10m-old troll piece from the Hill, yawn
... penned by this lower-tier rightwinger:
https://www.rstreet.org/team/alex-j-pollock/
whose name I knew, sort of, from his mortgage-doc simplification initiative.
"His interests include ... the pursuit of clarity." Me too!
As for the content, much of it could be used as a strawman demo, or possibly, but that aside, the first two history examples are crisis-related (still horrible!!), the third is arguably not exactly a default, is it?, although I remember it because my then recently deceased grandfather used to give us kids silver dollars as presents. The last genuine crisis has to do with other govs, and lets Pollock give away his motive with the complaint "allowing the unlimited printing of dollars by the Federal Reserve today." (Horrible!)
Oh, well.
Weeds and more weeds, in excelsis, about 1971 (https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c6883/c6883.pdf, omg):
One reconciliation of these points may lie in the fact that what is critical for
the smooth operation of a system of stable exchange rates is not continual
policy convergence per se but a commitment to exchange rate stability with
sufficient credibility to reassure agents that policies will be consistent with
stable exchange rates over the long term. Monetary and fiscal policies could
and did diverge in the short run. But market participants were confident that
industrial countries pegging to the dollar would eventually adjust their policies so as to reconcile them with the maintenance of a pegged dollar rate. So
long as this remained the case, international capital movements stabilized
nominal rates, rather than destabilizing them, until those policy adjustments
took place. The relative stability of other variables followed.
PKrug draft, on contexts for such crises:
https://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/next generation.pdf
complete with a droll tagline.

Thank you, @Crash. Yes, those k-1s... They tend to have their special place in your taxes, kind of have to remember where to plug them in... It helps if you know where it needs to go on 1040. I tend to use software...Used to use TurboTax, but there were very slow updates during covid/2020, but HR Block released the tax forms updates faster, so now I am using HR Block.
By the way @Mark, have you tried other software besides TurboTax? Was TT easier to use?

i concur. and i had not heard about teresa kong's leaving. where did she go? does anyone know? I will take a look.....
...Found this. RETIRING???? She can't be that old.....
https://citywireselector.com/news/a-rated-bond-boss-to-exit-matthews-asia/a2391349
Or is the word being used here in a non-standard way?

Exactly. All the portfolio managers that left have been Teresa's age or younger. Firm has lost an entire generation of leaders on the investment team. Teresa is not that old herself, she's <50 years old if I had to guess? It's a really bad sign.
Looking at the direction of the company, its not a surprise. Why stay on the proverbial sinking ship when your skill set is in high demand? Having felt the change there over the years, I'm not sure why matthews didn't make a leadership change sooner at the top. It almost seems too late at this point. You all might remember they brought in some outside leaders, but they ended up resigning or leaving after very short stints. Yu Ming Wang famously joined in 2020 as Global CIO/President, but resigned within 9 months. That is also a really bad sign and highly unusual. Actually I've never heard of such a thing happening.
https://www.pionline.com/money-management/matthews-asias-presidentglobal-cio-resigns

Added NLSAX to my alternative sleeve last week. Replaced GATEX. I think it will be a good fit. Held up quite well 1st quarter 2020. I’m very diversified. Largest single holding (DODBX) is at 8.7%. NLSAX is 7.95%.

Also, is it beneficial to hold them in retirement accounts, IRAs, if they have special tax consequences if held in a normal account?
Thank you.
In particular, I know that ET generates a K-1 IRS form, which many people find burdensome to deal with. (Limited Partnership.) Not me. I'll just pay my tax guy, like every year, to do our 1040. But the K-1 form typically arrives very late! (Harumph.)
With regard to the K-1, I'm told that dividends amount to "Return Of Capital." Technically, they're giving you back your own money, non-taxable----- until they give you back so much that your own total cost basis is covered; then it becomes taxable. There are others here at MFO who know more than I do about it. Maybe they can contribute here, and tell us if I'm all wet and full of shit. ;)

