Own 24 ETF's and 45 mutual funds, for many of Accipiters reasons but also for 2 other important reasons. Even great funds tank. One example is Janus Worldwide. By having multiple "great funds in a similiar class when one tanks or is doing poorly it is sold and the tax hit is much lower than otherwise. It is a great tax planning tool! Capital gains are lowered. Also in retirement it is much easier to sell one position fully and use its proceeds for living expenses than having to choose specific shares in large holdings. My portfolio is very substantial and many may think this is ludicrous but it works for me and I manage it myself with great tax savings.

Hi Scott and others,
Currently, for me, my risk tolerance is right so I am sitting tight within my asset allocation which roughly bubbles at about 50% equity, 30% bonds and 20% cash. Within equities I am overweight the defensive sectors of utilities, healthcare and consumer staples along with communications, real estate, energy and materials.
Those that have been reading my post know I feel a storm is brewing and in spite of the efforts of the central bankers I see the equity markets becoming stormy in the near term as earning season soon approaches and I feel investors will be disappointed. Then there is the fiscal cliff along with Europe that is still much broken from my thoughts plus a gaggle of other things which include the Presidential election.
My investment strategy is to buy low and when I sell … sell towards 52 week highs. Since, I have already sold equities down to the mid point in my equity allocation I am sitting tight while I await a new buying set up to where I can reload equities at more attractive prices. In addition, I tend to buy investments that in some form or fashion kick off an income stream while I await appreciation.
Currently, I am finding the most value in financials, energy and communication services but have yet to deploy any new capital to these areas. In review of the S&P 500 Index I am finding it to be fully valued and selling at a Price to Earnings Ratio a little North of 16 on trailing earnings. My buying philosophy is to buy value so I will not become a buyer until the P/E Ratio retreats. Perhaps the anticipated approaching storm will blow some value back into the market.
I have linked a song called "The Whipsaw Song" produced by the Trading Tribe … and, one of its lyrics might be fitting ... "When your stops are in there is noting to do.”
Hope you enjoy ...
http://www.seykota.com/tribe/essentials/index.htm
Have a Great Day and Good Investing,
Skeeter

Hi Yugo. RYSEX is a wonderful fund. I actually thought it was closed which would be a reason it is not talked about much (I see M* says it is "Limited" what ever that means).
Another reason might be because this fund, I think, is in the mold of other conservatively managed funds like ARIVX, ICMAX and to a lesser extent, the Forester funds. These types of funds excel at capital preservation in down markets and win over longer market cycles. Buy and hold, sleep easy type funds.
What I've learned from reading FundAlarm and now MFO, is that people like to talk and learn about new funds and often hot funds. I like to hear about new ideas. But funds like RYSEX, PRBLX and SEQUX and many other well managed funds that don't get much discussion certainly don't go unnoticed by those doing their homework- like yourself.

Reply to @MaxBialystock:
I also own stock funds (about 40/40/20 stocks/bonds/cash). My objective with the bond funds has not been income but capital appreciation with less volatility. My concern is trying to understand what type of bonds I actually own and how much overlap exists, particulary since I have a lot of balanced/flexible portfolio funds like PRPFX, VWINX, FPACX, PRWCX, etc.
Actually PRAIX (TIPS) is one that I was thinking of eliminating but it's 12.37 ytd performance is not a bad return.

So if we want a Vanguard fund that has 50% stock and 50% bond we need to buy Wellesington or Wellingley. God knows how they came up with these names. Morgan Growth my foot.
Will DCA in Wellington as I harvest capital gains for the rest of the year.
Thanks all.

