Why not 100% PSLDX?

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
get_g0ing
Posts: 745
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:09 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by get_g0ing »

Wondering why there is no ETF version of PSLDX?

Also I don't suppose we can buy PSLDX this in M1, right?
User avatar
cos
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2019 7:34 pm
Location: Boston
Contact:

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by cos »

get_g0ing wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:31 am Wondering why there is no ETF version of PSLDX?

Also I don't suppose we can buy PSLDX this in M1, right?
NTSX is the closest you're going to get. It has its own thread over here: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=302218
GaryA505
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:59 pm
Location: New Mexico

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by GaryA505 »

vineviz wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:39 am
GaryA505 wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:41 am
vineviz wrote: Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:29 pm
Steve Reading wrote: Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:04 pm
GaryA505 wrote: Sun Jul 19, 2020 9:51 pm I have a small Roth that I will be using for the kids college expenses in about 6-10 years. Today I was toying with the idea of using 50/50 mix of PSLDX/CASH in this account. Crazy?
Why not just hold 50% S&P 500 and 50% of some investment-grade index bond fund? It should have basically the same risk and return but you get to save on the 0.59% management fee of PSLDX
Plus, doing it yourself would also allow you to construct a better diversified portfolio. E.g 50% VT and 50% ILTB
Maybe, but considering using 50% PSLDX and 50% SHV, and short-term treasuries don't have the interest rate of 10 year bonds.
If your anticipated expense is in 10 years, SHV creates more
interest rate risk for you than ILTB does because of the greater mismatch between the time horizon and the bond duration.

So SHV would earning a lower yield while crating more risk. I’m not sure that’s prudent. But another alternative would be iShares® iBonds® Dec 2029 Term Corporate ETF (IBDU).
6 to 10 years.
User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 8537
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by vineviz »

GaryA505 wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:14 am
6 to 10 years.
That’s what I thought you said, and it’s what I based my answer on. I’d probably prefer IBDU to ILTB, but either is probably preferred over SHV.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
get_g0ing
Posts: 745
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:09 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by get_g0ing »

cos wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:56 am
get_g0ing wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:31 am Wondering why there is no ETF version of PSLDX?

Also I don't suppose we can buy PSLDX this in M1, right?
NTSX is the closest you're going to get. It has its own thread over here: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=302218
Hi there,

From some of the discussions it sounds like the expected return for NTSX is actually lower than S&P 500
kevinf
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:35 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by kevinf »

No, the expected CAGR is higher due to reduced draw-down. It is possible for PSLDX and NTSX to under-perform a 100% S&P 500 fund long-term, but there are very few realistic scenarios that result in that happening.

If you buy equally into both NTSX and a S&P 500 fund with the same expense ratio, then NTSX will likely lag the S&P 500 fund slightly during steady market increases. When the market dips however, NTSX will start catching up due to the reduction of draw-down expected by the 60% bond weighting. Eventually, NTSX should be well ahead of your S&P 500 fund.

You can use portfolio visualizer to see how funds performed to date.

People have backtested further with simulated NTSX and PSLDX and it holds up.
GaryA505
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:59 pm
Location: New Mexico

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by GaryA505 »

kevinf wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 4:57 pm
If you buy equally into both NTSX and a S&P 500 fund with the same expense ratio, then NTSX will likely lag the S&P 500 fund slightly during steady market increases. When the market dips however, NTSX will start catching up due to the reduction of draw-down expected by the 60% bond weighting. Eventually, NTSX should be well ahead of your S&P 500 fund.
And what should we expect from PSLDX?
hdas
Posts: 1342
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 8:24 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by hdas »

--------
Last edited by hdas on Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
....
kevinf
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:35 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by kevinf »

GaryA505 wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 5:11 pm
kevinf wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 4:57 pm
If you buy equally into both NTSX and a S&P 500 fund with the same expense ratio, then NTSX will likely lag the S&P 500 fund slightly during steady market increases. When the market dips however, NTSX will start catching up due to the reduction of draw-down expected by the 60% bond weighting. Eventually, NTSX should be well ahead of your S&P 500 fund.
And what should we expect from PSLDX?
Given that it is a 100% S&P 500 fund with an addition of leveraged bonds, I'd expect it to perform as well or better during market rise. 8-)
GaryA505
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:59 pm
Location: New Mexico