Sounds like folks are talking past each other here …

Well, yes and no. I won’t disagree with LB. Made some excellent points. I’m into Marks’ thinking more on a philosophical level than his performance as an actual practitioner. I’m convinced that valuations at any given time are significantly elevated or depressed owing to public perception. If I can gain an edge by understanding that basic market dynamic (be it in preserving capital, reducing risk or making money) so be it. Marks is like a broken record ISTM. His is not a complex philosophy - though one most difficult to execute for some of the reasons Lewis points out. Not interested in owning his or any high fee hedge fund. He is one of dozens of successful investors today. Learn what you can from them all.
@FD1000 - Is there any professional fund manager (hedge fund, mutual fund, ETF) to your knowledge who is / or has ever been a more successful investor than you? If so, who might that be?

@MikeM, you probably know the story on Schwab robo-advisor better than others. Schwab took some flak on its aggressive ads for its robo-advisors being "free" (ER 0%) but it keeps more in cash at its own Schwab Bank (which lends that money and throws back some profits to the brokerage side). Other industry members complained to the SEC. Barron's excluded Schwab from its 2020 and 2021 rankings noting this mess. At the end, Schwab settled with the SEC, paid some $xxx millions in fines, but so minimally tweaked its ads that it is hard to see what all the fuss was about. And it joins Barron's ranking in 2022 - OK, at #9, but at least it is there. And now that it is "rehabilitated", it will probably move up on these rankings in future. AUM-wise, Schwab + TD Ameritrade have huge assets in robo-advisors.

www.barrons.com/articles/the-best-robo-advisors-barrons-annual-ranking-51659712291?mod=hp_DAY_Theme_1_1
Overall Ranking: #1-SoFi, #2-Wealthfront/UBS, #3-Fidelity, #4-SigFig, #5-Merrill Edge, #6-Personal Capital/Empower, #7-Vanguard, #8-Betterment, #9-Schwab, #10-US Bank, #11-Morgan Stanley (includes E*Trade), #12-Wells Fargo, #13-Ally, #14-Acorns, #15-JP Morgan Chase
Digital Advice by Firm AUMs: #1-Edelman Financial Engines, #2-Vanguard, #3-Morningstar, #4-Fidelity, #5-Schwab, #6-Betterment, #7-Wealthfront/UBS, #8-Personal Capital/Empower, #9-TD Ameritrade/Schwab, #10-Guided Choice, #11-Bloom. Total industry AUM $987.6 billion.
There are several variations - digital-only, digital+ with some personalization/customization (menu-based) and limited support, tax-loss harvesting.
Related developments include direct-indexing, ESG, mobile apps.
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/153/robo-advisors-barrons-rankings?page=1&scrollTo=732

I like Howard Marks’ long and thought-provoking pieces. The firm Oaktree Capital (AUM $159 billion) that he cofounded is big and successful in distressed credit areas. Gundlach's DoubleLine may not have happened without Marks. But the firm hasn’t done well in one area – general funds. It offers several private-equity funds, 1 FI interval-fund and 1 tiny EM equity fund. So, all we are left with is reading Marks’ great essays.
https://www.oaktreecapital.com/
https://www.businessinsider.com/marks-made-900-million-billion-investing-in-gundlach-2016-2
Oldtimers may remember VG Convertible Fund VCVSX that was closed in 2019 (AUM was still around $1 billion but that wasn’t not big enough for VG) due to outflows, lagging performance and manager turnover (Oaktree was the fund manager). Knowing about Marks and Oaktree, I followed VCVSX but never got into it as it wasn’t a great fund.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/906914/why-vanguard-killed-a-good-fund
https://citywireusa.com/professional-buyer/news/not-worth-the-hassle-vanguard-to-liquidate-almost-1bn-fund/a1188088
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/46677/vanguard-convertible-securities-fund-to-liquidate/p1
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/vanguard-to-liquidate-convertible-securities-fund-300772427.html

