Market/Financial Thread

[Texsox]

Has anyone here had experience with Victory Capital? USAA sold off their mutual funds to VCM and I'm trying to decide to stay with them or move. This wasn't my primary investment account, more of savings plus kind of thing,  but USAA made it really convenient and until last month did ok with the return. 

[southsider2k5]

6 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Has anyone here had experience with Victory Capital? USAA sold off their mutual funds to VCM and I'm trying to decide to stay with them or move. This wasn't my primary investment account, more of savings plus kind of thing,  but USAA made it really convenient and until last month did ok with the return. 

Never even heard of them.  Check what their fee schedlules look like is a nice way to judge.

[Texsox]

21 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Never even heard of them.  Check what their fee schedlules look like is a nice way to judge.

I was planning on that. I really only had this as a way to eek out a slightly better return on my savings. One of my thoughts is from a quick glance I wouldn't have chosen them. Now I am deciding if I can transfer the trust I have for USAA to this new company. 

[southsider2k5]

Just now, Texsox said:

I was planning on that. I really only had this as a way to eek out a slightly better return on my savings. One of my thoughts is from a quick glance I wouldn't have chosen them. Now I am deciding if I can transfer the trust I have for USAA to this new company. 

Your other option is to avoid it entirely and move to an IRA.  Instead of funds, I just buy the ETFs directly for a fraction of the price in terms of fees.

[southsider2k5]

And my absolutely free piece of advice, never, ever, never, ever, never keep your mind it target year retirement funds.  They are excuses to do a lot of trading in the fund and charge a lot of fees.  You can accomplish the exact same thing with an SP fund and a bond fund.

[Texsox]

This is more a major purchase fund than a retirement fund. I have a 403B, plus Texas Teacher retirement, plus a lot of years in SS. I think I do have a few bucks in a target year fund. Thank you, I will have to take a look at that. That is one that would be transferring. 

[southsider2k5]

20 minutes ago, Texsox said:

This is more a major purchase fund than a retirement fund. I have a 403B, plus Texas Teacher retirement, plus a lot of years in SS. I think I do have a few bucks in a target year fund. Thank you, I will have to take a look at that. That is one that would be transferring. 

If it is extra, this could be stock picking money. If not, SP funds.

[StrangeSox]

4 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

And my absolutely free piece of advice, never, ever, never, ever, never keep your mind it target year retirement funds.  They are excuses to do a lot of trading in the fund and charge a lot of fees.  You can accomplish the exact same thing with an SP fund and a bond fund.

Don't know if you're talking about a specific set of funds, but vanguard and I think Fidelity's target date funds are only a tiny bit more expensive than rolling the same funds yourself.

[caulfield12]

Seems a bit premature...we’ll see.
 

“Investors who favored defense over offense have experienced smaller losses this year, have the satisfaction that comes from relative outperformance, and are able to spend more of their time looking for bargains than dealing with legacy problems,” Howard Marks, co-founder and co-chairman of Oaktree Capital Management, wrote in a letter to clients Tuesday. “Thus, I feel it’s a time when previously cautious investors can reduce their overemphasis on defense and begin to move toward a more neutral position or even toward offense (depending on how sure they want to be of grasping early opportunities.”

“I’m not saying the outlook is positive,” he added. “I’m saying conditions have changed such that caution is no longer as imperative.”

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/stock-market-news-live-updates-april-8-221334090.html

[southsider2k5]

The other piece of financial advice I would mention is if you think your situation is going to be stable for the next year, the next couple of months are going to be the time to make your big ticket purchases.  Car, house, appliance, etc  With as many people as just got put out of work, the inventory accumulation is going to be hard and fast.  They will be able to adjust for months down the road, but not for now.  On top of that, interest rates will probably never be lower than now.

[caulfield12]

At some point, the President is going to have to look at Drs. Fauci and Birx and say, we're opening on May 1. Give me your best guidance on protocols, but we cannot deny our people their basic freedoms any longer," Fox News opinion host Laura Ingraham tweeted on Wednesday.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/09/politics/donald-trump-economy-joe-biden-coronavirus/index.html

 

Looks like the experts are calling anywhere from the low 4 millions to 7+ million range in UNE claims this morning, depending on how many can successfully be processed in states like FL, TX, GA, etc.

