Enjoy a lump of KOL

[tadamsmar]

The coal index fund (KOL) is well into bear territory, looks like a good buy.

[HEDGEFUNDIE]

No thanks, I prefer getting a TAN.

[hudson]

The coal index fund (KOL) is well into bear territory, looks like a good buy.

Expense ratio .6

https://www.vaneck.com/etf/equity/kol/overview/

[hudson]

No thanks, I prefer getting a TAN.

Ha...it's solar...expense ratio .65

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TAN?ltr=1

[venkman]

There was probably a point where the buggy whip manufacturers looked pretty cheap, too...

[CaliJim]

The coal index fund (KOL) is well into bear territory, looks like a good buy.

OMG

No it does not. Never woukd a sector fund appear in a boglehead port

[nisiprius]

Is tadamsmar joking?

The coal index fund (KOL) is well into bear territory, looks like a good buy.

OMG No it does not. Never woukd a sector fund appear in a boglehead port

According to the Wikipedia article on GICS classification standard:

Coal is not even a "sector." Nor is it an "industry group" or an "industry." It is one of 157 "sub-industries" and thus is very roughly one-tenth as big and diversified as one of the 11 "sectors."

It is the "coal & consumable fuels" sub-industry, which is within the "oil, gas, & consumable fuels" industry, which is within the "energy" industry group and sector.

I find that KOL contains 26 stocks:



Morningstar says that it has only $54 million in assets. The ETF mavens may have an opinion on whether that's a reasonable size or not.

$10,000 at inception would have reached a low of about $1,500 in 2016. After you've gotten that low, it is impressive to make it back to half of your original investment... I guess.

The Vanguard Energy ETF (orange) looks positively tame by comparison. You could have potentially made or lost a lot more money a lot more quickly in KOL than in VDE. "For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they would like," I guess.

Source

[CaliJim]

Nisi.... thank you for the education.



When I was about 20 or 21, I lost my first significant sum by investing in an active "Natural Resources" fund.... I was thinking "natural resources are finite. finite supply, unlimited demand. It's got to go UP!.

How wrong I was....

[nisiprius]

Nisi.... thank you for the education.



When I was about 20 or 21, I lost my first significant sum by investing in an active "Natural Resources" fund.... I was thinking "natural resources are finite. finite supply, unlimited demand. It's go to go UP!.

How wrong I was....

I educated myself. I got curious about what this KOL thing was.

[Jeff Albertson]

The NY Times charted the changes in how each US state generates electricity, from 2001 to 2017.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... state.html
US all states: coal 51% in 2001 & 30% in 2017, natural gas produces 32% in 2017
Nevada: coal 52% in 2001 & about 6% in 2017, natural gas produces 69% in 2017
Iowa: coal 85% in 2001 & about 44% in 2017, wind produces 27% in 2017
etc.

[Valuethinker]

The NY Times charted the changes in how each US state generates electricity, from 2001 to 2017.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... state.html
US all states: coal 51% in 2001 & 30% in 2017, natural gas produces 32% in 2017
Nevada: coal 52% in 2001 & about 6% in 2017, natural gas produces 69% in 2017
Iowa: coal 85% in 2001 & about 44% in 2017, wind produces 27% in 2017
etc.

The US now *exports* natural gas. An incredible turnaround in 20 years.

I am one of many who significantly underestimated the impact of fracking.

[tadamsmar]

Is tadamsmar joking?

I'll go with the consensus on that.

[CaliJim]

I agree with nisiprius.

I wanted coal, but I got a few good books to read instead.

merry christmas

[tadamsmar]

No thanks, I prefer getting a TAN.

TAN burned KOL today, up 4% vs 0.6 or something.

[HEDGEFUNDIE]

No thanks, I prefer getting a TAN.

TAN burned KOL today, up 4% vs 0.6 or something.

Always wear sunscreen.