Just checked X/Twitter comments - awful. Not taking them at face value, there may be something to those.
Much of the M* report on HOBIX is computer-generated gobbledygook. Overall, it looks like run of the mill ST bond funds. But one M* comment in passing was an alert - its 5-yr SD was much higher than its 3-yr SD. Then I noted in M* Portfolio details that while total junk % is small, lot of it is in securitized credit with underlying shaky firms.
So, I looked at TestFol that is based in daily data - not monthly data used by M*, PV, MFO Premium, etc. I ran with both 36-mo and 60-mo (default) rolling-periods and one can see that it was a disaster in 2020 pandemic and post-pandemic, but suddenly started doing better in early-2023.
IMO, ST bonds aren't for speculation, but the category is so wide that almost anything goes. There isn't even a distinction between ST-inv-gr and ST-HY. And the fact that generic overviews (M*, etc) may look OK (as for HOBIX) points to dangers lurking in ST bonds. I suppose that the lessons learned during the GFC were forgotten.
Rolling 36-mo HOBIX-36
Rolling 60-mo HOBIX-60

Ok, I give it a shot.
Question 1. Leuthold Core Equity. LCORX/LCR does not seem to track passive 60/40 funds. Technology is the largest sector the fund invested in, but is hedged with a short position on QQQ. Having over a 10% in cash shows the defensive posture. Leuthold should have low correlation to that of FPA Cresent.
Question 2. Palm Valley Capital. The firm is ran by two experienced managers. Investing in smaller caps takes guts when the market is dominated by large cal tech stocks. I never fully understood TMSRX’s strategy. Owned TMSRX briefly when it was introduced.

So, in general, I'm hopeful that each fund adds something to the strength of the whole portfolio. I tend to approach portfolio changes, additions especially, in three steps:
1. is there something that I believe I should have exposure to (for a bad example, crypto) but don't? If yes ...
2. is there a particularly good vehicle for gaining that access? Experienced manager, high insider investment, track record across multiple market cycles, clearly articulated positions on risk management and strategy capacity ... If yes ...
3. is the fund highly correlated with something I already own? I might, for a bad example, think that crypto is interesting but learn that corporate high-yield debt is so correlated with crypto - presumably because they are driven by similar forces - that adding crypto has no benefit.
Ran a correlation matrix just now. My top holding is FPA Crescent, at about 21% of the portfolio. For those not familiar, Crescent as a go-anywhere hybrid fund that started long ago as a hedge fund, has an absolute value discipline, about 60% equity just now, most of the rest in cash.
Quick quiz: which of these funds is highly correlated (an R-squared of 85 or above) with Crescent?
Grandeur Peak Global Microcap, 121 very small growth companies, about 13% EM exposure
Leuthold Core, a quant-driven tactical allocation fund
Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income, a GARPy emerging markets equity fund
T Rowe Price Spectrum Income, a fund of actively managed T Rowe Price funds
At the other end of the spectrum, which fund is most independent? T Rowe Price Multi-strategy Total Return, a sort of retail hedge fund, or Palm Valley Capital, a small cap value fund for people still shaking their fists at the 21st century?
David

Hi @hank

I subscribe to a newsletter that publishes a “recommended portfolio” consisting of 10 index funds

..... T Rowe Price (like TRRIX) typically invest in 15-25 other funds. What do you know that these managers don’t?

The only thing we know that the 'managers' don't, is what we want to hold in our portfolio at this time.
The TRRIX example that was noted has 27 other funds of funds. Way too many.
As to 10 index funds, the same would apply at this time.
If we had an advisor present such choices; the first input from us would be the 'elimination list'.
---NO International equity or bonds for either developed or emerging markets. NO value funds. NO hedged. NO high yield bonds. NO mid or small cap. NO metals.
We're a Medicare/SS/pension(s) household, and while we enjoy having decent annual returns; we also have capital preservation in mind.
Most of us spend $1,000's each and every year for house and auto insurance, and never file a claim; and the money is gone forever.
We treat our bond fund holdings/MMKT's as 'investment insurance' currently using BAGIX (active managed). We'll not likely outrun inflation and taxes, but maintain the capital.
The AGG bond etf is similar in high quality to BAGIX (ER = .30).
I've watched over the years and charted these two against bond 'index' funds. BAGIX has maintained near 1% annualized above the returns of the other two (etf and index). AGG and bond index funds run very close paths. I'm not trying to sell, but to offer the view.
Our portfolio is 40/60.
---The 40 in equity is split between growth (17%) and conservative equity (23%)(healthcare).
---The 60 is I.G. bond fund (33%) and MMKT (67% @5% yield).
Technically, we have 7 holdings; if one counts the MMKT.
NOTE: We've remained fully U.S. centered with investments since 2008. We have more than enough foreign exposure inside the equities, from their foreign earnings and/or some foreign holdings.
Remain curious,
Catch