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by GaryA505 »

kevinf wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:13 pm
GaryA505 wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 5:11 pm
kevinf wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 4:57 pm
If you buy equally into both NTSX and a S&P 500 fund with the same expense ratio, then NTSX will likely lag the S&P 500 fund slightly during steady market increases. When the market dips however, NTSX will start catching up due to the reduction of draw-down expected by the 60% bond weighting. Eventually, NTSX should be well ahead of your S&P 500 fund.
And what should we expect from PSLDX?
Given that it is a 100% S&P 500 fund with an addition of leveraged bonds, I'd expect it to perform as well or better during market rise. 8-)
As we all know, there's no free lunch. What's the downside?
kevinf
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:35 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by kevinf »

Lots of prior posts here for you to read all about PSLDX.

Here's a link to page 1: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=305950
InvestInPasta
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:42 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by InvestInPasta »

GaryA505 wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:27 pmAs we all know, there's no free lunch. What's the downside?
I asked the same question.
As someone explained, this fund would be a disaster if both stocks and safe bonds fell because he is leveraged on both.
But it's hard to see how they could fall together, maybe with a rising inflation. :twisted:
When I study English I am lazier than my portfolio. Feel free to fix my english and investing mistakes.
rascott
Posts: 2407
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:53 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by rascott »

GaryA505 wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:27 pm
kevinf wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:13 pm
GaryA505 wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 5:11 pm
kevinf wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 4:57 pm
If you buy equally into both NTSX and a S&P 500 fund with the same expense ratio, then NTSX will likely lag the S&P 500 fund slightly during steady market increases. When the market dips however, NTSX will start catching up due to the reduction of draw-down expected by the 60% bond weighting. Eventually, NTSX should be well ahead of your S&P 500 fund.
And what should we expect from PSLDX?
Given that it is a 100% S&P 500 fund with an addition of leveraged bonds, I'd expect it to perform as well or better during market rise. 8-)
As we all know, there's no free lunch. What's the downside?

Downside comes in when/if there are rising long- term rate trends.... it could well trail the SP500 during such an environment for years.

This fund has only existed during a period of falling long term rates.
User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 8537
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by vineviz »

InvestInPasta wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:35 am
GaryA505 wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:27 pmAs we all know, there's no free lunch. What's the downside?
I asked the same question.
As someone explained, this fund would be a disaster if both stocks and safe bonds fell because he is leveraged on both.
But it's hard to see how they could fall together, maybe with a rising inflation. :twisted:
There have been long periods of market conditions where the returns of a strategy like that of PSLDX would likely have barely matched a simple Total Stock Market fund (e.g. 1946 through 1964) or dramatically underperformed it (e.g. 1965 through 1981).

I backtested a rough approximation of PSLDX, and here's what the journey would have looked like from 1963 through 1992 compared to a simple investment in the S&P 500. Not pretty.

Image
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
User avatar
Ramjet
Posts: 645
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:45 am
Location: Cleveland

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by Ramjet »

vineviz wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:27 am
InvestInPasta wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:35 am
GaryA505 wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:27 pmAs we all know, there's no free lunch. What's the downside?
I asked the same question.
As someone explained, this fund would be a disaster if both stocks and safe bonds fell because he is leveraged on both.
But it's hard to see how they could fall together, maybe with a rising inflation. :twisted:
There have been long periods of market conditions where the returns of a strategy like that of PSLDX would likely have barely matched a simple Total Stock Market fund (e.g. 1946 through 1964) or dramatically underperformed it (e.g. 1965 through 1981).

I backtested a rough approximation of PSLDX, and here's what the journey would have looked like from 1963 through 1992 compared to a simple investment in the S&P 500. Not pretty.

Image
Obviously nobody can predict the future, but do you have any thoughts on how you think PSLDX will hold up in the years to come
User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 8537
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by vineviz »

Ramjet wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:39 am
Obviously nobody can predict the future, but do you have any thoughts on how you think PSLDX will hold up in the years to come
It really depends on how the level and shape of the yield curve changes, but if we assume that those remain more-or-less where there are now then I'd expect a fund like PSLDX to outperform an S&P 500 fund by maybe 50-100 bps annually. And it wouldn't take much "bad luck" to drop that down to nothing for a 5-10 years.

