...
Dear stillers:
1) Let me ask you an easy question. Why did you use 3 different names(stillers,Arriba, Albie) on different sites? Did you try to hide something?
2) Why don't you try to register on BB as stillers? You have no chance with the moderator who knows you for years.
BTW, the subject of this thread is bond, why not make comments on it?

Anyone know if the concentration of holdings in a relative few companies is historically significant? I know the index is cap weighted but is todays concentration out of the ordinary? Thanks for your replies.

Post-pandemic, kids are back in school, retirees are back on cruise ships, and physical stores are doing better than expected. But offices are struggling perhaps more than most casual observers realize, and the consequences for landlords, banks, municipal governments, and even individual portfolios will be far-reaching. In some cases, they will be catastrophic. But this crisis, like all crises, also represents an opportunity to reconsider many of our assumptions about work and cities.
During the first three months of 2023, U.S. office vacancy topped 20 percent for the first time in decades. In San Francisco, Dallas, and Houston, vacancy rates are as high as 25 percent. These figures understate the severity of the crisis because they only cover spaces that are no longer leased. Most office leases were signed before the pandemic and have yet to come up for renewal. Actual office use points to a further decrease in demand. Attendance in the 10 largest business districts is still below 50 percent of its pre-COVID level, as white-collar employees spend an estimated 28 percent of their workdays at home.
With a third of all office leases expiring by 2026, we can expect higher vacancies, significantly lower rents, or both. And while we wrestle with the effects of distributed work, artificial intelligence could drive office demand even lower. Some pundits point out that the most expensive offices are still doing okay and that others could be saved by introducing new amenities and services. But landlords can’t very well lease all empty retail stores to Louis Vuitton and Apple. There’s simply not enough demand for such space, and new features make buildings even more expensive to build and operate.
With such grim prospects, some landlords are threatening to “give the keys back to the bank.” Over the past few months, the property giants RXR, Columbia Property Trust, Brookfield Asset Management, and others have collectively defaulted on billions in commercial-property loans. Such defaults are partly an indication of real struggles and partly a game of chicken. Most commercial loans were issued before the pandemic, when offices were full and interest rates were low.
The current landscape is drastically different: high vacancy rates, doubled interest rates, and nearly $1.5 trillion in loans due for repayment by 2025. By defaulting now, landlords leverage their remaining influence to advocate for loan extensions or a bailout. As John Maynard Keynes observed, when you owe your banker $1,000, you are at his mercy, but when you owe him $1 million, “the position is reversed.”

The authority to borrow on the full faith and credit of the United States is vested in the Congress by the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 2, states "[The Congress shall have power]…to borrow money on the credit of the United States." In 1917, Congress, pursuant to the Second Liberty Bond Act, delegated authority to the Treasury Department to borrow, subject to a limit. This action mitigated the need to seek congressional authority on each issuance, providing operational convenience. The debt limit essentially achieved its modern form in the early 1940s.

Justice Jackson's well-known words, the Constitution is not "a suicide pact." Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 37, 69 S.Ct. 894, 93 L.Ed. 1131 (1949) (dissenting opinion in a case involving the First Amendment). The Constitution itself takes account of public necessity. Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1883, 198 L. Ed. 2d 290 (2017).