:)
Thanks @stayCalm
You are correct that we all have different needs and assessment criteria. Often something I own makes sense only when put in the context of overall portfolio. I quick-scanned VBIAX. With 100% now at Fidelity it would not easily be available to me.
For the sake of discussion, VIBAX’s bond quality is at least as high as LCORX (80-90% investment grade). Duration is slightly longer. Both bond portfolios might be termed of intermediate duration. Both funds hold about 60+% equity exposure (net of short positions). Interestingly, LCORX’s fixed income allocation is about half in cash. (Sounds like they’re expecting a buying opportunity.) VBIAX’s fixed income appears to be all in bonds with 0 cash.
Unlike LCORX which has 10%+ 13%+ in short positions as a market hedge, M* lists VBIAX as holding none. I’m of the Marty Zweig era and so I’m always “… nervous Lou … ” Shorting equities is expensive, but (correctly applied) can dampen volatility & limit losses in down markets. Another slight difference is that LCORX has about 5% more allocated to basic materials. ISTM those haven’t done very well lately. (Give ‘em time.) My impression is that the guys running LCORX are very much “hands-on” managers. They seem to be moving the chips around a lot more than typical managers in an effort to protect capital and find promising investments in a challenging environment.

From Sgt. rono
I prefer to use longer smoother steadier trends myself as they're easier to spot. And as FA said, it's not picking the absolute bottom nor top with a longer trend. With a 4 or 5 year trend, there's plenty of money to be made from between the 20 and 80 yard line - you don't have to go endzone to endzone. And again, all you're trying to do is to improve the returns of your portfolio over that of the 'great unwashed.'
Now a couple of tactics. First you need to have an exit strategy and you must follow it. Even if it 'stops you out' prematurely, you MUST follow it. With stocks you can set Stop Loss points, but you can also set mental stop loss points with mutual funds. For volatile sectors, you can use 10%-15% give back from your high. For more staid sectors, you could use 5-10%. Your call but FOLLOW IT.
When riding a trend, I scale in and scale out. Some go all at once, but I go incrementally. Perhaps I'm just a chicken. Ok.
For example, 6 months ago, I started noticing China via CAF. After watching this for a few weeks where it continued to diverge from the rest of asia and other markets, let's say I decide to play it. My intention is to invest $10K (round numbers for example). Ergo, I invest $2500 first and watch it for a week or so. If it makes me money and stays in the green, I go ahead and invest another $2500 . . . and watch it for a week or so. If it continues green I drop the remaining $5000. And watch it.
Scaling OUT is the same in reverse. Let's say I'm using 10% pull back from the highs for my 'stop loss'. It does so. I sell 25% of my holdings and watch it. If it drops some more, I sell another 25% and watch it. If it drops some more, I sell the rest. Note that depending upon how steep the drop, you may just bail much more quickly. And you MUST exit when the market says. I don't care what your feelings are, all that matters in this case is what the Captain says. You can always find another trend, but you simply do NOT want to give back all your gains.
And that is the trap that many fall into - they identify the trend, climb on board, ride it up and fail to get off and ride it back down. This leads to net/net zero. feh. This is why you must follow your exit strategy faithfully.
The nicest thing about trend or momentum investing is that you can still have a very passive buy & hold porfolio with much of your money - say 90% and just play with 10% and improve your returns over that of the average.
peace,
rono
Added : From May 2009 I'm wondering how rono is doing ?

