https://www.kitco.com/commentaries/2020-08-11/Gold-silver-the-range-trade.html
Gold & silver: the range trade
[Gold is at a point where most of the horrific Corona crisis news is priced in, the US economy continues to strengthen, and not enough government handout money has been spent by Main Street to create inflation]
Maybe bullish for gold slv long term as long as Feds keep pumping in more monies/maintain low interest rates to keep economy afloat

I do rather worry about the RobinHood crowd and the prospect that they're pushing things higher, in part by triggering the algos. The observation that the S&P 495 is underwater by 5% year-to-date while the S&P 5 is up dramatically, does feel worrisome.
David

Be well, David.
Speaking of the RobinHood crowd, I saw TSLA is doing a 5:1 split. Since TSLA is a totally unhinged herd-mentality momentum stock, I have to wonder, would this attract RobinHooders and other bet-it-all-on-red folks? Heck, do RobinHooders play with stocks that cost more than $30/share?

Yes, I'm a "Robinhooder" at own stocks anywhere from $10/share to north of $200/share.
The Robinhood crowd, simply does not have enough capital to really sway the markets. They're de minimis relative to all of the institutional capital out there.

@Derf, Interesting pick in SPEDX. Thinking I'll cut some from SPECX into SPEDX through a nav transfer. This should put me somewhere around 50% in SPECX, 25% in SPEDX and 25% in AOFAX within the Alger family of funds. I've got to be careful moving out of SPECX as I've built up sizeable unrealized capital gains in SPECX. In doing a nav transfer I avoid commissions but tax wise this counts as a sale and the tax man will want his cut.
Again, a good pick in SPEDX as I am really thinking hard about moving some money into it especially since, from my perspective, equities are overbought and it can short. I'd most likely hold SPEDX in my niche fund sleeve found in the growth area of my portfolio.
As for my cash I have it split among four money market funds. They are AMAXX, TTOXX, TBIXX & PCOXX. Currently, their year to date returns are 0.27%, 0.34%, 0.47% & 0.52% respectively. When I reduced my cash allocation from 20% to 15% in my portfolio, a while back, I rolled this money into a couple bond funds (MIAQX, LBNDX & FLAAX) since cash yields are paying next to nothing and these bond funds have current yields of about 4.2%, 4.0% and tax free 3.2% respectively. This move became my chosen option to counter low cash yields and raised my income area allocation from 40% to 45%.
Over time, I'll let my portfolio's income generation restore my cash position back to the neutral position of 20%. I'm thinking by year end I'll be back close to the 20% cash allocation as I take all income distributions including year end mutual fund capital gain ditributions in cash. At year end I'll decide how to proceed with respect to the rebalancing my portfolio.
I'm sure there is more than one way to deal with low cash yields. As investors, we have to decide which way is best for each of us to proceed knowing there is no one right (or wrong) way to move as there are no doubt many options that will find success.
Thanks again Derf for bringing SPEDX to the board's attention as I am no longer a student of new fund study although I do follow the markets and for the most part run with what I have establised through my many years of investing.

“The fund’s management fee currently consists of a group fee component that declines at certain asset levels and is calculated daily based on the combined net assets of all T. Rowe Price Funds (except the funds-of-funds, TRP Reserve Funds, Multi-Sector Account Portfolios, and any index or private label mutual funds) and an individual fund fee component. However, the individual fund fee is 0.00% so the fund’s management fee equals the group fee rate. On May 31, 2020, the annual group fee rate was 0.29%. In addition, through at least September 30, 2020, T. Rowe Price has contractually agreed to waive a portion of the management fee it is entitled to receive from the fund in order to limit the fund’s overall management fee rate to 0.15% of the fund’s average daily net assets. Effective October 1, 2020, the arrangement limiting the overall management fee to 0.15% will be terminated and the group fee component of the management fee will be eliminated, and the fund will begin paying T. Rowe Price an annual investment management fee of 0.06% based on the fund’s average daily net assets.”
That’s four of the most confusing sentences I’ve ever read. - “Who’s on first?“

