Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
  • Why The 4% Retirement Rule Is Just A Starting Point
    "I am an experienced user of Monte Carlo analyses. In the nuclear engineering discipline (one of my masters degrees is in that field), it is a frequently used tool."
    @MJG: I expect that the nuclear engineers responsible for 3-mile Island, and Chernobyl were also "experienced user[s] of Monte Carlo analyses".
  • Why The 4% Retirement Rule Is Just A Starting Point
    Hi msf,
    Who was first in discovering the 4% drawdown rule is not significant to me. My number one purpose in my submittals on this topic was to introduce Monte Carlo simulators to those MFOers who might not be familiar with this powerful decision enhancing tool.
    Even the last reference you quoted acknowledged its usefulness. In the opening statements they said: "Monte Carlo simulations will illuminate the nature of that uncertainty, but only if advisors understand how it should be applied – and its limitations". All tools have identical limitations and misusing a tool is certainly dangerous stuff. Nothing new to these constraints.
    I am an experienced user of Monte Carlo analyses. In the nuclear engineering discipline (one of my masters degrees is in that field), it is a frequently used tool.
    When making my retirement decision I generated my own Monte Carlo code to aid in the decision process. I recognized the shortcoming of using a Normal distribution for returns (it's not too bad but it is imperfect) so I coupled that distribution with my model for much less frequently occurring fat tails. I am not an unsophisticated user of this fine modeling concept.
    There are many strategies when investing. We are different investors because of numerous critical factors including our needs, our timeframes, our knowledge, and our risk aversion. Different strokes for different folks certainly applies here.
    A Monte Carlo code is one way to approach the uncertainties of market returns. From my perspective it seems like an ideal tool. You take issue which is ok by my standards. That's what makes for a vibrant marketplace.
    I especially like Monte Carlo simulations because what-if scenarios can be postulated and evaluated in just short minutes. That's powerful stuff given the uncertainties of market returns. Nobody can forecast future returns with any accuracy and/or consistency. Monte Carlo helps to quantify the impact of such uncertainty on portfolio,survival odds.
    Apparently you are not a fan of the Monte Carlo based approach. I am. Again, different strokes for different folks. In investing we get to choose our own poison.
    Best Wishes
  • Having Too Much Employer Stock In Your 401(k) Is Dangerous. Just Look At GE
    It's not really germane to the point of the story, but SCANA is a regulated electric utility and natural gas company based in South Carolina. (The "SC" is pretty much a dead giveaway.)
    How did the Fortune authors get it wrong? The second author, an undergraduate who "provided research assistance" will probably get the blame.
    SCANA is to be bought by Dominion Energy, after the partnership with SCE&G to build nuclear power plants encountered huge cost overruns (and lots of political turmoil in South Carolina).
    I don't think I'd be buying Dominion stock right now.
  • Free Market at Work: Trump orders halt to shutdown of coal and nuclear plants
    @LewisBraham. I did not do any analysis. Matter of fact, I cannot imagine anyone saying I did some analyis, especially you whose opinion I respect a lot. I don't think I even did any ANALysis. But I will try THAT now.
    When certain professions die off, people find other jobs. We don't move around in horse carriages today. We have an automobile industry. Time travel to 2418, everyone might have a hovercraft. People, professions, change, die off. All good.
    Philadelphia Steel workers out of job. Is it because we discovered some other metal instead of steel? Or is it because we no longer need steel? No. We just took their professions away. Who benefited? If all of those Steel workers are working in the Silicon Valley today, I'm wrong, and we can stop right here. There is a difference between advancement through obsolescence, vs progress (sic) through transfer of wealth reducing the population of the 1% which is not a good thing.
    Now the question is - Is Coal more like a horse carriage or is it more like Steel? Maybe somewhere in between, or maybe my ANALogy does not apply at all. If America gets rid of all Coal jobs and replaces them with all Nuclear (yikes!), Wind, Solar, Algae jobs and keeps all those Coal Miners employed at NOT $8/hour jobs, let's do it immediately. However if all we are doing is change a Coal Mine Owner Millionaire to a Algae Millionaire where machines generate energy, then as long as we can keep feeding the Coal Miners and given them a sense of self worth, let's do that too.