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/793769/000119312524200350/d637629d497.htm
497 1 d637629d497.htm INTERNATIONAL GROWTHFUND SAI SUPPLEMENT
 
111 South Wacker Drive, 34th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606-4302
harborcapital.com
Supplement to Statement of Additional Information dated March 1, 2024
August 14, 2024
Harbor Funds’ Board of Trustees has determined to liquidate and dissolve Harbor International Growth Fund (the “Fund”). The liquidation of the Fund is expected to occur on October 23, 2024 (the “Liquidation Date”). The liquidation proceeds will be distributed to any remaining shareholders of the Fund on the Liquidation Date.
Shareholders may exchange shares of the Fund for another Harbor fund, or redeem shares out of the Fund, in accordance with Harbor’s exchange and redemption policies as set forth in the Fund’s prospectus, until the Liquidation Date.
In order to ready the Fund for liquidation, the Fund’s portfolio of investments will be transitioned prior to the planned Liquidation Date to one that consists of all or substantially all cash, cash equivalents and debt securities with remaining maturities of less than one year. As a result, shareholders should no longer expect that the Fund will seek to achieve its investment objective of seeking long-term growth of capital.
Because the Fund will be liquidating, the Fund is now closed to new investors. The Fund will no longer accept additional investments from existing shareholders beginning on October 16, 2024.

I am looking to set up Spec.ID as my default cost basis method. Schwab does not seem to have that method. They list FIFO, LIFO, High Cost, Low Cost, and Tax Lot Optimizer. I would want to realize my largest losses first, then smaller losses, and lastly gains. It appears that Schwab's Tax Loss Optimizer will meet that objective.
Order of Sales for the Tax Lot Optimizer
Short-term Losses Lots reflecting short-term losses are sold first, from greatest short-term loss to least short-term loss.
Long-term Losses Lots reflecting long-term losses are sold, from greatest long-term loss to least long-term loss.
Short-term, no gains nor losses Short-term lots that reflect no gain nor loss
Long-term, no gains nor losses Long-term lots that reflect no gain nor loss
Long-term Gains Lots reflecting long-term gains from least long-term gain to greatest long-term gain.
Short-term Gains Lots reflecting short-terms gains from least short-term gain to greatest short-term gain
Does Schwab have Spec.ID where I can pick the lots to sell?

Morgan Stanley's Wilson Sees Few Signs of Bear Market in Stocks
- Bloomberg article today
Excerpts from 2 different paragraphs. (I’ll try to link, but you might not be able to access article w/o a subscription.
”Chances of a full-fledged stock market rout are low, even though poor seasonality and a murky growth outlook are likely to limit US equity gains through the rest of the quarter, according to Morgan Stanley’s Mike Wilson.”
”I find it hard to believe we’re going to break out back toward the highs,” he said Tuesday in an interview with Bloomberg Television. “I also don’t think we’re going to completely break down in a way that would argue that we’re entering a new bear market.’”
The Stack

Marketwatch 02/15/09
Gold has been the preferred inflation hedge down through the ages. Investors have long prized the disaster insurance the precious metal provides during market panics and inflation surges when governments debase their currencies in response to crises.
Gold futures were trading well above $900 an ounce last week as investors were disappointed by the lack of details in the Treasury Department's latest plan to rescue the financial system.
Investors have been piling into the largest gold ETF, SPDR Gold Shares (GLD). The amount of gold held by the ETF continues to set new records -- it is now backed by about 1,000 metric tons of the precious metal. SPDR Gold Shares has an expense ratio of 0.4%, although investors pay broker commissions to buy and sell ETFs.
SPDR Gold Shares is one of the largest ETFs, with about $30 billion in assets. Although it is the biggest precious-metals ETF, several other exchange-traded products are tied to gold, silver and platinum, for example. Some provide leverage. Others such as Van Eck Market Vectors Gold Miners ETF (GDX) track miner shares. Investors need to be aware that gains on some futures-based commodity ETFs and ETNs can be taxed at a higher rate than those on funds indexed to stocks.

bank account in India and rules there are totally different (to begin with, we can write checks from savings account ...)
In the US there are multiple types of savings accounts - passbook (do they still exist?), statement savings, and statement savings with checking. The latter are MMDAs, commonly called money market accounts. What they all have in common, and what distinguishes them from demand deposit ("checking") accounts is that they have the right (rarely exercised) to require seven days notice on withdrawals.
Since 2020 banks have been allowed to offer unlimited "third party" withdrawals (such as checks). Some banks have taken advantage of this, others have preserved the six withdrawal per month limit, as they are allowed to do.  
https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2020/04/fed-eliminates-limits-on-withdrawals-from-savings-deposits