Reply to @Archaic: Happy to help. The other fund I'd suggest - and which David will profile next month - is Whitebox Tactical Opportunities, a long/short aggressive allocation fund whose very detailed discussion of the philosophies behind its hedging strategy can be found towards the end of the 2Q letter.
http://www.whiteboxmutualfunds.com/content/assets/docs/newsletters/Whitebox-Tactical-Op-Newsletter_Q2_2012.pdf
The entire last page has a lengthy discussion of their approach.
This fund does not have a long history, although from all accounts it would appear to be a lite version of one of their hedge funds. The long/short aspect is summarized: "Our fund is not currently “market neutral.” We have a strong “long-bias”. At
other times we may have a strong short bias. Our returns will reflect at least a
portion of day to day, normal market volatility. Our goal is to outperform not by
delivering smooth returns all the time. Our goal is to outperform by doing two
things. (1) Avoiding catastrophic capital losses that can derail an investment
program for years, or forever. (2) Being invested in areas of exceptional
opportunity wherever in securities markets those opportunities arise. And - "We
hedge against disaster, against tornadoes, not blustery days." There is much more in the letter, but the general philosophy would suggest a fund that is likely going to be long-biased to some degree much of the time, but has the capability to go strongly short if the situation warrants.
It's an interesting little fund from a well-regarded hedge fund firm and I'm eager to see David's profile of it soon.
Edited to add:
It's overbought at this point, but I'll also throw in Brookfield Infrastructure (BIP) as an alternative suggestion, as it's effectively a company operating private infrastructure assets globally. It's done quite well, but it's done quite well while often seeming to - to quote a U2 song - to move in mysterious ways. It's definitely not highly correlated to markets, or at least has not been for quite a while.
That would be not a way to invest like the 1% in terms of an alternative strategy like "long-short", but an alternative asset class in terms of a company that can opportunistically buy private real assets. It does yield 4.25% as well, but one warning is that it is an MLP and does result in a K-1 form at tax time.

Here's the transcript of that Sept conference call...
http://ivafunds.com/sites/default/files/downloads/IVA Funds Conf Call Transcript September 13 2012 - FINAL.pdf
Here was a good question by a listener:
Hi, Charles. Hi, Chuck. First, I appreciate your openness and honesty about
explaining what's been going on and reasons for the underperformance.
Charles, one of the things you were talking about was some of the U.S.
names -- HP, Staples, Dell, and a pattern. And you had said that part of that
pattern was that the stocks were trading with free cash flow yields of 7-13%.
And versus cash, that seemed to be attractive. Yet it obviously didn't work.
So I'm just trying to understand what the takeaway is or what the lesson
learned is, if there is one, to try and avoid that type of thing in the past -- in
the future.
Charles de Vaulx: Thanks for your earlier comment and, by the way, as you know, all of us at IVA own quite a bit of the fund, and so we, too, have to explain ourselves to
our spouses as to why we are not up 10 percent this year!
{...See transcript for their full response...}
Also from elsewhere in the Q&A:
It's really just so far this year, especially for the Worldwide Fund, that
performance has been disappointing. One, because we, rightly or wrongly,
did not want to be fully invested in light of all the risks described by Chuck,
and also we made a few investment mistakes. We went through those earlier
on the call, and we hope we've learned from those mistakes and will try not
to repeat them.
I think what has been very pleasing is the fact that when we started the firm,
we went on record saying that we were mindful of capacity constraints. We
want to remain multi-cap investors. If one day the best bargains are in small
stocks, we want to be able to buy them. We think it's the case today in Asia.
In Asia today, the best values are among small stocks.
It was very pleasant for us to be able to close our Funds to new investors a
year and a half ago. And I think what's even more pleasant is our realization
that we have attracted, by and large, money from very sophisticated advisors
and institutional investors out there.
If you think about it, our investment strategy is unique. It's somewhat
unorthodox. It's very eclectic. We oftentimes will deviate from the
benchmarks. We can lag quite a bit in an up market and so we need clients
that truly espouse our investment style -- global, flexible; an investment style
whose core premise is that if you can minimize losses, if you can minimize
drawdowns, gains will take care of themselves, and that is one of the most
powerful ways to compound wealth over time.

Reply to @Investor: Hi Investor. Thanks for your input. I don't see how LT Treasuries could go any lower.... but that's what I thought a year ago. But I guess the thought of "safety" is what continues their input. I have quite a few ETFs on my Watch List... but I really dislike their inability to auto re-invest dividends (at least in Scottrade). With my current fairly significant amount in BOND, that means I have to make monthly dececisions on re-investments... and pay the $7 if I want to just put back to BOND.
At least one of the MF I've narrowed it down to has decent amount of treasuries, so that combined with a couple of the others I mentioned to AndyJ should allow good managers to decide and let David feel comfortable with steady small gains that won't collapse during the next extended downturn (hopefully).