That would be roughly 15 million in three weeks and another 3-4% hike in the overall rate, putting it closer and closer to 15% overall.

 

[caulfield12]

6.61 million claims....not quite the record, because last week’s was later revised upwards.  This week’s will likely set the new trcord before all is said and done, as a number of larger states are finally being reflected (TX, FL, GA, VA, NC) for the first time.

Net will be roughly 17 million lost jobs over a three week time period.

[Texsox]

On 4/7/2020 at 5:24 PM, southsider2k5 said:

Never even heard of them.  Check what their fee schedlules look like is a nice way to judge.

USAA has earned my business with great member services, they just announced a 20% discount on my auto insurance for the next two months. But after looking at this move I'm not trusting that USAA was looking out for my best interest in selling to Victory. I just don't see any reasson in moving any money to Victory. I may just take your advice and use it as a stock gambling account. I'm thinking the RV industry will recover in 12 to 18 months and Thor or Forest River are a value now.

[southsider2k5]

4 minutes ago, Texsox said:

USAA has earned my business with great member services, they just announced a 20% discount on my auto insurance for the next two months. But after looking at this move I'm not trusting that USAA was looking out for my best interest in selling to Victory. I just don't see any reasson in moving any money to Victory. I may just take your advice and use it as a stock gambling account. I'm thinking the RV industry will recover in 12 to 18 months and Thor or Forest River are a value now.

I can tell that a HUGE part of the RV industry is right here in Indiana (Elkhart/Goshen area to be more exact) and they are shutdown.  There is probably excess inventory out there right now, but they won't reopen until there is enough demand to do so.

[Texsox]

And there will be a glut of used units available at rock bottom prices. The industry is cyclical and this is definitely a major downturn. I don't ever try to time the market, but I would be going in knowing it's a hold for a couple years. With all the consolidation that has happened these two own 80% of the market. Again, I wouldn't gamble my retirement money on either of these two but this might be fun to watch. I also see them buying up the last remaining independents and solidifying even more the market. This would be a good time to consolidate some of their subsidiaries as well.  

[bmags]

https://blogs.uoregon.edu/timduyfedwatch/2020/04/10/its-not-about-debt-or-stock-buybacks-or-whatever-its-about-the-virus/

Let's not fight over who gets what as if we are in a position of scarcity. Just push for faster and more. More and faster.

[Chisoxfn]

If the fed and government is able to do things right...we will see a massive infrastructure package (leveraged on extremely cheap money/debt) and what begun as a rocky start to the decade will turn into a giant economic success that drives significant growth throughout the 2020's.  It will get people back to work fast, strengthen legacy infrastructure that needs to be built up, and better prepare our nation for the future (while also ensuring we re-evaluate global supply chains to ensure we don't have sole dependency on various geographic regions (and by the way...that also includes not having sole dependency on the US....because if we are the start of the next pandemic...it sure would be nice to have other countries and regions and friends to be able to help us when everyone shuts down borders more rapidly).  

The new norm is going to include a lot more isolated shutdowns and more robust medical checking and sharing of all of these things. It might take a few years to develop but a whole new infrastructure will be created to try and more greatly reduce the risk of global mass pandemic (although we all know you can never stop it).

The problem in all of this is, our politicians don't work together. What we really need is a mass exodus of the extremist on both sides and a huge shift to the middle (and I doubt that happens anytime soon)...which means we'll have continued flat out obstructionism on both sides (What Dems want....Repubs will find every way to road block and vice versa).    

[Chisoxfn]

23 hours ago, Texsox said:

And there will be a glut of used units available at rock bottom prices. The industry is cyclical and this is definitely a major downturn. I don't ever try to time the market, but I would be going in knowing it's a hold for a couple years. With all the consolidation that has happened these two own 80% of the market. Again, I wouldn't gamble my retirement money on either of these two but this might be fun to watch. I also see them buying up the last remaining independents and solidifying even more the market. This would be a good time to consolidate some of their subsidiaries as well.  

Jim - You might be right, but I think there are probably other industries / sectors that have been more severely battered who might be better long-term ploys. When you look at how devalued Oil is, LT, we still have major needs there and as long as you are staying away from those with heavy exposure to Shale, you will do good (I think). Just don't bet on one individual company, go more broad / be diversified.  There are some strong financial giants who have been severely hit and are trading well below 08/09 crisis type returns (and they are extremely well capitalized to weather the storm, pay solid dividends, and generate good returns as the economy normalizes).  And than on the infrastructure front, I think long term there are going to be some good investments in that sector.  