I listen to Marks several times a week. He’s so “right” and I find it so difficult to follow his advice. I held DKNG and ARKK at various points this year at well below what they closed at yesterday. Yes, I made a few $$ on those spec plays. But the incredible volatility of up 9% one day and down 9% the next scared me off. Took the small gains and ran. Had I clung to those longer I’d have been better off. Both closed yesterday at their recent high. DKNG was down to $10.66 at one point a month or two ago. Near $16 yesterday as I recall - or about 50% above its 3 month low. Bloomberg reports that TSLA jumped 50% last month! Who among us has the nerve to ride those broncos?
Oversimplifying Marks, the markets are a large casino. Outsmarting the “herd” is his mentality. He must drink better whisky than I do.
Thanks @bee for posting one of my favorite investors / writers. Sorry if I stole any of your thunder.

@Crash - 0n that Muted Response to ET's quarter. Sam Smith's thoughts at SeekingAlpha:
"While this might baffle some investors, the reason is clear: ET signaled that the "old ET" is still very clearly present and Kelcy Warren's hunger for growth spending is as strong as ever. While it is still very likely that ET will restore its quarterly distribution to pre-cut levels in 2023 or 2024, the likelihood of additional capital returns via additional distribution growth or unit buybacks just took a huge hit.
It appears ET does not get it: Mr. Market clearly wants ET to reign in its acquisition and growth project spending and instead focus keenly on debt reduction and unitholder capital return acceleration. However, ET appears to be dedicated to simply reaching a certain leverage target, restoring the distribution to pre-cut levels, and then focus heavily on growth spending. While this could pay off, ET's past track record does not bode well."

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1041673/000119312522211741/d371429d497.htm
497 1 d371429d497.htm NUVEEN INVESTMENT TRUST II
NUVEEN INTERNATIONAL GROWTH FUND
SUPPLEMENT DATED AUGUST 4, 2022
TO THE PROSPECTUS AND SUMMARY PROSPECTUS DATED DECEMBER 1, 2021
Proposed Reorganization of
Nuveen International Growth Fund into
TIAA-CREF International Opportunities Fund
The Board of Trustees of Nuveen Investment Trust II (“NIT II”) and the Board of Trustees of TIAA-CREF Funds (“TC Funds”) have each approved the reorganization of Nuveen International Growth Fund (the “Target Fund”), a series of NIT II, into TIAA-CREF International Opportunities Fund (the “Acquiring Fund”), a series of TC Funds. In order for the reorganization to occur, it must be approved by the shareholders of the Target Fund.
If the Target Fund’s shareholders approve the reorganization, the Target Fund will transfer all of its assets and liabilities to the Acquiring Fund in exchange for Acquiring Fund shares of equal value. These Acquiring Fund shares will then be distributed to Target Fund shareholders and the Target Fund will be terminated. As a result of these transactions, Target Fund shareholders will become shareholders of the Acquiring Fund and will cease to be shareholders of the Target Fund. Each Target Fund shareholder will receive Acquiring Fund shares with a total value equal to the total value of that shareholder’s Target Fund shares immediately prior to the closing of the reorganization. It is expected that the reorganization will qualify as a tax-free reorganization for federal income tax purposes and that Target Fund shareholders will not recognize any gain or loss as a result of the reorganization. However, Target Fund shareholders will receive a distribution of substantially all net income and/or realized gains, if any, prior to the reorganization.
A special meeting of the Target Fund’s shareholders for the purpose of voting on the reorganization is expected to be held in early October 2022. If the required approval is obtained, it is anticipated that the reorganization will be consummated approximately 15-30 days after the special shareholder meeting. Further information regarding the proposed reorganization will be contained in proxy materials that are expected to be sent to shareholders of the Target Fund in September 2022.
The Target Fund will continue sales and redemptions of its shares as described in the prospectus until shortly before its reorganization. However, holders of shares purchased after the record date set for the Target Fund’s special meeting of shareholders will not be entitled to vote those shares at the special meeting.
PLEASE KEEP THIS WITH YOUR PROSPECTUS
AND/OR SUMMARY PROSPECTUS
FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