Definitely a much more muted performance than the past decade has given us.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
jibantik
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:05 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by jibantik »

vineviz wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 8:46 am
Ramjet wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:39 am
Obviously nobody can predict the future, but do you have any thoughts on how you think PSLDX will hold up in the years to come
It really depends on how the level and shape of the yield curve changes, but if we assume that those remain more-or-less where there are now then I'd expect a fund like PSLDX to outperform an S&P 500 fund by maybe 50-100 bps annually. And it wouldn't take much "bad luck" to drop that down to nothing for a 5-10 years.

Definitely a much more muted performance than the past decade has given us.
RIP performance chasers :P
GaryA505
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:59 pm
Location: New Mexico

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by GaryA505 »

What about using PSLDX in a sort of "Larry Portfolio"?

The original LP was something like SCV + Treasuries, and the idea was to use something with more potential gain (and the higher risk that goes with that) on the equity side, but in a smaller percentage (maybe 30/70 or 40/60). So could you use PSLDX + Treasuries instead? Wouldn't PSLDX fit the role of that "higher potential gain with higher volatility" side?

I'm just thinking out loud here.
GaryA505
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:59 pm
Location: New Mexico

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by GaryA505 »

Last edited by GaryA505 on Wed Jul 22, 2020 12:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
abuss368
Posts: 23045
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!
Contact:

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by abuss368 »

TeeDee wrote: Wed Mar 04, 2020 10:15 pm I’m thinking of going 100% PSLDX (PIMCO StocksPLUS Long Duration Fund) for my entire portfolio. I like the fact that I get both stocks and bonds in one handy package and I think of it as the ultimate balanced portfolio. I feel like I understand both the risks and how the fund works. I would love to get feedback from the forum before going ahead with such a step.

Thanks
Have you considered a lower cost or index fund instead? Balanced funds often provide an excellent one fund solution. There are challenges however. Often either stocks or bonds are not in a preferred account. A one fund solution can not be rebalanced or increase the bond portion over time should your asset allocation need to change. Often individual index funds may have lower costs.
John C. Bogle: “Simplicity is the master key to financial success."
User avatar
Ramjet
Posts: 645
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:45 am
Location: Cleveland

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by Ramjet »

GaryA505 wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 12:01 pm What about using PSLDX in a sort of "Larry Portfolio"?

The original LP was something like SCV + Treasuries, and the idea was to use something with more potential gain (and the higher risk that goes with that) on the equity side, but in a smaller percentage (maybe 30/70 or 40/60). So could you use PSLDX + Treasuries instead? Wouldn't PSLDX fit the role of that "higher potential gain with higher volatility" side?

I'm just thinking out loud here.
If rates go up you would be hurt worse than if you held the standard Larry Portfolio or PSLDX in isolation
GaryA505
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:59 pm
Location: New Mexico

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by GaryA505 »

Ramjet wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 1:01 pm
GaryA505 wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 12:01 pm What about using PSLDX in a sort of "Larry Portfolio"?

The original LP was something like SCV + Treasuries, and the idea was to use something with more potential gain (and the higher risk that goes with that) on the equity side, but in a smaller percentage (maybe 30/70 or 40/60). So could you use PSLDX + Treasuries instead? Wouldn't PSLDX fit the role of that "higher potential gain with higher volatility" side?

I'm just thinking out loud here.
If rates go up you would be hurt worse than if you held the standard Larry Portfolio or PSLDX in isolation
In the case of rising rates, for the "standard" LP I can agree (assuming a LP of SCV/STT), but it seems like 100% PSLDX would be hurt more than 40/60 PSLDX/STT.
jarjarM
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:21 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by jarjarM »

vineviz wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:27 am
InvestInPasta wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:35 am
GaryA505 wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:27 pmAs we all know, there's no free lunch. What's the downside?
I asked the same question.
As someone explained, this fund would be a disaster if both stocks and safe bonds fell because he is leveraged on both.
But it's hard to see how they could fall together, maybe with a rising inflation. :twisted:
There have been long periods of market conditions where the returns of a strategy like that of PSLDX would likely have barely matched a simple Total Stock Market fund (e.g. 1946 through 1964) or dramatically underperformed it (e.g. 1965 through 1981).

I backtested a rough approximation of PSLDX, and here's what the journey would have looked like from 1963 through 1992 compared to a simple investment in the S&P 500. Not pretty.