I was interviewed by the folks at Fund Intelligence on the day that the D&C prospectus was filed. Three guesses that I shared with them:
D&C are not under any real asset pressure. Firm AUM is holding up nicely. Even if they were looking for an asset grab, emerging markets value isn't the place to attempt it.
As several of you have noted, the timing may be right for EM value exposure. 361 Capital shared and interesting note that talked about which assets have, in the past, benefited when the US dollar weakened (a predictable consequence of zero interest rates on dollar bank securities and trillions of new issuance). They report that small, value and emerging are in the top four in both of the preceding periods they examined. Commodities made one of the two lists as well.
But, sadly, there's not much evidence that D&C are good at international investing. Their fixed income funds are splendid. Their primarily domestic equity funds are reasonable. Their international and global funds are not very good at all. There may well be good reason for the sustained underperformance but caution is not one of them: the funds tend to underperform pretty substantially in falling markets.
For what interest that might hold, David

https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4367158-natural-gas-prices-surged-over-20-last-week-natural-gas-equities-surged-even
Summary
Dry natural gas prices broke out to the upside last week.
Natural gas equities outperformed, as they have been doing for a majority of 2020.
Bigger picture, natural gas equities are leading dry natural gas prices, which are leading commodity prices, which will lead to inflation.
This idea was discussed in more depth with members of my private investing community, The Contrarian. Get started today »
Bull markets are born on pessimism, grow on skepticism, mature on optimism, and die on euphoria.
-- Sir John Templeton
Introduction
I have been bullish on dry natural gas prices and natural gas equities for a long time. Two recent published examples of this bullish include the recent published article, "Antero Resources Is A Generational Buy: Working Through The Near-Term Debt Maturities", and "EQT Corp Surges As The Bearish Natural Gas Thesis Is Dead", which was published on March 17 in the heart of the declines in the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY) and the Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (DIA).
Natural gas equities featured in these articles, including Antero Resources (AR), Antero Midstream (AM), and EQT Corp (EQT), have performed admirably year-to-date in 2020, with AR shares rising 37.9% year-to-date through August 7, AM shares rising 9.3% YTD, outperforming all of their pipeline peers, and EQT shares rising 58.4% YTD./
Just an observation -
Maybe huge demands for commodities on the horizon....so many cars on road now new where we live...things slowly returning to normalcy unless another hugh covid19 outbreaks...

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/853437/000174177320002231/c497.htm
97 1 c497.htm
T. Rowe Price U.S. Treasury Long-Term Fund
Supplement to Prospectus Dated March 1, 2020
The fund’s Board of Directors has approved changes to the fund’s name, investment objective, fee structure, and overall investment program, which includes changing to an index strategy that tracks the returns of its current benchmark index. These changes are expected to become effective on October 1, 2020, subject approval by the fund’s shareholders of change to the investment objective.
Effective October 1, 2020, the fund will change its name from the T. Rowe Price U.S. Treasury Long-Term Fund to the T. Rowe Price U.S. Treasury Long-Term Index Fund. In connection with the name change and to align with the shift to an index strategy, the fund’s investment objective is proposed to be changed to seek to provide high income consistent with maximum credit protection.
The fund’s management fee currently consists of a group fee component that declines at certain asset levels and is calculated daily based on the combined net assets of all T. Rowe Price Funds (except the funds-of-funds, TRP Reserve Funds, Multi-Sector Account Portfolios, and any index or private label mutual funds) and an individual fund fee component. However, the individual fund fee is 0.00% so the fund’s management fee equals the group fee rate. On May 31, 2020, the annual group fee rate was 0.29%. In addition, through at least September 30, 2020, T. Rowe Price has contractually agreed to waive a portion of the management fee it is entitled to receive from the fund in order to limit the fund’s overall management fee rate to 0.15% of the fund’s average daily net assets. Effective October 1, 2020, the arrangement limiting the overall management fee to 0.15% will be terminated and the group fee component of the management fee will be eliminated, and the fund will begin paying T. Rowe Price an annual investment management fee of 0.06% based on the fund’s average daily net assets.
Effective October 1, 2020, subject to approval by the fund’s shareholders of the change to the fund’s investment objective, the following changes will be made to the prospectus:
The investment objective on page 1 will be revised as follows:
The fund seeks to provide high income consistent with maximum credit protection.
The fee table and expense example on pages 1—2 will be revised as follows...