“Riding it out” works. I take it from @gman57 that he mostly sat tight without making any sales or acquisitions during the ‘07-‘09 market meltdown. However, in that case what you’re riding at the onset may be of import. Was it all in global growth? You might have been left with 35-cents on the dollar by March ‘09 - a blip on the radar screen to someone having a 40-year time horizon. Unnerving nonetheless to most of us mere mortals. Might even have had you wondering whether your 35-cents would be worth only 17 cents in another year …
I doubled down. Beginning in October ‘07 with a 60/40 mix, I gradually shifted 100% into domestic equities and then, about a year in (December 2008) I moved all that to a couple global growth funds which had fared substantially worse than domestic. Next, by a stroke of luck I converted about 40% of these badly depreciated assets into a Roth in early March ‘09 (Roth - The gift that keeps on giving). I’d just begun taking SS and the additional income covered the tax hit. The markets turned up on March 9, 2009.
Don’t know what the next step would have been. Probably would have floated a loan sometime in late ‘09 to convert the remaining IRA holdings into a Roth . Then, had the bear market continued into 2010, I’d have mortgaged the house to pour all of its equity into the most aggressive growth funds I could find (likely tech-heavy or international). Had it continued into 201l, not sure what I’d have done … (maybe start praying or simply drink more).
If you take the tack I did, it’s incumbent to back off a bit as markets rise so that you have some capital to reinvest next time things go to hell. I won’t say my way was more profitable than just riding it out. But it may have been less stressful in that you at least feel like you’re making decisions that may impact your fortunes. Stress is sometimes defined as feeling helpless to control your own fate.

I didn't have much money allocated to equities in 1987 since I was young and "poor."
Having read a bit about investing, I thought the 1987 market crash might present a buying opportunity.
Despite this knowledge, I didn't actually take advantage of the situation.
During the dot-com bubble (circa 1995 - 2000), I was employed in the tech industry.
Many coworkers were discussing massive gains in Yahoo, Cisco, and the like.
It was very difficult to ignore this continuous chatter - FOMO is real!
Since markets appeared to be in a bubble, I resisted the siren song of the dot-coms.
I didn't panic during the subsequent crash but should have purchased more equities afterward.
The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2007 - 2008 was very challenging for me.
There were many bankruptcies, multiple bailouts, bank runs on money market funds
(Reserve Primary Fund "broke the buck"), and rising unemployment.
Congress initially rejected the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
($700B Troubled Asset Relief Program was a component) which led to a ~9% decline
in the S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite that day. The legislation was passed a few days later.
The seemingly endless onslaught of severe economic events caused significant anxiety.
To me, it felt like the US economy might suffer a precipitous decline analogous to the Great Depression.
Once again, I didn't panic but should have increased equity purchases after this major crash.
I hope to never experience a similar scenario again during my lifetime!

From L. McDonald's book, quoting Charlie Munger:
"Trade and invest less. Sit back and wait for those top two or three opportunities that come along each year. Measure your level of conviction and allocate your capital accordingly."
I've learned not to marry the stuff I invest in, yet I wouldn't buy without being convinced that "Company X" is NOT a bad idea. And mutual funds have their own different set of performance statistics, in order to help the investor decide where to deploy money.
Along with yooz guys, I don't switch in and out much at all. I get on the horse to ride, not to change to a different critter in midstream. Come to think of it, doesn't that describe what arbitrage is? Playing both ends off the middle?
I'm not smart enough to do that kinda stuff.
I've left our IRAs alone, apart from changing to the Schwab brokerage, and needing to replace wifey's BRUFX with WBALX. In my own IRA, sooner or later I'll need to switch out of junk bonds into a core-plus fund. WCPNX has been pre-selected, after looking at it and kicking the tires.
I'm more active in the taxable brokerage account. Deliberately trying to grow it, since taxes are not a concern to us. Next step there, is to find another bond fund which can serve as an income-producer, so that we don't have to sell equity shares for travel or to help the folks back in the old country. THAT has been a constant drain, but other sources have been thankfully providing the money so that we're able to do it. Filipinos who've left never forget how difficult existence is for those who are still there. Ordinary people there face an uninterrupted, very stinky poopy future. Every day. Life sucks, then you die. So then, the Filipino diaspora is generous to a fault. I've lived with it, and by now am glad. I chose the right woman. :)
Munger: Measure your level of conviction and allocate your capital accordingly.
...Which is why I've still got a tiny stake in TS, for instance. Analysts label it a BUY, though it has lately been languishing. If/when it rises again and I can cash-out with a bit of profit, I'll do so.
I/we hold two stocks which have become our anchors, our biggest single-stock holdings. Both were chosen from the start to be long-term holds. I've made a personal investing decision that I REQUIRE at least a 3% dividend yield on the single-stocks we invest into. Single-stocks are riskier than funds. The dividend is a piece of my compensation for taking the risk.