    At the risk of digressing, did anyone ever think about downsizing congress? How hard is to code a bot that has ONE Rule implemented - Vote for everything with Trump's signature. What jobs will those career politicians have, then? Why don't we talk about ending their jobs like we talk about ending Coal jobs. BOTH are allegedly detrimental to society.
    I work in the IT sector (oh why oh why oh why). I'm okay with any advancement for the benefit of society at large. Just looking at employment numbers is not sufficient. You know I'm in Texas which is conservative poster child for job creation. Most jobs created in Texas are low paying jobs. I'm sure you will be able to find the stats for that.
    If at every turn of tech/biotech/etc advancement, people are getting alternate jobs at lower standard of living it is not solving the issue and increasing the wealth gap. If I'm saying please keep an eye out for the Coal Miners, does not make me a Trump supporter. IMO it just makes me a normal human being.
    I said "Steel Workers" and didn't say "Horse Carriage ". Getting rid of Steel jobs and Manufacturing jobs did not help American society. Those jobs still exist, only they moved elsewhere. Getting rid of horse carriages did benefit ALL society assuming you can co-relate the efficiencies and productivity enhancements with pollution from gas guzzling automobiles. I will let someone smarter than me solve the equation for Coal.
  • Free Market at Work: Trump orders halt to shutdown of coal and nuclear plants
    The following is excerpted from a Washington Post article and substantially edited for brevity. It is classified as a "Fund Discussion" because Ted has ruled that this is appropriate if there are funds that trade in the subject under discussion.
    President Trump on Friday invoked emergency powers granted under Cold War-era legislation to halt the shutdown of ailing coal and nuclear power plants. One likely plan, laid out in a 41-page draft memorandum would favor certain power plants owned by some of the president’s political allies in the coal industry.
    Environmental groups, natural-gas producers, and Republicans and Democrats who have pushed for greater competition in electricity markets all condemned the plan and noted that the coal and nuclear power plants that would benefit have failed to compete against natural gas, solar and wind. Many of the plants have operated far longer than anticipated when they were built.
    The subsidy would be a major victory for FirstEnergy, whose top lobbyist last year was Jeff Miller. Miller was campaign manager for the presidential campaign of Rick Perry, now energy secretary. Trump attended a private dinner with Miller and a handful of political advisers in early April.
    The White House made no further comments regarding draining of the Washington swamp.
  • Anyone see'in any black swans of any age; or even unhatched eggs?
    Catch, A great write-up. Thanks.
    - Catch said: I've become more of a technical investor with a big dose of leftover "what are the fundamentals of this investment world today"?
    I never understood technical analysis, but respect those who invest based on moving averages, etc. and appear to do well. Fundamentals is hard to access. However, Europe seems to have pulled out of its multi-year slump. Japan is finally seeing some inflation and stock market rebound following a decades long bear market. Interest rates remain low at home and abroad. Larry Summers, speaking on Bloomberg recently, suggested some of the global market gains are due to people shifting money out of the U.S. due to our current banana republic political atmosphere. (Things like pledges to arrest / imprison your opponent if you win the election).
    - Catch said: Does the market place remain a hugh pile of other folks money seeking profits, or does some real value exist, somewhere? Is this just a chase, chase, chase?
    My sense, having invested for 50 years, is that there’s a whole lot of “chase chase” going on. That doesn't mean the equity markets can’t continue to spiral upwards for many more years. It does mean that as a 70+ year old retiree, I’m not willing to put a large amount of money at risk. So much depends on one’s situation and time horizon.
    - Catch said: It is apparent that the really big money does much care one way or another about what is going on in politics, in general, yes? The U.S bombing North Korea or North Korea bombing Guam; well, that might change a few things for a week or so, eh?
    Catch lists more potential black swans than I care to dissect. Most have been out there for years. But don’t you love “The law of unintended consequences” ? So many threats emanating from Washington to reign down fire and fury on the Korean Penninsula that it has driven the two nations there closer together. Some real dialogue is taking place between the two adversaries. Some revolves around the 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea. Neither country wants to partake of all out nuclear war on their peninsula.
    - Catch said: Interest rates (still touchy/feely as to central bank actions) remain low, inflation remains low and the yield spread between the 10 and 30 year Treasury's has continued to shrink.