Your hindsight is impeccable 1K. I’ll give you that. I’ll try here to answer your somewhat condescending questions:
- I’m by nature a conservative investor. Within a diversified portfolio, I‘ve always maintained some significant exposure to equities. So nothing’s changed just because my analysis tonight concluded we’re running on “borrowed time“. Considering 22 years retired, I’m likely a lot more more aggressively invested than many in that situation - and less so than others.
- Generally, I feel it’s foolish to try and invest according to a reading the macro tea leaves. I’ve said as much here on more than one occasion. I rarely do it - perhaps on occasion for small speculative gambits.
- Yes, there have always been doomsayers: Granville, Dent, Rogers, Faber, Hussman to cite a few. I’ve listened to all of them . Never fell in love with any. Although I’ll say Rogers is certainly a glib and engaging talker.
- Short the market? Not me! Takes nerves of steel. And greater insights into specific companies than I possess. Do any of my funds short? Probably. In particular alternative fund TMSRX (about 10% of my holdings) has the ability to short.
- You didn’t ask, but my post was not intended or offered as actionable investment advise. Indeed, it suggested there might be many more years of rising asset prices.
I hope I’ve answered your questions.
So what are you overlooking here in your rather derisive and dismissive antipathy towards my thoughts? Probably the 35+ year downtrend in global interest rates. Do you really think the past 35+ years of generally rising asset prices would have played out that way had the 10-year risen from below 1% to over 10% during those years instead of the other way around? And do you choose to ignore the massive and unprecedented Federal Reserve interventions, both during the ‘07-‘09 market wreck and again after the March pummeling? Why would you find their propping up wine growers and auto sales companies that far-fetched? BOJ has purchased stocks in the past. And our own Federal Reserve is currently buying / owns corporate bonds rated just one notch above junk.
BTW- You’ll be glad to learn the Pres. is now talking up further tax cuts - apparently to be enacted by by decree.
MORE TAX CUTS COMING?

How stocks traded 3 months ahead of election day
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/10/how-the-dow-sp-trade-in-the-three-months-ahead-of-election-day.html
Since 1992, how the Dow, S&P trade in the three months into Election Day
PUBLISHED MON, AUG 10 20208:39 AM EDTUPDATED MON, AUG 10 20209:01 AM EDT
Eric Rosenbaum
The 2020 presidential election is just about three months away.
Some investors are worried about a potential change from a Trump to a Biden administration.
History shows politics, and changes in the political parties in power, have rarely been a good way to measure the market’s potential.
Mixed pictures I suppose
Maybe more volatile this year since we may not know winner until late Nov20

Article On How More Take-Home Pay Might Boost Equity Valuations
Today’s Red-Hot Numbers
The DOW led the charge, picking up 357 points or 1.30%
Interestingly, the NASDAQ lost about a half-percent - possibly on China tensions. One Bloomberg pundit suggested today the U.S. might break off diplomatic relations with China before year‘s end (unconfirmed speculation).
Other Markets (from Bloomberg)
CRUDE +2.0%
GOLD -0.51%
SILVER +2.49%
MINERS -0.82%
10-GOVT YIELD 0.58%

All ratings have been updated on MFO Premium site, including MultiSearch, Great Owls, Fund Alarm (Three Alarm and Honor Roll), Averages, Dashboard of Profiled Funds, and Fund Family Scorecard. The site now includes several analysis tools, including Correlation, Rolling Averages, Trend, Ferguson Metrics, Calendar Year and Period Performance.
Lots to point out this month ... recovery, quants, Wisdom Tree, and new MultiSearch screening features, including Refinitiv's new smart beta factors and ESG scores.
https://www.member.mfopremium.com/2020/08/10/mfo-ratings-updated-through-july-2020-new-bull-market/

A bullish but plausible projection with a couple of big caveats.

“We now expect that at least one vaccine will be approved by the end of 2020 and will be widely distributed by the end of 2021Q2,” Goldman Sachs economist Joseph Briggs wrote on Sunday.
...the availability of a vaccine is key to giving consumers the confidence to go back out there and spend.
Goldman’s increased optimism about the vaccine led the firm to increase its 2021 GDP growth forecast to +6.2% (from +5.6%) and lower its 2021 year-end unemployment rate forecast to 6.5% (from 7.0%).
....even if Goldman is correct about the timing of the vaccine, the firm’s forecasts also assume consumers continue to get aid until public health conditions are more normalized.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/goldman-sachs-2021-forecast-gdp-unemployment-rate-earnings-morning-brief-100115722.html

the reinharts tend to the bearish, to a fault, but this argues for the long haul:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-call-it-what-it-is-were-in-a-pandemic-depression/2020/08/09/3904faf4-d8e5-11ea-aff6-220dd3a14741_story.html

Dinky linky.
The point being that they are the new CDO's. And banks own more of them than may be good for their health.

