Page 12 of 15

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2020 12:24 am
by rchmx1
guyinlaw wrote: Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:37 pm Any idea how much is the fees to buy PSLDX at Interactive Brokers?
I'm not sure how to check that without actually having enough money available to preview a purchase, but it shows a $25k minimum initial investment, if that matters for your situation.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:27 am
by kim.gold
guyinlaw wrote: Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:37 pm Any idea how much is the fees to buy PSLDX at Interactive Brokers?
"Lesser of 3% * Trade Value or USD 14.95, per Transaction" for US residents.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:00 pm
by nehawk87
Anyone else think it feels odd to invest $100K into PSLDX and then realize you own .01% of the entire fund? Just surprised this fund is still <$1B assets under management.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:08 pm
by Tingting1013
nehawk87 wrote: Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:00 pm Anyone else think it feels odd to invest $100K into PSLDX and then realize you own .01% of the entire fund? Just surprised this fund is still <$1B assets under management.
If it makes you feel better you own a much smaller slice of the S&P through this fund.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:35 pm
by firebirdparts
nehawk87 wrote: Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:00 pm Anyone else think it feels odd to invest $100K into PSLDX and then realize you own .01% of the entire fund? Just surprised this fund is still <$1B assets under management.
Considering the past performance I think it's odd.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:47 pm
by aqan
firebirdparts wrote: Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:35 pm
nehawk87 wrote: Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:00 pm Anyone else think it feels odd to invest $100K into PSLDX and then realize you own .01% of the entire fund? Just surprised this fund is still <$1B assets under management.
Considering the past performance I think it's odd.
Does it pay out dividends? Maybe that’s causing the outflow.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:56 pm
by rchmx1
aqan wrote: Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:47 pm Does it pay out dividends? Maybe that’s causing the outflow.
Quarterly dividends, with the last one on 9/10 being 3.37%. It's subpage on Schwab lists it as having a 6.79% Distribution Yield.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 7:57 am
by firebirdparts
It's not as easy to buy as a lot of things, as we've seen in this thread, and that's probably the main issue. I don't have any information about why (for example) Fidelity is trying to restrict it. Why would they do that?

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:07 am
by nehawk87
rchmx1 wrote: Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:56 pm
aqan wrote: Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:47 pm Does it pay out dividends? Maybe that’s causing the outflow.
Quarterly dividends, with the last one on 9/10 being 3.37%. It's subpage on Schwab lists it as having a 6.79% Distribution Yield.
I assume most investors reinvest the dividends which would have less of an impact on AUM. Who knows. Regardless, I like this fund and am investing about 1/3 of my investable assets into it.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:26 pm
by gabbar
Just trying to understand the composition of this fund. I tried reading their fact-sheet, but I couldn't find details on how much leverage this fund takes on. I am assuming the 2.55x leverage number quoted earlier in the thread is correct. Looks like the fund is down 2.26% today (Sept 23).

Given that the S&P 500 is down 2.37%, corporate bonds are down 1% and long-term treasuries are also down today, I am not sure how this fund outperformed the S&P today. This fund should have been down more than 2.8%. Either the actively managed bond portfolio significantly outperformed the respective indexes (for today) or I am missing something.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:50 pm
by corp_sharecropper
gabbar wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:26 pm Just trying to understand the composition of this fund. I tried reading their fact-sheet, but I couldn't find details on how much leverage this fund takes on. I am assuming the 2.55x leverage number quoted earlier in the thread is correct. Looks like the fund is down 2.26% today (Sept 23).

Given that the S&P 500 is down 2.37%, corporate bonds are down 1% and long-term treasuries are also down today, I am not sure how this fund outperformed the S&P today. This fund should have been down more than 2.8%. Either the actively managed bond portfolio significantly outperformed the respective indexes (for today) or I am missing something.
It's not all long term treasuries and us corporate bonds. The holdings are shown in a pdf on the fund website. I know there's non-US sovereign debt in there, among others. Also, quality active management actually can beat passive much more easily in the bond universe than in us equities (PIMCO is widely considered to be the cream of the crop in bond trading), the AGG index is really not a perfect bellwether for the investible bond universe the way S&P500 is for say US equities, there are so many bonds out there that trading is quite thin on pretty much everything other than well known corporates/us-t/a few other sovereigns that the valuation of them isn't as easy as a simple mark to market would be.