I would never worry about finding the bottom in times like this, rather try and do some dollar cost averaging while macro prices are low (as long as you can hold for the long).  The volatility is not done and while I'm never certain, I would suspect we have more bad days to come.  The economy is going to shrink 25% in the 2nd quarter and I think we are going to see pockets of reinfection during the course of 2020 (I hope not...but I suspect we will) and I don't know that current markets reflect those things.  Pick and choose those sectors you like LT but low cost index funds aren't bad either (I always think betting on the LT economy of the US is the best bet you can make...because if we are wrong...well we got way bigger fish to fry).  

All that said, even if you buy today (and I think prices are probably headed more down near term than up...but I would have said that a week ago and have been dead wrong cause I didn't see this big of a dead cat bounce coming)...you are still getting a LT value when everything bounces up.  I never worry of did I buy @ 30% down vs. 20% down.  I'm just happy I got some of that down...because if you time a few of those in the general vicinity (and for me it is always about going in...more than timing the out because I always think you have more risk when you try and time the out...because at that point...you miss out on the LT of what the equities are going to do for your accumulation).  

An investor that sits on cash is inherently going to lose over the long-run (too many times will you false time a "bottom" and miss on extended gains which are necessary for the time you never see the bottom and take a pretty immediate 20-30% beating (and those just flat out will happen).  All of this of course has to align with each individuals appetite for volatility and near term needs for the funds they are investing. The more near term needs you have, the much more different and risk averse your portfolio needs to be (but you also need to really challenge what those "near-term" needs are...because if you can better protect your near term than you can be more aggressive during scarier times and in the long-run, your retirement will thank you (This last bit is probably less advice for you Jim since you are much closer to retirement but where you have pensions / other guarantees those are things you have to contemplate when you evaluate your overall exposure to risk/equities...i.e., if you already can get 60-70% of your income covered through fixed streams, you may want to be more aggressive with your equity assets knowing you could bunker down and cut your spend/liquidity for 2-3 years (if things really good rough) for the long term good of your retirement portfolio.  

Also...I will have a counter to Mike's point on target date funds.  If you aren't going to regularly check your 401k's, etc, a target date fund is absolutely better than what the general public will individual pick and manage to.  Target dates outperform individuals 401k's by a large margin, so for some people, a target date fund is the absolute right investment choice (given their risk tolerances, knowledge of the markets, and appetite for trading on a more regular basis).  Just look at the few of those funds. Vanguard has some really good, cost effective target date funds that are naturally going to manage your risks and shift exposures over time.  And for those that think you should only be equities....a big reminder there is if you are inherently in equities vs. more mixed, you have very little downside buffer when the market bombs.  Meaning...everything you had dropped...which is fine and it will return, but if you had some fixed income in there, you could actually leverage the safety and the lower drop you had and more strategically shift your portfolio into equities following that drop, generate higher returns on the bounce back, and than rebalance your portfolio.  I.e., having some fixed income hedges some of your downside, while minimally chewing into your LT returns (if you do nothing), and, depending on your appetite, can help you be a buyer of discounted risk when times are tight.  

 

PS: None of the above constitutes as any financial advice. Everyone needs to analyze what is individually best for them, based upon their own financial perspective, short-term and long-term goals, and of course their risk appetites, etc.  

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, Chisoxfn said:

If the fed and government is able to do things right...we will see a massive infrastructure package (leveraged on extremely cheap money/debt) and what begun as a rocky start to the decade will turn into a giant economic success that drives significant growth throughout the 2020's.  It will get people back to work fast, strengthen legacy infrastructure that needs to be built up, and better prepare our nation for the future (while also ensuring we re-evaluate global supply chains to ensure we don't have sole dependency on various geographic regions (and by the way...that also includes not having sole dependency on the US....because if we are the start of the next pandemic...it sure would be nice to have other countries and regions and friends to be able to help us when everyone shuts down borders more rapidly).  

The new norm is going to include a lot more isolated shutdowns and more robust medical checking and sharing of all of these things. It might take a few years to develop but a whole new infrastructure will be created to try and more greatly reduce the risk of global mass pandemic (although we all know you can never stop it).

