 but my wife pulled a Warren Buffet ( holding period forever etc) and in her taxable account we rode CSCO down.
We kept ORCL.
Now what? Anybody else in the same boat? We have a capital gain of $250 a share

@bee
The only investment firm I have ever seen with an incentive arrangement is Check Capital
https://checkcapital.com/performance-based-fee
It is for Qualified investors only $1.1 million in their account or $2.2 million net worth.
they get 10% of profits, nothing if your account does not increase in value
Maybe someone with better programing skills can tell us which decade that would have worked out as a good deal. Surely in a ten year flat market it would be a better deal but not lately

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

Yeah, well said!
Maybe I am just a cheapskate, but I am not paying for anything that I can do myself, that doesn't involve a septic tank.
A free steak is not worth hours of my time and enduring a sales pitch.

bee said:
In my world, management fees would only be allowed on positive performance (the gains), not the initial investment amount (the principal).

Are you referring to the asset management fee in wealth management that brokerages offer ?

Exactly...We should share in the gains we made together, not the assets I brought you. In real estate its called ROI (Return on Investment).

That reminds me of a futures trading system firm years ago that approached me through my broker about helping seeding their new strategy and then potentially recommending it The offered a typical 2-and-20 which I laughed and said if I was fronting the money, I shouldn't be paying you ANYTHING beyond transaction costs. We haggled and I got them down to .50-and-zero but by that time I was feeling like a potential chump and decided not to play in the end. Probably made the right move, since I never saw them again anywhere. :)

bee said:
In my world, management fees would only be allowed on positive performance (the gains), not the initial investment amount (the principal).

Are you referring to the asset management fee in wealth management that brokerages offer ?

Exactly...We should share in the gains we made together, not the assets I brought you. In real estate its called ROI (Return on Investment).

bee said:
In my world, management fees would only be allowed on positive performance (the gains), not the initial investment amount (the principal).

Are you referring to the asset management fee in wealth management that brokerages offer ?

Since the start of 2024 there have been many penny-stock IPOs — often defined as IPOs priced below $5.
Through Sept. 30 of this year, there were 164 of them on U.S. exchanges including 147 on Nasdaq.
According to Jay Ritter, a University of Florida finance professor emeritus,
106 penny-stock IPOs were brought to market from 2001 to 2023.
"Last month’s initial public offerings included a Cayman Islands-incorporated provider
of shrimp-farm maintenance services in Malaysia with only four employees.
The IPO by Megan Holdings priced at $4 a share and raised $5 million."
"There has been a flood of similar microcap IPOs over the past two years,
a sign of the speculative fever gripping many parts of the investing world.
These stocks often lure in everyday investors before they tumble.
Some have produced eye-popping gains following announcements
related to a name change, cryptocurrencies or artificial intelligence."
"Nasdaq has promised to clean up its act and on Sept. 3 asked the Securities and Exchange Commission
for permission to tighten its listing standards, especially for small Chinese stocks.
This followed criticism by investors and lawmakers that such listings have become breeding grounds
for scams and manipulation."
https://marketsam.cmail20.com/t/d-e-gejykl-duklntldl-r/

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

@JD_co. Big fan of PRPFX here. Have it in both taxable and retirement accounts. My question is on what data are you placing ALLW in taxable accounts? Seems like turnover might be part of the plan. Lots of gains that would be taxable?

We shall see, thanks for pointing this out. ALLW distributes annually with 12-31 ex-date.
Per their website:
"Despite investing in commodity-linked derivatives, the fund does not issue a Schedule
K-1 as the fund holds the commodity-linked derivatives through a wholly-owned Cayman
Islands subsidiary to minimize non-qualifying income."

@JD_co. Big fan of PRPFX here. Have it in both taxable and retirement accounts. My question is on what data are you placing ALLW in taxable accounts? Seems like turnover might be part of the plan. Lots of gains that would be taxable?