Shares in two more US regional banks have been suspended. Regulators moved in to halt trading in Los Angeles-based PacWest and Arizona’s Western Alliance on Thursday after they became the latest victims of an escalating crisis that began with Silicon Valley Bank in March.
The message from central banks and bank supervisors is that this is not a rerun of the global financial crisis of 2008. That may be true. With the exception of Switzerland’s Credit Suisse, European banks have escaped the turmoil. It is specific US banks that are the problem.
There are a number of reasons for that: the business models of the banks concerned; failures of regulation; the large number of small and mid-sized banks in the US; and the rapid increase in interest rates from the country’s central bank, the Federal Reserve.
Luis de Guindos, vice-president of the European Central Bank (ECB), remarked on Thursday that “the European banking industry has been clearly outperforming the American one”. Although he will be praying his words do not come back to haunt him, he is broadly right. European banks, including those in the UK, do look more secure than those in the US – primarily because they tend to be bigger and more tightly regulated.
Despite being the 16th biggest bank in the US, Silicon Valley Bank was not considered systemically important and so was less stringently regulated than institutions viewed by federal regulators to be more pivotal. Many of its customers were not covered by deposit insurance and were heavily exposed to losses on US Treasury bonds as interest rates rose. The other banks that failed subsequently have tended to share many of the same characteristics: they were regionally based and are vulnerable to rising borrowing costs.
Unless the Fed rides to the rescue with cuts in interest rates, the options are: amalgamation, regulation or more banks going bust. The response of the US authorities suggests little appetite for a laissez-faire approach.
According to official data, the US has more than 4,000 banks – an average of 80 for each of the 50 states. The number has fallen by more than two-thirds since the peak of more than 14,000 in the early 1980s, but there is certainly room for greater consolidation. In an age of instant internet bank runs, customers will be attracted to the idea that big is beautiful.
The US authorities certainly do not seem averse to further amalgamation. When First Republic ran into trouble, it was seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and its deposits and assets were sold to one of the giants of US banking – JP Morgan Chase. Inevitably, there will be more takeovers and fire sales of assets as alternatives to bank failures. It is reasonable to assume that in 10 years’ time the number of US banks will be considerably smaller than it is today.
What’s more, the banks that remain – including those that are not taken over – are likely to be more tightly regulated and more closely supervised. Even if the Fed, the ECB and the Bank of England are right and a repeat of the global financial crisis has been averted, lessons are already being learned.

I would like to know how anyone can sense the possibility of a solution if you can’t find a half dozen rational house repugs to vote with the Dems.

Barron’s Funds Quarterly (2023/Q1–April 10, 2023)
https://www.barrons.com/topics/mutual-funds-quarterly
(Performance data quoted in this Supplement are for 2023/Q1 and YTD to 3/31/23)
Pg L3: After lagging for several years, the INTERNATIONAL/GLOBAL funds are relatively cheap (value cheaper than growth) and may outperform. Use risk control strategies – lower SDs, favorable U/D CR, etc. For the US investors in foreign funds, a strong DOLLAR has been a headwind. OEFs: AIVBX, BISAX, FISMX, FMIJX, GQGPX, RNWOX, SGENX, SIGIX, TBGVX; ETFs: ACWV, EFA, EFAV, EFG, EFV, EEM, HDG, HEFA, VIGI. (By @LewisBraham at MFO)
Pg L8: The US-China DECOUPLING will take a while. China has also been tough on its big techs. But small-caps have escaped the watchful eyes of the Chinese government. OEFs: FHKCX, MCDFX, MCHFX, MCSMX, RNWOX, SIGIX, SGOVX; ETFs: ASHR, CHIQ, CNYA, CQQQ, CXSE, EWH, FXI, GXC, KBA, KWEB, MCHI, PGJ. (By @LewisBraham at MFO)
Pg L9: GROWTH funds are rebounding, but be selective. Some former big techs have fallen off the growth wagon and some energy companies have joined. Large-cap growth (IVW, MGK, RPG, SCHG) has been outperforming small/mid-cap growth (IJT, RZG). The OEFs mentioned are HCAIX, TRBCX, VWIGX.
EXTRA: FAITH-BASED funds cover a wide variety and several are rebounding. Vatican published its investment guidelines in November 2022 that also included responsible ESG. Private direct-indexing is a growing area. (By @LewisBraham at MFO)
Fund news from elsewhere in Barron’s (Forthcoming Part 2).
Pg 13, FUNDS. MUNI MONEY-MARKET funds (tax-exempt) with near juicy 4% yields are attractive. This is a tiny area with $130 billion AUM only vs $500 billion AUM pre-GFC-2008, and $5 trillion AUM for taxable money-market funds. These invest in floating-rate munis (VRDNs) that reset rates weekly according to the SIFMA rates. Typically, the SIFMA rates are 40-80% of (taxable) fed fund rates, but they are elevated now due to redemptions to pay taxes (so, these high rates may not last beyond April). These funds partner with BANKS to provide daily and weekly liquidity guarantees. By definition, their DURATION is considered to be the rate reset period regardless of the maturities of the underlying munis (so, don’t get alarmed when looking at their holdings and maturities). Mentioned are FTEXX / FTCXX, SWTXX, VMSXX, VTMXX. (Their overall structure and rate resetting process seem complicated and may have unknown risks)
Pg 24, INCOME INVESTING. Selected REITs are attractive after their recent battering. Their earnings have been cut but the SP5500 earnings remain OK (so, the REITs client companies are doing fine). A FED pause will benefit the REITs, but RECESSION won’t, so it’s time only to nibble in REITs. Attractive REITs are industrial (PLD, ADC, GLPI), residential, self-storage, data-centers. Avoid REITs for offices and malls (big/regional or strip/local). Several publicly traded REITs are more attractive than private real estate (that suffer from lagging mark-to-market; negative news on monthly/quarterly redemption limits for several nontraded-REITs).
Pg L33: In 2023/Q1 (SP500 +7.50%): Among general equity funds, best were LC-growth +13.52%, multi-cap-growth +11.35%, and worst were small-cap-value +0.77%, mid-cap-value +0.84%, equity-income +0.95%; ALL general equity categories were positive AGAIN. Among other equity funds, the best were sc & tech +18.80%, telecom +11.66%, global large-cap-growth +11.10%, and worst were financials -7.77%. Among fixed-income funds, domestic long-term FI +2.55%, world income +2.96%; ALL FI categories were positive too AGAIN (FI isn’t very refined in Lipper mutual fund categories listed in Barron’s). So, good 2022/Q4 (value shined) & 2023/Q1 (LC growth shined).
LINK