    The HY spread doesn’t surprise me. There is often a strong correlation between the equity and junk bond markets. What happens to rates depends on the health of the world economy. Low rates have boosted the global markets higher following the near depression in ‘08. As the punch bowl is gradually taken away, do we achieve orbit or careen back to earth in flames? Nobody knows for certain. However, higher short term rates could actually help longer dated bonds if a recession were to occur as a result. For that reason I’m averaging a bit into a GNMA fund - the equivalent of taking a parachute along with you on a flight. A lot of dead weight - but priceless in an emergency.
  • Buy, Sell and Ponder October 2017
    In a bit of good fortune, the nice little run-up has bumped two of my funds in the IRA to hit the dollar threshold for a haircut...RPMGX along with GPGOX. These are up 20% and 24% respectively YTD. The harvested profits will simply go into a slot for 2018 IRA distribution, so it's nice to get that taken care of before year end.
    Maybe it's only me, but the market seems to be inching up way too easily. The chatter about our administration's decision next week regarding whether to certify the Iran nuclear agreement may serve to throw a monkey into the wrench. I'm happy to take some profits off the table before that decision is announced.
  • spx 10% gain?
    Hi @johnN,
    John thanks for posting the article on utilities. Eventhough utilities account for about 3% of the S&P 500 Index they currently make up about 7% of Old_Skeet's holdings. I'm thinking of raising my utility sector weighting by about (1%) by adding a mutual fund (AWTAX) that's theme centers around water.
    Think about it ... the two or three things we widely use in our homes are electricty, natural gas and water (at least they are in mine). Heck, I even have and maintain a standby power generation system should there be a power outage at my home. Then there is the phone and internet that kinda follows utilities.
    It is a bum deal for the rate payers in South Carolina that (Summner) a nuclear power plant will most likely never be completed. I'm thinking that the power companies owe the rate payers a refund for this power plant folly of their making. Instead the power companies want the rate payers to pay more for a plant that looks like it will never be brought on line. I look for things to heat up in South Carolina over this in the coming months as hearings take place in Columbia. While in North Carolina Duke Energy wants it's rate payers to pay for coal ash pond clean up that the utility mishandled through the years and are going to be very costly to clean up. Hearings are underway in Raleigh as I write concerning this.
    If the rates payers wind up having to pay for these failures and follies of the utility companies ... I'm increasing my allocation in the utility sector. In a sence, I'll collect what I have to pay out through an increase in utility rates with their payment of dividends back to me as I own homes in both states.
    For me, it is a no brainer ... own some utilities as the rate payers most likely will have to pay up.
  • The Breakfast Briefing Wall Street Stocks Set For Downbeat Open As North Korea Standoff Intensifie
    Iran is working uranium enrichment-similar to US back in the Manhattan's day. So they have a way to go. It could be Russia or some rouge Russian nuclear scientists who want a quick payday.
  • The Breakfast Briefing Wall Street Stocks Set For Downbeat Open As North Korea Standoff Intensifie
    China would rather have a nuclear capable NK than an unstable one (refugees) or a united Korea that's allied with the US. I don't think Russia has any real interest in a united Korea either and neither one really fears the North, it's a distraction and a draw on assets for what Russia fears as much, if not more, than most things. If anyone in the world really cared about the people this could have ended a very long time ago.
  • The Breakfast Briefing Wall Street Stocks Set For Downbeat Open As North Korea Standoff Intensifie
  • The Closing Bell: Wall Street Lower As Investors Weigh Rising North Korea Tensions
    FYI: U.S. stocks were lower on Wednesday as investors rushed to safe-haven assets after President Donald Trump's "fire and fury" warning to North Korea escalated tensions with the nuclear-armed nation
    Regards,
    Ted
    Bloomberg:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/japan-stocks-to-follow-u-s-drop-on-trump-threat-markets-wrap
    Reuters:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-idUSKBN1AP1AB
    MarketWatch:
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stock-futures-pull-back-as-north-korea-threatens-guam-2017-08-09/print
    IBD:
    http://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/stocks-recover-to-thin-losses-retail-names-hit-hard/
    CNBC:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/09/us-stocks-north-korea-disney-earnings.html
    AP:
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FINANCIAL_MARKETS_ASOL-?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
    Bloomberg Evening Briefing:
    https://www.bloomberg.com//news/articles/2017-08-09/your-evening-briefing
    WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
    http://markets.wsj.com/us
    SPDR's Sector Tracker:
    http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
    SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
    Current Futures: Mixed
    http://finviz.com/futures.ashx
    Thank you @Ted. A bang-up job as usual. You are so appreciated. You have 11 links here which is great. However, for some who have only limited time, 11 may be more links than they wish to click on and read. I respectfully submit that there's room on this great board both for your awesome posts and those of others. Of course, care needs to be taken to avoid stepping on someone else's remarks. But, a bit of forgiveness needs to be exercised as well. We're all human here (last time I checked).