The problem in all of this is, our politicians don't work together. What we really need is a mass exodus of the extremist on both sides and a huge shift to the middle (and I doubt that happens anytime soon)...which means we'll have continued flat out obstructionism on both sides (What Dems want....Repubs will find every way to road block and vice versa).    

That middle paragraph is unlikely to happen if Trump retains office...in fact, quite the opposite.

As long as the primary system appeals to or attracts only the most committed party members on both sides, you’re going to see extremism prevail.   Look at AOC knocking out Crowley with something like 7,000 votes.

The middle has to become more active, and they need to change their messaging to a more hopeful/aspirational tone in order to motivate people to get involved.  No more of the same establishment, status quo, neo-liberal bromides.

You can be pragmatic and realistic while developing new ideas.  Look at Yang’s campaign, for example.

 

Even if Biden wins, there’s going to be a huge battle over the future direction of the WHO...either you reform it, or start an altogether different entity.   Even then, let’s say you exclude Russia, Iran and China but somehow manage to get India, Mexico, Brazil, Europe, Australia, Japan and South Korea mostly on board...what does that actually accomplish?  What about the Middle East and Africa?   We talk about political polarization in the US, but Europe is going to have to make a choice at some point between an American and Chinese-led version of the future in terms of technology, the use of surveillance, press and internet freedoms, shared scientific research and a whole range of things that are unresolved.  
 

Who currently possesses the credibility to get that done and bring the entire world together in one common cause?  Europe is weakened...the Chinese economy is in shambles and America has to sort its own problems out first.

Edited April 10, 2020 by caulfield12

[Texsox]

ChiSoxFn

Thank you for the thoughts. I'm guilty here of not looking how this money would fit into my overall strategy. These funds came into being for me because I could literally set them up on my phone with a couple clicks and basically thought of them as a savings+ not really an investment. Or to put it another way, the money sat between my "active investments" and my savings account. I never "worked" at these other than sweeping my checking account every couple months into the funds. 

As a teacher my 401k is actually a 403(b) but works about the same. So I have a interesting mix at retirement that will "fight" each other. I am fully in SS. Texas has a defined pension plan (TRS), and I have a 403(b). Of course there will also be savings and investments. I said earlier they fight each other. My SS is reduced partly for each dollar I receive through TRS. Every year or so a couple Dem members of congress will propose eliminating the "windfall" provision but it never comes to a vote. 

Weird retirement planning thought for the twenty somethings around here. Of all the things I spent discretionary monies on in my twenties and thirties when money towards retirement will grow the most, (vacations, memberships, hobbies) I wish I had purchased two less cars. I bought seven new cars in that time period. It would have meant hanging onto each car maybe four to six months longer. That $30,000 or so would be worth over $250,000 at retirement. That's working an extra couple years. 

Retirement is a financial condition -- NOT AN AGE

I have that sign in my classroom. It may help a kid someday, long after I'm gone. 

[caulfield12]

Trump administration move could add 'significant risks' to retirement accounts

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-administration-move-could-add-significant-risks-to-retirement-accounts-115443201.html

[Chisoxfn]

2 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Trump administration move could add 'significant risks' to retirement accounts

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-administration-move-could-add-significant-risks-to-retirement-accounts-115443201.html

Kind of a loaded headline. 

[Jerksticks]

8 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

Kind of a loaded headline. 

Lol right?  
 

They found a way to say “Trump will steal your retirement and leave you penniless

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...if you make bad financial decisions, that is.”

[caulfield12]

If they left “Trump administration” out of the headline, it probably would have generated negligible page views, except for those in the financial planning and investments field.

All about the clicks.

That said, who exactly should we say is responsible?  

[Chisoxfn]

9 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

If they left “Trump administration” out of the headline, it probably would have generated negligible page views, except for those in the financial planning and investments field.

All about the clicks.

That said, who exactly should we say is responsible?  

Someone else could have said creates new opportunities for investors...with some caveat around risks.  The entire headline has a completely slanted negative tone and is utter garbage.  There are a lot of investments in a 401K portfolio that can carry similar risks to that of a PE type of investment.  We can go ahead and have a conversation as to what makes sense for individual investors (more flexibility vs. less) but that headline is flat out fishing for clicks and bad journalism.