44% of all US dollars ever created, were created in 2020 and 2021. Ya, that was the Covid era.
44% is about right, looking at M2. Such an increase is not unique. There have been other times, other situations aside from Covid, calling for monetary expansion. LBJ's "guns and butter" economy (1964 through 1968) boosted M2 by, oddly enough, 44% also.
OTOH, the subsequent contraction in M2 (5% from April 2022 to Oct 2023) appears to be unique.
Source: FRED M2 interactive graph
"The US dollar has lost 93% of its value since the year 1900."
Both of the quotes are designed to shock (or as you colorfully expressed it, to gobsmack). Not to inform or enlighten.
A 93% decline in value in 125 years is an annualized inflation rate of 2.1%, just what the US is targeting. In comparison, a pound sterling in 1900 would have the purchasing power of just 0.6 pennies (UK) in 2024. A decline of 99.4%.
https://www.officialdata.org/uk/inflation/1900?amount=1
That's what an economy in decline looks like.

This is what the US economy looks like:

Subtitle: Risks, Myths, and Investment Opportunities in a Radically Reshaped Economy.
Almost finished. The case he's making is cogent and crisply, sharply written. A quick read, though very meaty. His thesis is that smart investors, looking forward, must move from growth to value--- specifically into basic materials. Oil, gas. Gold, silver, copper, palladium, platinum.
We are in decline, economically. I have said as much for several years, myself. Some of the reason for it is that the world has emerged and grown and thrived, following WW II. We're not the 800-pound gorilla in the room which can throw its weight around the way the USA was able to do, decades ago. A big part of the decline, says McDonald, is geopolitics and overspending Inevitably, the gummint will NOT be able to literally pay down the debt, ever again. It's too massive. In order to handle it, the gummint will have to continuously roll it all over as it matures, and play interest rate games to help cover it.
McDonald has no use for economic sanctions, like the sanctions imposed on Russia and specific Russians, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. (Crimea was previously stolen, annexed.) Russia has friends in other directions. Most are not even communist. Russia is still feeding raw materials to China so the Chinese can manufacture stuff. Gotta keep the power on. And they're not operating with any "Green Revolution" imposed upon themselves.
I was not surprised, in his treatment of that stuff in particular, that he simply ignored the ethical implications of not responding to the Putin-monster, and just letting him have his way. There is no investing conversation or essay or book which will go near anything to do with ethics. Obama, so I read, confronted Putin at a meeting of big-wigs, and told him flat-out: "We can do stuff to you." Granted, because of the multi-polar economic and political environment today, sanctions are proving to be as useful as trying to use your finger to push a string across the table.
Breathtaking quotations that gobsmacked me:
"44% of all US dollars ever created, were created in 2020 and 2021." Ya, that was the Covid era. But holy jaypers. DEVALUATION, much?????
"The US dollar has lost 93% of its value since the year 1900."
******************************************
McDonald includes summaries of some interviews he's had with some remarkably smart Shining Lights in the Investment Industry. I just finished up reading his account of a conversation with Charlie Munger. Final, distilled thoughts from that meeting actually lifted my spirits. I've made my share of mistakes in investing, but in broad terms, I could take some satisfaction, realizing I'd been doing these things by instinct, for the most part:
Charlie told him: "Trade and invest less. Sit back and wait for those top two or three opportunities that come along each year. Measure your level of conviction and allocate your capital accordingly. Above all, never trade or invest out of boredom or a desire to find something to do. Keep up your high level of passion for markets. Growing wiser is a combination of humility and diligent curiosity. Without the first, the second is useless."

In 2008-2009 I rode it out, in 2020 I flinched, sold and took a big loss (dumb), 2022 rode it out. Riding it out is much better in the long run and why you need assets set aside to handle/spend during drawdowns.

Correct! And having a source of income during those times doesn't hurt either even if that source is contained within your portfolio. Otherwise you'll find yourself juggling hand grenades that have had the pins removed.
If nothing else I hope that folks who might have been all-in or thought they could handle days like last Monday pause, reflect and readjust as appropriate.