Image
Vineviz, curious, how are you modeling PSLDX? Would like to run some scenarios myself. Thanks!

If we go thru a bond bear market like the 60s - early 80s, I expect any funds with leverage on the mid-long term bond side to decimated.
kevinf
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:35 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by kevinf »

jarjarM wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 8:05 pm
vineviz wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:27 am
InvestInPasta wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:35 am
GaryA505 wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 6:27 pmAs we all know, there's no free lunch. What's the downside?
I asked the same question.
As someone explained, this fund would be a disaster if both stocks and safe bonds fell because he is leveraged on both.
But it's hard to see how they could fall together, maybe with a rising inflation. :twisted:
There have been long periods of market conditions where the returns of a strategy like that of PSLDX would likely have barely matched a simple Total Stock Market fund (e.g. 1946 through 1964) or dramatically underperformed it (e.g. 1965 through 1981).

I backtested a rough approximation of PSLDX, and here's what the journey would have looked like from 1963 through 1992 compared to a simple investment in the S&P 500. Not pretty.

Image
Vineviz, curious, how are you modeling PSLDX? Would like to run some scenarios myself. Thanks!

If we go thru a bond bear market like the 60s - early 80s, I expect any funds with leverage on the mid-long term bond side to decimated.
PSLDX (approx) looks to be short by about $15,000 after a 28 year period versus the S&P 500 in that scenario (with the worst year at about $40,000 perhaps). That's slightly underwhelming rather than disastrous, though I'd certainly prefer the higher return :p
User avatar
UpsetRaptor
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 5:15 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by UpsetRaptor »

vineviz wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:27 am
There have been long periods of market conditions where the returns of a strategy like that of PSLDX would likely have barely matched a simple Total Stock Market fund (e.g. 1946 through 1964) or dramatically underperformed it (e.g. 1965 through 1981).

I backtested a rough approximation of PSLDX, and here's what the journey would have looked like from 1963 through 1992 compared to a simple investment in the S&P 500. Not pretty.

Image
Wouldn't a better comparison be a 50:50 S&P500:Long-term-bond benchmark? If you're comparing a 100:100 fund to a 100:0 S&P500 benchmark, you're really just pointing out periods where bonds didn't do well. Which could happen, given current yields, but just saying.
ChrisBenn
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 7:56 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by ChrisBenn »

UpsetRaptor wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:25 am
vineviz wrote: Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:27 am
There have been long periods of market conditions where the returns of a strategy like that of PSLDX would likely have barely matched a simple Total Stock Market fund (e.g. 1946 through 1964) or dramatically underperformed it (e.g. 1965 through 1981).

I backtested a rough approximation of PSLDX, and here's what the journey would have looked like from 1963 through 1992 compared to a simple investment in the S&P 500. Not pretty.

Image
Wouldn't a better comparison be a 50:50 S&P500:Long-term-bond benchmark? If you're comparing a 100:100 fund to a 100:0 S&P500 benchmark, you're really just pointing out periods where bonds didn't do well. Which could happen, given current yields, but just saying.
I think 100:0 is the correct choice here (for this thread). Consider how people are using PSLDX (or looking to use it); it's typically as an equity replacement. I don't see anyone in the thread considering a 50:50 vs PSLDX.

Now to your point a 100:100 - libor is a better comparison; it is their official benchmark after all. Something like that is probably how the data was simmed. But unless you are looking at leverage on margin that isn't a helpful comparison for people considering this in their portfolio. PIMCO does market it as "StockPLUS".

I guess st dev could also be reported for the sim data. It would be left to the reader to determine what that (presumed) lower volatility was worth.
GaryA505
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:59 pm
Location: New Mexico

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by GaryA505 »

I for one would like to see the simulation of PSLDX vs 50:50. Just for the heck of it.
Ciel
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:14 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by Ciel »

I like the idea of this fund and it seems well executed. Ultimately, I decided it's not for me.

I'm curious though, for those who have a significant % of assets in this fund, what is your exit strategy?
jarjarM
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:21 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by jarjarM »

Ciel wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 3:39 pm I like the idea of this fund and it seems well executed. Ultimately, I decided it's not for me.