  • Investing According To Your Values Can Also Make You Money
    Right. First it excludes all companies that are involved (generally 5% or more of their business) in alcohol, gambling, tobacco, military weapons, civilian firearms, nuclear power, adult entertainment, or GMOs. Then on what's left it applies inclusionary screens.
    If anything, based on this enumerated list and the curvilinear (roughly speaking, parabolic) relationship between the number of screens and performance cited by RBC, the index uses nearly the absolute worst number of screens.
    One would expect an index with either more screens or fewer screens to do better. Selective choice by RBC of index or just bad luck? Doesn't matter, the effect's the same.
  • Investing According To Your Values Can Also Make You Money
    @Jojo26
    The RBC study you referenced looks at the KLD 400 Index. According to MSCI, the index's owner: "The MSCI KLD 400 Social Index is maintained in two stages. First, securities of companies involved in Nuclear Power, Tobacco, Alcohol, Gambling, Military Weapons, Civilian Firearms, GMOs and Adult Entertainment are excluded." https://msci.com/documents/10199/904492e6-527e-4d64-9904-c710bf1533c6
    It is precisely such exclusionary screens for SRI funds I stated the research was neutral about, revealing that such exclusionary indexes/funds either match the market or lag it slightly. It is ESG rankings in which every sector is included but the worst ranked ESG companies are minimized or eliminated that there is strong corroborative evidence for. Since you didn't read the links I provided to the DB report, here is an important excerpt:
    The evidence is compelling: Sustainable Investing can be a clear win for investors and for companies. However, many SRI fund managers, who have tended to use exclusionary screens, have historically struggled to capture this. We believe that ESG analysis should be built into the investment processes of every serious investor, and into the corporate strategy of every company that cares about shareholder value. ESG best-in-class focused funds should be able to capture superior risk-adjusted returns if well executed.
    This is the key finding of our report in which we looked at more than 100 academic studies of sustainable investing around the world, and then closely examined and categorized 56 research papers, as well as 2 literature reviews and 4 meta studies – we believe this is one of the most comprehensive reviews of the literature ever undertaken.
    Frequently, Sustainable Investing is stated to yield ‘mixed results”. However, by breaking down our analysis into different categories (SRI, CSR, and ESG) we have identified exactly where in the sprawling, diverse universe of so-called Sustainable Investment, value has been found.
    By applying what we believe to be a unique methodology, we show that “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) and most importantly, “Environmental, Social and Governance” (ESG) factors are correlated with superior risk-adjusted returns at a securities level. In conducting this analysis, it became evident that CSR has essentially evolved into ESG. At the same time, we are able to show that studies of fund performance – which have been classified “Socially Responsible Investing” (SRI) in the academic literature and have tended to rely on exclusionary screens – show SRI adds little upside, although it does not underperform either. Exclusion, in many senses, is essentially a values-based or ethical consideration for investors.
    We were surprised by the clarity of the results we uncovered:
    100% of the academic studies agree that companies with high ratings for CSR and ESG factors have a lower cost of capital in terms of debt (loans and bonds) and equity. In effect, the market recognizes that these companies are lower risk than other companies and rewards them accordingly. This finding alone should put the issue of Sustainability squarely into the office of the Chief Financial Officer, if not the board, of every company.
    89% of the studies we examined show that companies with high ratings for ESG factors exhibit market-based outperformance, while 85% of the studies show these types of company’s exhibit accounting-based outperformance. Here a gain, the market is showing correlation between financial performance of companies and what it perceives as advantageous ESG strategies, at least over the medium (3-5 years) to long term (5-10 years).
    The single most important of these factors, and the most looked at by academics to date, is Governance (G), with 20 studies focusing in on this component of ESG (relative to 10 studies focusing on E and 8 studies on S). In other words, any company that thinks it does not need to bother with improving its systems of corporate governance is, in effect, thumbing its nose at the market and hurting its own performance all at the same time. In the hierarchy of factors that count with investors and the markets in general, Environment is the next most important, followed closely by Social factors.