Reply to @catch22: Thanks so much for your follow-up explanation, Catch. I stated it poorly that TIPs lost too much for me in 2008. What I meant was that, since I am hoping for small GAINS during the next crash ONLY for my husband's NEW ROTH account transfer, the -2% to -7% losses in 2008 of the TIPs I have been tracking would not fit for this portfolio. However, they certainly would be more than acceptable for my other portfolios to help counteract the much larger losses in the relatively small percentage of my equity funds.
Your change from +90% equities prior to 2008 to your current portfolio is remarkable and impressive.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1444822/000119312512400007/d414641d497.htm
AQR FUNDS
Supplement dated September 21, 2012 (“Supplement”)
To the Class I and N Prospectus, dated May 1, 2012 (“Prospectus”),
of the AQR Risk Parity Fund
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the above-dated Prospectus. You may obtain copies of the Fund’s Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information free of charge, upon request, by calling (866) 290-2688, or by writing to AQR Funds, P.O. Box 2248, Denver, CO 80201-2248. Please review this important information carefully.
Effective at the close of business November 16, 2012 (the “Closing Date”), the AQR Risk Parity Fund (the “Fund”) will be closed to new investors, subject to certain exceptions. Existing shareholders of the Fund will be permitted to make additional investments in the Fund and reinvest dividends and capital gains after the Closing Date in any account that held shares of the Fund as of the Closing Date.
Notwithstanding the closing of the Fund, you may open a new account in the Fund (including through an exchange from another AQR Fund) and thereafter reinvest dividends and capital gains in the Fund if you meet the Fund’s eligibility requirements and are:
• A current shareholder of the Fund as of the Closing Date—either (a) in your own name or jointly with another or as trustee for another, or (b) as beneficial owner of shares held in another name opening a (i) new individual account or IRA account in your own name, (ii) trust account, (iii) joint account with another party or (iv) account on behalf of an immediate family member;
• A qualified defined contribution retirement plan that offers the Fund as an investment option as of the Closing Date purchasing shares on behalf of new and existing participants;
• An investor opening a new account at a financial institution and/or financial intermediary firm that (i) has clients currently invested in the Fund and (ii) has been pre-approved by the Adviser to purchase the Fund on behalf of certain of its clients. Investors should contact the firm through which they invest to determine whether new accounts are permitted; or
• A participant in a tax-exempt retirement plan of the Adviser and its affiliates and rollover accounts from those plans, as well as employees of the Adviser and its affiliates, trustees and officers of the Trust and members of their immediate families.
Except as otherwise noted, once an account is closed, additional investments or exchanges from other AQR Funds will not be accepted unless you are one of the investors listed above. Investors may be required to demonstrate eligibility to purchase shares of the Fund before an investment is accepted.
The Fund reserves the right to (i) make additional exceptions that, in its judgment, do not adversely affect the Adviser’s ability to manage the Fund, (ii) reject any investment, including those pursuant to exceptions detailed above, that it believes will adversely affect the Adviser’s ability to manage the Fund, and (iii) close and re-open the Fund to new or existing shareholders at any time.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE

Reply to @andrei: Then you should not buy this fund if you have concerns.

...but its period of significant outperformance is only about 5 years old.

What data are you looking at? 5, 10, even 15 year returns blow away it's competition. 15 years takes into account not one but possibly 2 market cycles. Lucky??? I disagree. And again, the fund is about preserving capital and being conservative when the manager sees fit. The fund wins because it stays away from big losses in comparison to it's peers. The fund has underperformed the S&P500 over the last year. And there have been other years it has underperformed. But by understanding the managers long term goals, short term under performance means little to me.
So my comparison, again, and why I suggested YAFFX is because of the investing philosophies between Cinnamond and Yacktman. I believe they are similar. And the capture ratio tract record is terrific for the Yacktman funds. Heck, the capture ratios for YAFFX are even better then Cinnamond's old fund, ICMAX.

Hi Charles. You are right if you are only looking at standard deviation. But that can be misleading. Here is the welcoming statement when you go to the Yacktman website.

At Yacktman Asset Management we are proud of our successful, consistent, long-term track record. Our experienced investment team focuses on delivering risk-controlled results by being objective, diligent, and patient.