Since 2008, banks have kept more capital on hand to protect against a downturn, and their balance sheets are less leveraged now than they were in 2007. And not every bank has loaded up on CLOs. But in December, the Financial Stability Board estimated that, for the 30 “global systemically important banks,” the average exposure to leveraged loans and CLOs was roughly 60 percent of capital on hand. Citigroup reported $20 billion worth of CLOs as of March 31; JPMorgan Chase reported $35 billion (along with an unrealized loss on CLOs of $2 billion). A couple of midsize banks—Banc of California, Stifel Financial—have CLOs totaling more than 100 percent of their capital. If the leveraged-loan market imploded, their liabilities could quickly become greater than their assets.

There's more at the link. Check it out. Buy a subscription if you can afford it.

>> The way it's currently done
Posted inflation data are chronically 4y out of date? That seems the conclusion, but I wonder; you'd think that would be bruited everywhere all the time.

I think what it's saying is that while the 2016 CPI is computed using 2016 prices, the weights in the 2016 basket are based on consumer surveys asking what people spent money on in 2013. (And 2017 CPI is based on 2014 weights.)

relative of mine formerly at one of the noncoastal federal reserves recalls that "2019 data get reported in Q1 2020. ... the various inflation indices used by FOMC are updated monthly, then revised up or down as more data become available."

These semi-transparent ETFs are "clones" of existing mutual funds.
Inception date is 08/04/2020.
Name Ticker Expense Ratio
Blue Chip Growth ETF TCHP 0.57%
Dividend Growth ETF TDVG 0.50%
Equity Income ETF TEQI 0.54%
Growth Stock ETF TGRW 0.52%
Link

MWFSX performance continues to lag and relates to lower daily distributions.
Its performance for 1-4-12 weeks per M* Multi category is 85-97-88. Basically, it's in the bottom 15%-3%-12%.
The last several distributions are:
As of Date Ticker Dividend Rate Accumulated Dividend Rate
8/9/2020 MWFSX 0.001256647 0.012160065
8/8/2020 MWFSX 0.001256647 0.010903418
8/7/2020 MWFSX 0.001256647 0.009646771
8/6/2020 MWFSX 0.001189266 0.008390124
8/5/2020 MWFSX 0.001149859 0.007200858
8/4/2020 MWFSX 0.001163833 0.006050999
8/3/2020 MWFSX 0.001201751 0.004887166
Reminder: just several weeks ago in July the dist were 2-3 times higher.
At 0.0012 per day it's about 4.4% annually. I'm taking it off my list.

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2020/08/05/muni-yields-hit-lowest-since-1952-as-fiscal-crisis-tests-a-haven?topic=covid-19-coronavirus-coverage
Muni Yields Hit Lowest Since 1952 as Fiscal Crisis Tests a Haven
by Amanda Albright, 8/5/20
/America’s municipal bondholders have never been paid so little for taking on so much risk.
The yields on state and local government bonds have steadily dwindled over the past month, even as the resurgent coronavirus pandemic is threatening to prolong the deep recession that’s dealing a financial setback to borrowers in virtually every corner of the $3.9 trillion market./
Anyone buy more munis recently? Maybe one of safer bets out there. More may have jumped ship to munibonds

"terminate the FICA tax."
https://socialsecurityworks.org/2020/08/08/trump-terminate-social-security/?fbclid=IwAR02DknL3pPiZ8dixYtsnxN0ubFhmMVI0gslm2TQvoJ3smrI6tUXP5PTgVY

"If I'm victorious on Nov. 3, I plan to forgive these taxes." This is buying votes, pure and simple. Apparently perfectly legal. Still, I find such crude quid pro quo odious:

To quote Justice Brennan of the United States Supreme Court, in his 1982 majority opinion in Brown v. Hartlage (456 US 56):

We have never insisted that the franchise be exercised without taint of individual benefit; indeed, our tradition of political pluralism is partly predicated on the expectation that voters will pursue their individual good through the political process, and that the summation of these individual pursuits will further the collective welfare. So long as the hoped for benefit is to be achieved through the normal processes of government, and not through some private arrangement, it has always been, and remains, a reputable basis upon which to cast one's ballot.

To follow the terminology of Pamela Karlan (1994), the Constitution permits candidates to buy votes wholesale, from many voters with a single promise of political action, but not retail, from a single voter with a promise of a private side-payment.

Kochin, Michael S., and Levis A. Kochin. "When Is Buying Votes Wrong?" Public Choice 97, no. 4 (1998): 645-62. Accessed August 9, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30024452.