UBS Group AG agreed to take over its longtime rival Credit Suisse Group AG for more than $3 billion, pushed into the biggest banking deal in years by regulators eager to halt a dangerous decline in confidence in the global banking system. The deal between the twin pillars of Swiss finance is the first megamerger of systemically important global banks since the 2008 financial crisis when institutions across the banking landscape were carved up and matched with rivals, often at the behest of regulators.
The Swiss government said it would provide more than $9 billion to backstop some losses that UBS may incur by taking over Credit Suisse. The Swiss National Bank also provided more than $100 billion of liquidity to UBS to help facilitate the deal.
Swiss authorities were under pressure to make the deal happen before Asian markets opened for the week. The urgency on the part of regulators was prompted by an increasingly dire outlook at Credit Suisse, according to one of the people familiar with the matter. The bank faced as much as $10 billion in customer outflows a day last week, this person said.
The sudden collapse of Silicon Valley Bank earlier this month prompted investors globally to scour for weak spots in the financial system. Credit Suisse was already first on many lists of troubled institutions, weakened by years of self-inflicted scandals and trading losses. Swiss officials, along with regulators in the U.S., U.K. and European Union, who all oversee parts of the bank, feared it would become insolvent this week if not dealt with, and they were concerned crumbling confidence could spread to other banks.
An end to Credit Suisse’s nearly 167-year run marks one of the most significant moments in the banking world since the last financial crisis. It also represents a new global dimension of damage from a banking storm started with the sudden collapse of Silicon Valley Bank earlier this month.
Unlike Silicon Valley Bank, whose business was concentrated in a single geographic area and industry, Credit Suisse is a global player despite recent efforts to reduce its sprawl and curb riskier activities such as lending to hedge funds.
Credit Suisse had a half-trillion-dollar balance sheet and around 50,000 employees at the end of 2022, including more than 16,000 in Switzerland.
UBS has around 74,000 employees globally. It has a balance sheet roughly twice as large, at $1.1 trillion in total assets. After swallowing Credit Suisse, UBS’s balance sheet will rival Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Deutsche Bank AG in asset size.