Risk controlled is the key.
Now any fund group can state that their priority is risk control in their literature. But from my experience, closely watching the fund while owning it for the last 4 years, the man does exactly what he says. He becomes cautious when valuations are high and/or when economic conditions look bleak. He has no problem moving large percentages of money to cash if conditions dictate caution. His management style to me is very close the Eric Cinnamond's style when Cinnamond ran ICMAX and now ARIVX. And this is the management style I can hold on to rough times.
The proof Yacktman is one of the best managers available to the average "Joe Mike" (i think) is looking at the M* upside/downside capture data.
Over the last 3 years, YAFFX has captured 78% of the upside market returns. and on down months only had 61% of the loss. If you look at it's category peers, over the last 3 years, all other large cap blend managers were getting 98% of the upside (great!) BUT during losing periods getting 109% of the loss.
If you look over the last 10 years at upside/downside capture data Yacktman's ability to limit losses is even more striking. He has captured 99% of the gains in up markets and had only 74% of potential losses. His peers on the other hand captured 98% of the gains (very similar to Yacktman) but had 103% of losses in down markets. That is a huge difference. The man knows how to limit losses during rough markets - just like his welcoming page says.
Why can I sleep well with this fund? I trust that Yacktman, like Cinnamond, can limit losses during the inevitable down markets.

Reply to @scott: I completely agree with you about the unrealistic expectations of our government (or some world governments for that matter) all of a sudden taking responsibility and actually fixing things. Most are such stupid, egotistical, blind and incompetent people, and I'm constantly amazed that many of the good ones can stand staying in office!
But I don't understand your comment about treasuries (especially long-term) being a good place to invest in now to protect against the likelihood of the next crash (or at least strong downturn) - so I clearly don't understand treasuries. How can long-term treasuries be a good investment now when the rates are almost zero? Any chance you can give me a paragraph synopsis of how funds who buy treasuries at these ridiculous rates now can make any gains with these?

Reply to @mns: Thanks, mns. I would have thought long-term treasuries would be the worst investments given the way this economy has fallen... but I did hold on to one long-term treasury MF until a few days ago and it kept surprising me by continuing to do so well. I don't understand why, or how long these will continue to show substantial gains given the fact that the rates clearly can't get much lower without going to zero.

So, those are all valid points. If you buy a fund and you expect it to have a diversified portfolio and its 90% in financial, you should sell. Most people sold later and personally, I don't think most people understood what they were getting into. Not to say that I am never guilty of this, I don't think I understood the strategy when I bought into the fund.
Personally I've spent a lot of time looking at BAC and I own a lot. I'm going to tell you why I own it and why Berkowitz owns it. Its cheep, damn cheep, make you rich cheep. People are afraid of banks and so they don't look at the assest and they don't consider the likelihood the bank will fail for idiosyncratic reasons. Bank of america has a large, rotten, mortgage portfolio. One that is rapidly decreasing in size and that costs it about $1B a quarter. Over the last 12months, BAC made something like $10B. Without the mortgage portfolio, every other section of the bank is profitable, and mortgage portfolio will cost it less over time. It should make something like $12-$15B if rates don't rise and more if they do. Or it could fail if there is Armageddon, even though its capital position is stronger than most big banks. A reasonable valuation, given the risks, is something like $12-$15B market cap, which puts it at something like $12-13 a share. In a perfect world, this is $25 and in a nightmare, its $3-4. I haven't really had the time to look, but AIG looks similarly cheep. Sears is harder to say, because its a real estate play and I'm not capable of evaluating that. Someone that is should be able to make money.
The point of this is, it should matter whether you think my valuation of BAC is a good one. The more important question, is that a good way of making investments, and do you think Bruce Berkowitz is capable of doing that well. That's kinda what he does. To him, concentration is a plus when you have a good enough idea, sector allocation doesn't matter, nor does the direction of the market. Only the difference between what he thinks a company is worth and what it sells for. If that's not what you want, sell, but why would you judge that by any other criteria? Berkowitz expects the strategy to work overtime. If he bought a stock three years ago and he still thinks its cheep he'll buy more. If you have a different expectation of the fund, really any fund, than the manager does, its not going to go well for you.