From David, ”And the level of stock ownership is now at a record high; almost 45% of Americans’ net wealth rests in their stock portfolios (Federal Reserve data, 9/28/2025). So the American consumer is propping up the stock market, and the stock market is propping up the economy, and now consumer confidence is cratering.”
Randall Forsyth makes a similar case in this week’s Barron’s . In effect, Forsyth says it’s the stock market keeping the economy afloat. He sees the impetus continuing for some time even if the markets falter because of the enormous gains the wealthiest have already reaped. And Schwab has a new TV spot in which a couple riding in the back of a limo talking about stocks is interrupted by the limo driver - who turns out also to be an avid trader. :)

Monthly data is utilized for Portfolio Visualizer analyses
while daily data is incorporated in Portfolio Backtester analyses.
Consequently, results will vary.
Portfolio Visualizer generated the following results for QDSIX, QLEIX, and QMNIX respectively¹.
CAGR: 12.59%, 24.84%, 18.14%
Max. Drawdown: -4.45%, -15.98%, -10.52%
Sharpe: 1.42, 1.68, 1.28
Sortino: 2.85, 3.63, 2.66
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=4yoNaAO46AdhkOrEsxJKG2
Portfolio Backtester generated the following results for QDSIX, QLEIX, and QMNIX during the same period.
CAGR: 11.97%, 25.11%, 18.37%
Max. Drawdown: -7.06%, -17.07%, -14.05%
Sharpe: 1.16, 1.91, 1.51
Sortino: 1.57, 2.79, 2.20
https://testfol.io/?s=4JX16KUrEm3
¹ Jul. 2020 - Sep. 2025 (constrained by available data for QDSIX).

Here are my observations
- The SD metric incorporates daily price movements. No need to manually pore over individual price charts imo
- Selective cherry picking of dates for unclear reasons. I.e. A 3 year chart of QDSIX is being looked at alongside YTD charts for SPY (no idea why SPY even entered the picture in a discussion for bond funds but anyway..)
- My suggestion of QDSIX as a candidate for replacing a standard bond fund (such as BND) was initially explained as per below

To me the label of Bond fund is less relevant than whether it has served the function of a bond fund. I.e. Decent return and low max dd. With that frame, here are some funds that have returned 7% or higher during the last 5Y with a drawdown of 3% or lower.
CEDIX, 15.6, 2.4
VFLEX 10, 2.1
LCTIX 7.4, 2.5
as compared to
CBLDX 6.1, 1.4
PFIIX 4.5, 7.3
PAIIX 2.6, 8.9
The last two would be no-go's for me with those performance and max dd numbers.

Subsequently I proposed QDSIX too (in response to a question asked by a forum member) with justification as per below

Here is the direct QDSIX to BND compare
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/fund-performance?s=y&sl=3hYp9dTgZx25fW564h0zrq
Key take-aways
CAGR of 12.59% vs. -0.43%
MaxDD 4.45% vs. 17.54%
Sortino 2.85 vs. -0.64
Short story is that QDSIX has blown the lights out of BND across various time periods since inception in 2020 at significantly lower volatility.

And finally, in response to the selective cherry picking of dates by @FD1000 (Note: I never proposed QLEIX to be a substitute for a bond fund, I have no idea just like SPY why QLEIX entered the picture in a bond fund thread but anyway..).
3Y (10/1/22 to 09/30/25) Return & Risk Stats of QLEIX, QDSIX
CAGR: 13.41, 32.55
SD: 6.62, 8.39
Is QLEIX CAGR a lot better than QDSIX for above time period for comparable risk? Sure, I think that is a reasonable argument to make
But zoom out to the inception to date performance of QDSIX (July 2020 to Sep 2025) as compared to QLEIX and the numbers are
CAGR: 12.59, 24.84
SD: 6.5, 12.05
MaxDD: 4.45, 15.98
In short, I don't see QLEIX is a replacement for QDSIX but YMMV. I certainly see QDSIX as a strong replacement for BND but I ack the comments from others that QDSIX is a young fund that has not been battle tested.

Hello MFO team:
Love your publication. Am I to understand that your site will no longer publish or entertain a discussion about MF Capital Gain estimates as in yrs past? You're now steering your subscribers over to CapGainsValet?
Thank you
Felipe Garcia