I'm curious though, for those who have a significant % of assets in this fund, what is your exit strategy?
When mid-long term bond return starting to crack under the pressure of inflation expectation and the fed decided to sit on the sideline. :oops: So far either is happening. Okay inflation expectation may have tick up a bit judging by the gold rush.
JamesDean44
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:36 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by JamesDean44 »

jarjarM wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 3:50 pm
Ciel wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 3:39 pm I like the idea of this fund and it seems well executed. Ultimately, I decided it's not for me.

I'm curious though, for those who have a significant % of assets in this fund, what is your exit strategy?
When mid-long term bond return starting to crack under the pressure of inflation expectation and the fed decided to sit on the sideline. :oops: So far either is happening. Okay inflation expectation may have tick up a bit judging by the gold rush.
I plan to stay the course and rebalance as needed. I.e. no exit strategy.
codoriti
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2020 2:00 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by codoriti »

Are the bond yields going up what's slowing us down this week?
User avatar
jason2459
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed May 06, 2020 7:59 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by jason2459 »

codoriti wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:58 pm Are the bond yields going up what's slowing us down this week?
Inflation did tick up slightly higher then expected last month and did tick up slightly the longer term yields.
"In the short run, the stock market is a voting machine; in the long run, it is a weighing machine" ~Benjamin Graham
guyinlaw
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:54 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by guyinlaw »

jason2459 wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:59 pm
codoriti wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:58 pm Are the bond yields going up what's slowing us down this week?
Inflation did tick up slightly higher then expected last month and did tick up slightly the longer term yields.
This week was record treasury sale, increased rates attracted more buyers . IMO rates will drop again as not much has changed. Fed has promised to keep rates low for many years and continues to buy corporate debt and mortgages.
Time is your friend; impulse is your enemy. - John C. Bogle
User avatar
jason2459
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed May 06, 2020 7:59 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by jason2459 »

guyinlaw wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2020 9:24 am
jason2459 wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:59 pm
codoriti wrote: Thu Aug 13, 2020 9:58 pm Are the bond yields going up what's slowing us down this week?
Inflation did tick up slightly higher then expected last month and did tick up slightly the longer term yields.
This week was record treasury sale, increased rates attracted more buyers . IMO rates will drop again as not much has changed. Fed has promised to keep rates low for many years and continues to buy corporate debt and mortgages.

They are slightly dropping today.
"In the short run, the stock market is a voting machine; in the long run, it is a weighing machine" ~Benjamin Graham
User avatar
Ramjet
Posts: 645
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:45 am
Location: Cleveland

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by Ramjet »

Ciel wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 3:39 pm I'm curious though, for those who have a significant % of assets in this fund, what is your exit strategy?
Don't have an exit strategy and no plans to exit in the near term. If rates ticked up at a controlled/normal rate and then leveled out, this may set up better long term returns IMO (I don't think uncontrolled inflation is likely). You will get paid at that higher rate or better yet, rates may start to drop again. If I happen to hold this fund for 15+ years I will sell it in portions and replace with TSM because retirement will be around the corner
DesertMan
Posts: 311
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:54 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by DesertMan »

Dumb question: does PIMCO or someone else offer something like PSLDX with less long bond exposure?
NMBob
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 8:13 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by NMBob »

pspax pimco stockplus fund

bond maturity -
Range 1-3 Years 11.41%
Range 3-5 Years 18.58%
Range 5-7 Years 9.52%
Range 7-10 Years 8.25%
Range 10-15 Years 3.58%
Range 15-20 Years 2.37%
Range 20-30 Years 16.02%
Range Over 30 Years 11.09%

pstic - stockplus short fund
Range 1-3 Years 9.10%
Range 3-5 Years 19.79%
Range 5-7 Years 6.75%
Range 7-10 Years 16.89%
Range 10-15 Years 8.88%
Range 15-20 Years 8.96%
Range 20-30 Years 11.17%
Range Over 30 Years 15.93%
Last edited by NMBob on Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
moptop
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon May 07, 2018 8:11 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by moptop »