In 2008-2009 I rode it out, in 2020 I flinched, sold and took a big loss (dumb), 2022 rode it out. Riding it out is much better in the long run and why you need assets set aside to handle/spend during drawdowns.

That's the mistake people make bailing after a big drawdown, getting afraid, leaving the market and locking in their losses. I lost (on paper) 6 figures 3 times AFTER retiring, (2008-2009), 2020 & 2022. 2022 was actually my biggest drawdown. Even after all of that I still have more than when I retired because I didn't panic leave the market and lock in losses but just waited for the recovery to recover.

Matt Levine, Money Stuff: The Good Trades Have Gone Bad
"DJT
There are basically two kinds of public companies in the US, which you can distinguish from each other by looking at their lists of top shareholders. Big institutional investors, and some individuals, have to report their stock holdings, and those reports get aggregated, by Bloomberg among others. So when I look at Bloomberg’s ownership page for JPMorgan Chase & Co., for instance, I see shareholders that include BlackRock and Vanguard and State Street, the “Big Three” index investors, but also big actively managed institutions like Capital Group and Fidelity and T. Rowe Price. Also, though, when I look at the top of the page, I see that about 77% of the shares are accounted for: Institutions and individuals who report their share ownership own 77% of JPMorgan.
And then when I look at AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc., a big meme stock, I see that only about 27% of the shares are accounted for: A large majority of AMC’s holders are retail investors who do not have to disclose their ownership, so public ownership data is much sparser. At AMC too, the top holders include the Big Three index investors. But the rest of the top institutions are mostly not long-term asset managers like Fidelity or T. Rowe, but fast-money hedge funds like Renaissance Technologies and DE Shaw & Co., or proprietary trading firms like Jane Street Group and Susquehanna International Group. Most of those firms don’t own that stock as a long-term investment: They own that stock because they are essentially taking the other side of very active retail traders, in the stock or in options. (Quite possibly they own the stock to hedge options they have sold to retail traders.). Also they don’t own that much of it; that’s a market-making position, not an investment.
Last week, New York magazine had a very fun profile of Trump Media & Technology Group, Donald Trump’s small business that is also a large meme stock. (“‘It’s a company that essentially has the revenue of not even a medium-size McDonald’s franchise,’ says John Rekenthaler, a researcher at Morningstar,” but its market capitalization today is more than $5 billion.) There is a lot about its fairly hapless founding by former Apprentice contestants, its struggles to go public by merging with a special purpose acquisition company, etc.:
The upshot was that even with the SPAC maneuver and its $300 million in limbo, there would be enough capital to build a social network. And the executives had decided on a name. At a meeting at Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, Moss and Litinsky pitched him on Virt, short for virtuous. Trump suggested Truth instead. They looked up the domain TruthSocial.com, saw that it was available for a little more than $2,000, and bought it. When they ran the name by Melania, she burst out laughing. “Truth?!” she said, pointing at her husband. “This guy?”
And the story makes the reasonable point that, if Donald Trump becomes president again and you want to bribe him, Trump Media gives you some good ways to do so: A really ambitious bidder could try to acquire the company and cash out Trump’s multi-billion dollar stake, but even short of that you could buy stock to show your support, buy advertising on Truth Social, etc. If you’re an institution, your stock ownership would be public, so Trump could see it and be grateful.
This, though, is probably not that:
In March, Trump announced a surprising policy reversal. As president, he’d tried to ban TikTok, which is owned by a Chinese company; now, abruptly, he was for the social network’s continued operation. The about-face followed a meeting Trump took with Jeff Yass, a major Republican donor who owns a significant stake in TikTok’s parent. When reporters dug up the fact that his trading firm, Susquehanna International Group, had until recently been the single-largest institutional shareholder in Digital World, there was outrage: Here was a seemingly perfect example of a billionaire using Trump’s company to influence him. Susquehanna has since insisted that its 2 percent stake was offset by equivalent short positions and that it had “zero economic interest in Trump Media.” Even if that were true, taking multibillion-dollar investment firms at their word is hardly a model for good government.
I have no inside information here, but I will take Susquehanna at their word? Susquehanna is fundamentally a market maker: If it’s long 2% of Trump Media, that’s almost certainly because it’s also short 2% of Trump Media (or has sold options, etc.). Susquehanna being a big holder of Trump Media doesn’t actually mean that Susquehanna is a big investor in Trump Media. It means that Trump Media is a meme stock, and it doesn’t really have many big investors."