Investing General Discussion

Tmac

Adventurer
<Gold Donor>
9,634
16,394
Until we get rate cuts, Iwm is going to be a money pit. I see a big rotation out of tech into high debt companies that are extremely beaten down

Are you charting some things? Got a list? What lead you to this conclusion?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,559
22,562
FYI:
MGC coveres a bit larger of a swath of the S&P (200 vs the OEF 100) and has a net fee of only 0.07 vs OEF at 0.2
FYI:
OEF is up 29.95% for the year and MGC is up 27.97%, so we were both kinda right.

Both are beating SPY for the exact reasons I thought they would.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Tmac

Adventurer
<Gold Donor>
9,634
16,394
Just found out my grandmothers $1,000,000 fund my dad has a manager for has returned 11% over the last three years. In the same time the SPY has returned 44%.
 
Last edited:
  • 4WTF
  • 1Double Worf
Reactions: 4 users

Tmac

Adventurer
<Gold Donor>
9,634
16,394
Just found out my grandmothers $1,000,000 fund my dad has a manager for returned 5% last year.

So this is a total cluster fuck of an account. I’m so confused.

See the spoiler for an incomplete picture. I was limited to 8 pics. They’ve got fkn 2.5% CD’s LOSING money.

IMG_6004.jpeg
IMG_6003.jpeg
IMG_6005.jpeg
IMG_6006.jpeg
IMG_6007.jpeg
IMG_6008.jpeg
IMG_6009.jpeg
IMG_6010.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Jysin

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
6,296
4,064
Those 2.x% treasuries are underwater because they were purchased some time ago at lower rates. You can buy a 2yr treasury for 4.7% today. So if you were to sell your 2% yield bond on open market, you have to discount it at a loss (because why buy your 2% when I can buy a 4%?). If you hold it to maturity, you lose nothing whatsoever and get paid at the yield stated.

This is an example of what brought down banks in recent years. They had “safe” holdings in longer term treasuries paying safe, albeit low yields (compared to today’s yields). They had liquidity issues when too many people were withdrawing money and were forced to sell the bonds at a loss.

It looks like a ladder of different dated treasuries all the way through 2033. No point in doing anything with them, but hold while they pay the cheap yields or else you sell for a loss. Best case scenario, Fed takes interest rates back down significantly and those gain value again. (The reality of Fed taking that action or the “why” is another discussion entirely.)
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: 2 users

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
76,767
152,172
Yeah I dont know what to say. Locking someone into 2-3% treasuries 10 years out should be considered some sort of professional malpractice.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

Palum

what Suineg set it to
24,225
35,602
Imagine if money managers had to pay penalties if they underperformed market averages instead of just getting less bonuses.

Chef's kiss
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

Sanrith Descartes

You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
41,781
108,347
Not defending paid investment folks, but yeah Jysin Jysin is correct on the ladders. Those were bought when rates were in the shitter.

It's a cookie cutter, mail it in strategy. This is what people get who pay money managers. They put clients in carbon copy strategies and then put their feet up on the desk. They have zero concern for how the clients actually perform. They get paid no matter what.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Rustled
Reactions: 2 users

Zog

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,757
2,276
Are you charting some things? Got a list? What lead you to this conclusion?
It's a macro play, the 2000 companies are all low cap stocks that are usually in debt to some degree, a high interest rate environment is terrible for them. Rate cuts directly benefit them, so every chart for these companies is atrocious, until the rate cuts happen. Every hedge fund is pounding the desk for rate cuts to add or see returns on this % of their balanced portfolios.
 

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
4,909
8,311
preserve wealth? zero risk?

This is a fair point. While this is an awful strategy from our perspective, asset growth is not necessarily the goal of a late-stage retiree. In my 70's and 80's I would definitely forego returns to be 100% bulletproof sure that I'd have enough money to last until I die.

While the S&P has been up a shit-ton on average in the last three years, it also fell by 45% at one point (12/21-10/22), which is much scarier than lost gains to a retiree.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
76,767
152,172
Support level for NVDA moved up to 127, saw someone else with a chart that pegged resistance at 136-137

So those are the new NVDA levels I guess. I'm tempted to buy but I will wait for more confirmation today to see if it holds before i can trust to play it regularly

1720186042677.png
 
  • 1Like
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 1 users