Follow the money. M* needs to show these metrics have value:

CHICAGO and AMSTERDAM, April 21, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Morningstar, Inc. (Nasdaq: MORN), a leading provider of independent investment research, today announced it has reached an agreement to acquire Sustainalytics, a globally recognized leader in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings and research. Morningstar currently owns an approximate 40% ownership stake in Sustainalytics, first acquired in 2017, and will purchase the remaining approximate 60% of Sustainalytics shares upon closing of the transaction.

https://newsroom.morningstar.com/newsroom/news-archive/press-release-details/2020/Morningstar-to-Acquire-Sustainalytics-and-Expand-Access-to-ESG-Research-Data-and-Analytics-for-Investors-Worldwide/default.aspx

"Vanguard Group, Inc, has settled with the Massachusetts Secretary of State concerning its popular target-date retirement funds. In December 2020, Vanguard reduced the minimum investments for its institutional investors. This change triggered an outflow from its higher-cost funds, which resulted in the funds selling securities and generating capital gains for investors with taxable accounts. Vanguard did not admit any wrongdoing in the case. The settlement includes $5.5 million to Massachusetts investors holding taxable accounts and $750,000 to the State of Massachusetts."
I was wondering if other states have or will be targeting VG for a settlement ? Does anyone have any info ?

+1, 2, 3 @msf
I think generally (but not always) there’s some rough correlation between risk and potential reward in any investment. Even a stock or fund that’s been racking up a “mere” 30% in consecutive annual returns sets off caution flags in my mind. That type of reward isn’t achieved with only “modest” risk of capital.
Anybody remember what ENRON was churning out yearly before the roof caved in?
Or, for that matter … ARKK :)

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1540305/000089418922005239/defiancespakandpsyliquidat.htm
Filed Pursuant to Rule 497(e)
File Nos. 333-179562; 811-22668
Defiance Next Gen SPAC Derived ETF (SPAK)
Defiance Next Gen Altered Experience ETF (PSY)
August 1, 2022
Supplement to the Summary Prospectuses, Prospectus, and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”),
each dated April 30, 2022
The Board of Trustees of ETF Series Solutions, upon a recommendation from Defiance ETFs, LLC, the investment adviser to the Defiance Next Gen SPAC Derived ETF and Defiance Next Gen Altered Experience ETF (each, a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”), has determined to close and liquidate the Funds immediately after the close of business on August 30, 2022 (the “Liquidation Date”). Shares of the Funds are listed on the NYSE Arca, Inc.
Effective on or about August 8, 2022, each Fund will begin liquidating its portfolio assets. This will cause each Fund to increase its cash holdings and deviate from the investment objective and strategies stated in the Funds’ prospectus.
The Funds will no longer accept orders for new creation units after the close of business on the business day prior to the Liquidation Date, and trading in shares of the Funds will be halted prior to market open on the Liquidation Date. Prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may only be able to sell their shares to certain broker-dealers, and there is no assurance that there will be a market for the Funds’ shares during that time period. Customary brokerage charges may apply to such transactions.
On or about the Liquidation Date, each Fund will liquidate its assets and distribute cash pro rata to all remaining shareholders. These distributions are taxable events. Distributions made to shareholders should generally be treated as received in exchange for shares and will therefore generally give rise to a capital gain or loss depending on a shareholder’s tax basis. Shareholders should contact their tax advisor to discuss the income tax consequences of the liquidation. As calculated on the Liquidation Date, each Fund’s net asset value will reflect the costs of closing each Fund, if any. Once the distributions are complete, the Funds will terminate. Proceeds of the liquidation will be sent to shareholders promptly after the Liquidation Date.
For additional information, please call 1-833-333-9383.
Please retain this Supplement with your Summary Prospectuses, Prospectus, and SAI for future reference.