Reply to @scott:
Scott,
How does Marketfield look for purchase in a taxable account? I have no room in my tax deferred accounts and I am in a fairly high tax bracket. When I look at M* 1, 3 and 5-Year Tax Analysis, the tax cost ratio is low, but of course, that is looking back. The fund does have a 132% turnover ratio.
On the related, what about the 9.58% in potential capital gains exposure for a taxable account when December is around the corner?
Mona

Well, Cathy; howdy. How does your garden grow? With silver bells and cockle shells.... Okay, away from the nursery rhymes.
Personally, we do not and find no reason to hold any CD at this time; as the end result is almost as bad as some investments, as the "real return" is negative when factoring inflation; and worse yet if the CD's are held in a taxable account. As to recession; I do believe it is still in place.
This would be my "convince" choice for a spouse or friend who is "itchy" about the markets:
A plain jane TIPs fund. Yes, I see the head shakers; but:
TIP, 3 year chart
TIP, M* performance page
The below article just popped up a few days ago.
TIPs in a brave QE3 world
TIP is representative of many managed TIPs funds; although, be aware some of these funds many also have up to a 20% exposure to corp. bonds; but generally AAA issues.
Many of the Real Return funds have either the ability or true exposure to TIPs holdings.
Not all TIPs active managed funds will perform in line with TIP; as managers position the holdings among duration types. Direct exposure to this area may be had via funds as:
STPZ or LTPZ.
TIPs, being U.S. gov't issues, of course; may provide and have proven of value when global markets as "itchy" about "things". May of 2010 and 2011 were itchy times; as well as August of 2011 with the downgrade of the U.S. credit worthiness. You may view these time periods in the 3 year chart for TIPs reactions to these events. May, 2010 through July, 2010 found about a + 2% and March, 2011 through Nov., 2011 found about a + 11%. Will there be swings? Yes, not unlike any other area. But, the price swings (for the past 4 years) won't cause one to spill their glass of wine onto the linen table cloth. :):):)
Yes, there will be those that think one is a fool to invest in an area that has a negative yield. The negative yield comes from "demand"; which, of course, drives the price upward. Our house does not hold TIPs for the benefit of yield, but to obtain the capital appreciation from the upward price. This is the driver with many bond funds today; not just a yield. Currently, our house will take both......thank you.
One other area of consideration, is low duration bond funds. I know there are other likely candidates; but my choice today (without further research) would be PLDDX. I note low/short duration, versus funds that may be named ultra-short bond funds; although some of these may do well, too; and may indeed have similar holdings. PLDDX also has a track record involving the 2008 market melt (- 1.6% ).
I know you are very good at digging into choices. Do not forget the easy finder here at MFO, from the gracious Accipiter; being the drop down menu of Resources at the MFO title bar.
Select navigator, in the "fund" box area, begin typing "inflation" and the TIPs related funds list will begin to populate. Do the same for the words "low duration" or "short duration".
The lists may not be totally inclusive, but fine lists, regardless. Obviously, you know of other methods you have used to find fund types, by naming/investing style.
Some of this was going to be a "Funds Boat" write, but your question finds the note here and now.
Lastly, TIPs can't and won't fix everything for a totally sleep easy investment sector. Rising interest rates will play into this area, too. As the global economy is still broken, our house doesn't have any problem with monies in this area, today. While there are many multi-sector bond funds that one may consider as a "core bond fund", I would also currently place a TIPs fund with a decent, long term track report into this area for some of one's holdings. The above 3 year chart may not be the best that one could find; but the 50, 100 and 200 lines tell some of the story, eh? One surely could do a lot worse.
If you choose to invest the Roth monies into TIPs, you may choose to use the TIP etf and obtain the lower E.R.
Disclosure: Can't fully determine via M* analyze; but about 15% of our bond portfolio mix is involved in some form of TIPs.
Gotta get back to work.
Take care,
Catch