NMBob wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:57 am pspax pimco stockplus fund

bond maturity -
Range 1-3 Years 11.41%
Range 3-5 Years 18.58%
Range 5-7 Years 9.52%
Range 7-10 Years 8.25%
Range 10-15 Years 3.58%
Range 15-20 Years 2.37%
Range 20-30 Years 16.02%
Range Over 30 Years 11.09%
doesn't look like that performs near as well for the last 10 years. I basically mirrors the market.
User avatar
randyharris
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2020 7:45 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by randyharris »

moptop wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:01 am
NMBob wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:57 am pspax pimco stockplus fund

bond maturity -
Range 1-3 Years 11.41%
Range 3-5 Years 18.58%
Range 5-7 Years 9.52%
Range 7-10 Years 8.25%
Range 10-15 Years 3.58%
Range 15-20 Years 2.37%
Range 20-30 Years 16.02%
Range Over 30 Years 11.09%
doesn't look like that performs near as well for the last 10 years. I basically mirrors the market.
Last 10 years of the market were unfriggin believably good.
moptop
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon May 07, 2018 8:11 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by moptop »

randyharris wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:07 am
moptop wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:01 am
NMBob wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:57 am pspax pimco stockplus fund

bond maturity -
Range 1-3 Years 11.41%
Range 3-5 Years 18.58%
Range 5-7 Years 9.52%
Range 7-10 Years 8.25%
Range 10-15 Years 3.58%
Range 15-20 Years 2.37%
Range 20-30 Years 16.02%
Range Over 30 Years 11.09%
doesn't look like that performs near as well for the last 10 years. I basically mirrors the market.
Last 10 years of the market were unfriggin believably good.
and PSLDX beat it by 327%
columbia
Posts: 3023
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:30 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by columbia »

What is the intended purpose of PSPAX vs. s&p 500?
NMBob
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 8:13 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by NMBob »

columbia
Posts: 3023
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:30 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by columbia »

That obviously hasn't worked out (aside from collecting high fees).
guyinlaw
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:54 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by guyinlaw »

columbia wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:34 am That obviously hasn't worked out (aside from collecting high fees).
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... on2_2=100

Since 2007

Code: Select all

Portfolio	Start 	End         	CAGR	
PSLDX   	$10,000	$70,600 	16.34% 	
SPY	        $10,000	$28,901 	8.56% 	
60-40    	$10,000	$24,784 	7.28% 	
Last edited by guyinlaw on Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Time is your friend; impulse is your enemy. - John C. Bogle
RocketShipTech
Posts: 679
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2020 10:08 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by RocketShipTech »

columbia wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:34 am That obviously hasn't worked out (aside from collecting high fees).
The lowest fee class of the fund has worked out just fine:

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/fun ... mark=VFINX
columbia
Posts: 3023
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:30 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by columbia »

guyinlaw wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:43 am
columbia wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:34 am That obviously hasn't worked out (aside from collecting high fees).
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... on2_2=100

I'm referring to PSPAX.
columbia
Posts: 3023
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:30 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by columbia »

RocketShipTech wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:43 am
columbia wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:34 am That obviously hasn't worked out (aside from collecting high fees).
The lowest fee class of the fund has worked out just fine:

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/fun ... mark=VFINX
Yes, that goes back further.
guyinlaw
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:54 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by guyinlaw »

columbia wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:45 am
guyinlaw wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:43 am
columbia wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:34 am That obviously hasn't worked out (aside from collecting high fees).
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... on2_2=100

I'm referring to PSPAX.
PSPAX and PSLDX are very different..

PSPAX bonds have av duration of 0.61y, short term bonds are like holding cash. PSLDX bonds have av duration of 15.92y.
Time is your friend; impulse is your enemy. - John C. Bogle
DesertMan
Posts: 311
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:54 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by DesertMan »

guyinlaw wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:53 am
columbia wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:45 am
guyinlaw wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:43 am
columbia wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:34 am That obviously hasn't worked out (aside from collecting high fees).
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... on2_2=100

I'm referring to PSPAX.
PSPAX and PSLDX are very different..

PSPAX bonds have av duration of 0.61y, short term bonds are like holding cash. PSLDX bonds have av duration of 15.92y.
Too bad they don't have an intermediate duration version, it seems. Seeing as yields are so low, I don't think PSLDX will be able to continue to deliver monster outperformance.
InvestInPasta
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:42 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by InvestInPasta »


Jason Zweig about ProShares UltraPro QQQ


Few funds in history can rival the returns of ProShares UltraPro QQQ, a $7 billion exchange-traded fund that seeks to triple the daily performance of the Nasdaq 100 index.
When I study English I am lazier than my portfolio. Feel free to fix my english and investing mistakes.
Post Reply