As one digs a little, it just keeps getting better.
It seems that the 10% performance fee used to be 11%:
https://prdistribution.com/news/tbo-capital-announces-reduction-of-performance-fees-for-all-balances-2.html
The application form lets you send in money and lets you make daily withdrawals. That's an open end fund. But the Terms and Conditions page says that this is a "closed ended [sic] mutual fund".
How many decades of industry experience does it take to differentiate between an open end fund and a closed "ended" fund?
The page goes on to say that "It offers monthly dividends to investors instead of growth option i.e. increase in NAV (share) price."
This begs the question: is it selling shares of its underlying holdings every month and distributing proceeds to keep its NAV from growing?
I think I'll stop now. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. I'll leave with a couple of questions based on this excerpt:

Outperformed 95% of peers over the last six years with less risk.
...
Long-tenured advisors of three PhDs and one MD in internal medicine

What are the 5% of health care fund peers who have made more than 50% annualized over the last six years? Or is this "outperforming 95% of peers" just a made up figure to make it seems that the 50% returns reported are not equally fictitious?
M* premium screener returns no funds of any type with 50% returns over the past five years.
Stringing together the best performing health care fund in each of the last six calendar years, e.g. FSMEX (8.68% in 2016), ETIHX (45.83% in 2017) and so on, one achieves only a 36% annualized return. All actual health care funds returned less than my cherry-picked combo.
Who are the PhDs and MD? TBO Capital names only four principals, and none of them hold any sort of doctorate degree according to their Linked In profiles.

Oodles of red flags. Starting with performance that would make Bernie Madoff blush. Not a single losing month from January 2016 through June 2022. (I can hardly wait to see it post July results.) Smooth as silk. Just look at the graph.
https://tbocapital.com/performance
No wonder the "prospectus" doesn't say anything about how the fee is handled in a down month (do they multiply their percentage by a negative return?)
That "prospectus" is missing a lot of information aside from how fees are handled (and what the fee is if you invest more than $1.5M). No bios on the fund managers (they claim experience but w/o history), no SAI or other doc with information about how the fund is structured, no tax information, etc.
Did I mention that the numbers are inconsistent? For example, Jan-June 2021 monthly returns given on the performance page total to a cumulative return of 33.27%. But the prospectus gives the 2021 YTD performance as of June 2021 as 29.48%. And the three year return isn't annualized.
There's no 2021 annual report, only one for 2020, and none earlier.
But all this is minor stuff. The kind of information one would look at if a fund were real. It's the more blatant stuff where the fun is.
The domain name/website used to be operated by completely different people selling land development services.
https://web.archive.org/web/20121030031036/http://tbocapital.com:80/services.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20121028192927/http://tbocapital.com:80/about.html
The site went black in 2015 (when the "new" TBO Capital says it started), and the WayBack Machine Archive doesn't show any real text pages until May of this year, e.g.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220518131741/https://tbocapital.com/performance
(The complete list of pages crawled, real or not is:
https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://tbocapital.com/*)
ICANN reports that the website registration is private (no surprise there). Though it gives a mailing address in Iceland.
Kalkofnsvegur 2, Reykjavik, Capital Region, 101, IS
Neither the "managers" of the fund nor TBO Capital show up on either the SEC's or FINRA's site for brokers, firms, etc.
https://adviserinfo.sec.gov/
https://brokercheck.finra.org/
"The SEC typically regulates investment advisers that have assets under management in excess of $100,000,000." The prospectus states the fund has $164M AUM.
And for the regulation wonks: Performance fees are generally prohibited. They are allowed if an offering is restricted to accredited investors (but this fund is open to anyone), or if the performance fee operates on a fulcrum (this doesn't).
With a fulcrum, performance adjustments are symmetric; fees go down if the fund underperforms just as they go up with outperformance.
https://etfdb.com/etf-education/learn-about-fulcrum-fees/ (See Regulatory Considerations)

Anybody heard of or done business with? It's a private Healthcare fund. I can't seem to find anything on them...except from them..ha! Claims good returns but? Any experiences? Thanks