A few different views.
One: you have governments that seem to be trying to attempt anything to stop the possibility of recession, which, while not pleasant, is part of the flow of the business cycle. You have a QE program that is open-ended, and could be expanded or altered as time goes on if it does not achieve the desired result. So you can have the possibility that financial assets continue to act one way while the fundamentals (Fedex warning for like, what, the second time this year?) act another. As for shorting, I think people could certainly have success in individual names, but big picture, I question substantially shorting into currency debasement - and that will likely lead to the kind of "one after another" short covering rallies that we've seen over the last couple of years.
There will be dips and down days, but when you have open-ended money printing (or, as I noted in another thread this morning, rather than QE Infinity, I've come up with iQE, which will likely have much more appeal), you want to continue to have exposure to real assets and strong businesses with at least a good portion of your portfolio.
It's difficult to recommend something that will do well in another recession, as it's difficult to get clarity on what may happen or how policy makers will intervene.
Forester Value (FVALX) is an example of a fund that has done a very good job with the difficult task of dialing risk up and down significantly. That is one of the few stock funds that didn't lose in 2008 (I think it was flat?)
Marketfield (MFLDX) is a highly flexible fund that I continue to like and recommend. That fund is global, multi-asset and also has done an excellent job dialing up and down risk, as well as being nimble. It has been bought and I believe it will change next month (?) - shareholders now will be grandfathered in at current terms. That fund will lose if there is another downturn, but likely - given the tools at management's disposal - not a ton (the fund lost in the teens % in 2008, then returned over 30% in 2009.
Pimco Unconstrained (PUBDX) is not going to offer really anymore than the CD (I believe the yield on that fund is around 2%), but is a highly flexible fixed income fund that can go just about anywhere and actually can position from a potential rise in interest rates. That fund is an absolute return fund (and it did do pretty well in 2008) where the attempt is to offer gains in any market environment. There is yield, but it is less a priority.
Pimco All Asset All Authority (PAUDX). Fund-of-funds, terrifically managed by the highly regarded Rob Arnott. Can short with 20% of the fund. Lost single digit % in 2008. Offers a nice yield.
An issue becomes that you are looking for a 4% yield that is "very low risk" - it doesn't really exist - in a world of ZIRP as far as the eye can see, people have bought up fixed income considerably and there's nothing (that I'm aware of) that is going to yield around 4% and not lose at least a fair amount if there's a real downturn.
I wouldn't necessarily run to treasuries, either. It doesn't yield much, but I do continue to like Pimco Unconstrained as sort of an "all weather"/"go anywhere" attempt to have exposure to the bond market, as I think what may be considered "low risk" assets today may not be tomorrow or a year from now, and I think the flexibility is a priority.

Yes, that's what's supposed to happen. The rapid-fire computerized trading has divorced the Markets from Main Street, methinks. Look at what happened to oil yesterday. I heard remarks today on Bloomberg to the effect that QE3 will juice the Markets, but not do much good for anyone at the grocery store or local repair shop. Makes sense to me--- unfortunately. The way things have become, it seems to me that there are separate worlds, now: The Markets, and then Consumer-land, which must simply live with and adjust to what the goddam f*****g traders' computers have done, buying on an inhale and selling before you can exhale. Seems to me that just to survive, one MUST be a participant in The Market, and segregate/divorce your gains from everyday expenses. Otherwise everything just gets piddled away.

Well of course it depends on when you got in as many stocks had high peaks and low lows. If you got into any stock with substantial amount of money at a major peak then you're toast for quite some time.
So in the post 2008-2009 era - Yes AIG stock declined 50+% in 2011 but don't forget that was after a 90+% climb in 2010. So far in 2012 it's up around 48% even during an extremely shaky global economic backdrop....And there's still much much more potential room for recovery and gains in the future.
FAIRX: +37.80% YTD
===
Berkowitz estimates that AIG is going to generate $5 or $6 per share in cash on a forward basis and that an additional $15 billion to $20 billion more of assets could be sold. The stock is trading in the low- to mid-30s, which is approximately half of book value, so a large portion of the proceeds from asset sales could be used to buy back stock at 50 cents on the dollar. With some continued reason¬able capital allocation, Berkowitz sees AIG as potentially having a book value in excess of $70 a share in 2013. Given the current buy-back process, Berkowitz says, “AIG could be done with the government by the end of first quarter of next year, which is three years ahead of schedule.” Berkowitz believes investors won't return to the stock until the Treasury's remaining ownership is at least close to zero, at which point he believes the stock price should appreciate and converge with book value. This doesn't include any expectation of the stock returning to a mid-single-digit multiple of book value, a level at which the company has traded at in the past. As for figuring out whether investors will return to the company after the government is completely out or before that, Berkowitz says, “I don't know, I've never been good at that . . . All I know is that we've got something that's worth over $60 today, and it's going to be worth over $70 sometime next year, in my opinion, and I can't see how price doesn't eventually meet book value.”