    Most importantly, when we turn to fund returns, it is notable that these are all clustered into the SRI category. Here, 88% of studies of actual SRI fund returns show neutral or mixed results. Looking at the compositions of the fund universes included in the academic studies we see a lot of exclusionary screens being used. However, that is not to say that SRI funds have generally underperformed. In other words, we have found that SRI fund managers have struggled to capture outperformance in the broad SRI category but they have, at least, not lost money in the attempt.
    These conclusions go a long way towards explaining why the concept of sustainable investing has taken so long to gain acceptance and even now inspires indifference and even cynicism among many investors. It has been too closely associated for too long with the SRI fund manager results which are not only an extremely broad category (i.e. in terms of investment mandate), but historically were based more on exclusionary – as opposed to positive or best-in-class – screening. ESG investing, by contrast, takes the best-in-class approach. By analyzing the various categories within the universe of sustainable investing, we can now say confidently that the ESG approach, at an analytical level, works for investors and for companies both in terms of cost of capital and corporate financial performance (on a market and accounting basis). It is now a question of ESG best-in-class funds capturing the available returns.
  • Investing According To Your Values Can Also Make You Money
    Ya, I like the idea, too. It used to be that the SRI funds just did not offer attractive enough profit for shareholders. I note that state of affairs is changing for the better. OK, but my own Soc. Resp. filters are a lot more stringent than any of them I've seen. So I'm not in them not because I don't support the concept. I just don't think they go far enough. Guns, alcohol, gambling and nuclear stuff is not enough. Seems they are willing to invest in the criminal scum Big Banks. No thanks, from where I sit. That's just one example.
  • M* Is Doing What ?
    If there is a way to make money, rest assured M* will do it. Sadly, I believe that is the most important thing for them. We should accept this fact, whether or not there is a conflict of interest. It's always about money. They are not going to enter this new business line if they expect to lose money. M* never does that. Unfortunately, they are pretty much the one source for the detailed analytics so many of us need (or think we need).
    Yes. Sometimes you succeed simply by being first to the party. However, I always dream of the day when they will be "Blockbustered" or "Kodaked". To be realistic however, they might only be "Philip Morrissed" and will continue to exist even after nuclear winter, right after death, taxes and cockroaches.
  • Mutual Fund Observer - New Year's Edition
    "Snowball’s “publisher’s letter” shares a hard truth: despite everything you’ve heard in the past year, things are getting better."
    I found David's post a necessary tonic and I applaud that, but I think if we are talking big picture as he does, we also have to look at the even bigger picture of this globalization jigsaw puzzle. There is no question that the level of extreme poverty has decreased worldwide because of industrialization and globalization. But that has had consequences environmentally, economically and politically for more developed nations where people are accustomed to living on far more than $1.90 a day. One of the best pieces I've read on the recent election is this one: newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/31/hillary-clinton-and-the-populist-revolt
    In it the author states:
    "Earlier this year, an economist named Branko Milanović published a book called “Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization.” It’s a progress report on the “system” that Friedman heralded. Milanović analyzes global economic data from the past quarter century and concludes that the world has become more equal—poor countries catching up with rich ones—but that Western democracies have become less equal. Globalization’s biggest winners are the new Asian middle and upper classes, and the one-per-centers of the West: these groups have almost doubled their real incomes since the late eighties. The biggest losers are the American and European working and middle classes—until very recently, their incomes hardly budged.
    During these years, resistance to globalization has migrated from anarchists disrupting trade conferences to members of the vast middle classes of the West. Many of them have become Trump supporters, Brexit voters, constituents of Marine Le Pen and other European proto-fascists. After a generation of globalization, they’re trying to derail the train."
    So there has been a trade-off that has occurred between the world's wealthiest nations and the world's poorest and that has caused political upheaval. I cannot view that political upheaval as things getting better. Nationalism--a particularly virulent strain of nationalism in my view--is on the rise in several countries as a result. That has led to a level of geopolitical uncertainty we haven't seen in a long time. And yes the world has always been uncertain--this is a fact of life--but the stakes are higher than they've ever been. That's what's different--the stakes. The world is far more interconnected economically than it's ever been and the weaponry far more powerful than it has been prior to the advent of the nuclear age. Having unstable political leaders like Trump and Putin with such weaponry at their fingertips is not things getting better in my view. I reject notions to normalize these leaders. There is ample evidence they are not.
    Then there is a larger question David touched upon of climate change. That is also part of the jigsaw puzzle because the economic growth that has lifted so many out of extreme poverty as David rightly points out is a primary cause of carbon emissions and climate change. While the poor in emerging countries have every right to have dreams of living middle class American lives, there is a realistic question as to whether the climate can take more than one giant economy where people live like Americans do. In other words, the world's addiction to economic growth has environmental consequences. This seems to me to be the primary challenge of the generations to come so long as we don't end up in a terrible war before then.
    So no, I can't see things as getting better in 2017, not with a climate science denying, nuclear missile embracing jingoist in charge. But then I'm a journalist--a glass half empty guy on such issues--as David rightly points out most of the media is. Perhaps somewhere between the pessimists and the rose colored glasses is the truth.
  • Changing environment and year-end eval.
    DLFNX is my only core (core-plus) dedicated US bond fund. It's just 2.51% of portfolio. But I think I can make better use of the $3,700.00 that's in there, particularly after the seismic shift following the election. I make few changes to my portfolio along the way because I do a lot of digging before choosing a fund. Originally, I wanted Gundlach's know-how at the helm, and I also did not yet have a domestic bond position at all. But such a fund as DLFNX, though respectable and reliable, will not help to get me where I want to go, in this changed landscape in 2017 and beyond.
    Three-quarters of my stuff is with TRP, and if any change resulted in consolidating (and ergo simplifying) by putting more $$$ into TRP, that suits me. PRHYX is closed to new investors. What about RPIHX? I also see a very new fund: PTTFX which charges investors $20.00 above and beyond the ER if the balance is below $10,000.00--- but I could manage to initiate a starting position with $10K. ..... Seems to me that PTTFX is ostensibly the same sort of fund as MWTRX. "Total Return." But I can't even find a portfolio within that fund anywhere, even at the TRP website. ... I don't like RPSIX because it's a fund of funds.
    .......Or, shall I just liquidate DLFNX? It's one of just 2 funds I own that are in a regular, taxable, investment account, rather than IRA. I could use the proceeds to step-up the size of my stake in PNM, an electric utility. PNM is in a transition, shedding nuclear and coal-fired plants but everything I look at tells me I should definitely commit more money to it. (It's less than 1% of portf. right now.)
    Do I NEED a US domestic core-plus bond fund, after all? I am otherwise very well diversified. No question about THAT. Thanks for your responses. They are always helpful.
  • The Closing Bell: Stock Market Gains Evaporate After China Seizes U.S. Underwater Drone
    @Anna, After January 20th 2017,Who knows?
    China state newspaper warns Donald Trump over Taiwan:
    'Pride comes before a fall'
    A Chinese state-run newspaper has launched an unprecedented attack on Donald Trump
    “The calculating businessman might feel shrewd about seizing China's fate by the throat through the Taiwan question,” the piece read. “However, the truth is this inexperienced President-elect probably has no knowledge of what he's talking about.”
    “He has overestimated the US's capability of dominating the world and fails to understand the limitation of US powers in the current era...China is now confident enough to arm-wrestle with the US."imageChina flies nuclear bomber over South China Sea as a 'message' to Donald Trump
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-bomber-flight-send-message-donald-trump-taiwan-a7468021.html
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-state-newspaper-donald-trump-taiwan-one-china-policy-a7471326.html
    More Trump Repercussions in Today's MarketFrom Seeking Alpha
    A dark shadow has crossed over parts of the retail sector as more analysts weigh in on the negative impact of a border tax adjustment on goods sourced from outside the U.S. The GOP and President-elect Trump are expected to agree to support some form of border adjustments.
    The border tax could be especially difficult for apparel and footweat companies to overcome.
    The border tax could be especially difficult for apparel and footweat companies to overcome.
    Retail stocks that trade weak today amid the discussion include Deckers Outdoor (DECK -6.6%), Fossil (FOSL -5.7%), Coach(COH -3.1%), Iconix Brand Group (ICON -2.9%), Ralph Lauren (RL -2.5%), Wolverine World Wide (WWW -2.3%), Lululemon .....
    http://seekingalpha.com/news/3231209-concerns-border-tax-whack-retail-names