ETA: The long bond did in fact end in the green today also.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2020 7:06 pm
by rchmx1
Also, one day is just noise. There have also been days in the last few months since I've been in the fund where PSLDX was down a bit more than I would have expected given that day's S&P500 and bond performance.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:51 am
by corp_sharecropper
rchmx1 wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 7:06 pm Also, one day is just noise. There have also been days in the last few months since I've been in the fund where PSLDX was down a bit more than I would have expected given that day's S&P500 and bond performance.
Wholeheartedly agree about daily evaluation being a myopic vantage point. And to add on to your second point, correlations are properly expressed with a unit of time (eg. Monthly correlation) but often times people just are a bit lazy in casual talk and don't mention the time interval of the "correlation" numbers being discussed. Sometimes this leads others to form an unrealistic expectation of it (eg. expecting LTT to be nearly perfectly inverse equities on an hour by hour, day to day, etc basis).

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:22 pm
by firebirdparts
gabbar wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:26 pm Just trying to understand the composition of this fund. I tried reading their fact-sheet, but I couldn't find details on how much leverage this fund takes on. I am assuming the 2.55x leverage number quoted earlier in the thread is correct. Looks like the fund is down 2.26% today (Sept 23).

Given that the S&P 500 is down 2.37%, corporate bonds are down 1% and long-term treasuries are also down today, I am not sure how this fund outperformed the S&P today. This fund should have been down more than 2.8%. Either the actively managed bond portfolio significantly outperformed the respective indexes (for today) or I am missing something.
The bond portfolio is actively managed and quite complex. They are always very late in getting a price out. I'm sure even at 8 pm they probably still have some stale bond prices in there, but I am just making that up.

Even if you read the prospectus, it's not that easy to figure out the amount of leverage. They use return contracts on the S&P, and so some of the time these contracts create an obligation and have negative unrealized value.

If you look at what they're trying to track, it's much simpler, so I go by that. It tracks pretty closely.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:52 pm
by finite_difference
Bogle said leverage was OK if you have someone to bail you out. Who exactly is bailing you out with this fund?

The costs of borrowing right now are presumably very low. What happens if the cost of borrowing goes up or can’t beat the return of bonds?

Didn’t we have a liquidity crisis earlier this year on municipal bonds? Investors were using leverage to buy munis and had to dump them at discount?

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:53 pm
by finite_difference
firebirdparts wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:22 pm
gabbar wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:26 pm Just trying to understand the composition of this fund. I tried reading their fact-sheet, but I couldn't find details on how much leverage this fund takes on. I am assuming the 2.55x leverage number quoted earlier in the thread is correct. Looks like the fund is down 2.26% today (Sept 23).

Given that the S&P 500 is down 2.37%, corporate bonds are down 1% and long-term treasuries are also down today, I am not sure how this fund outperformed the S&P today. This fund should have been down more than 2.8%. Either the actively managed bond portfolio significantly outperformed the respective indexes (for today) or I am missing something.
The bond portfolio is actively managed and quite complex. They are always very late in getting a price out. I'm sure even at 8 pm they probably still have some stale bond prices in there, but I am just making that up.

Even if you read the prospectus, it's not that easy to figure out the amount of leverage. They use return contracts on the S&P, and so some of the time these contracts create an obligation and have negative unrealized value.

If you look at what they're trying to track, it's much simpler, so I go by that. It tracks pretty closely.
I thought the leverage was used to buy bonds and not stocks?

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 12:27 am
by Tingting1013
finite_difference wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:53 pm
firebirdparts wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:22 pm
gabbar wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:26 pm Just trying to understand the composition of this fund. I tried reading their fact-sheet, but I couldn't find details on how much leverage this fund takes on. I am assuming the 2.55x leverage number quoted earlier in the thread is correct. Looks like the fund is down 2.26% today (Sept 23).

Given that the S&P 500 is down 2.37%, corporate bonds are down 1% and long-term treasuries are also down today, I am not sure how this fund outperformed the S&P today. This fund should have been down more than 2.8%. Either the actively managed bond portfolio significantly outperformed the respective indexes (for today) or I am missing something.
The bond portfolio is actively managed and quite complex. They are always very late in getting a price out. I'm sure even at 8 pm they probably still have some stale bond prices in there, but I am just making that up.

Even if you read the prospectus, it's not that easy to figure out the amount of leverage. They use return contracts on the S&P, and so some of the time these contracts create an obligation and have negative unrealized value.

If you look at what they're trying to track, it's much simpler, so I go by that. It tracks pretty closely.
I thought the leverage was used to buy bonds and not stocks?
It’s the other way around.

The fund gets its S&P exposure through Total Return Swaps - it receives the S&P total return and pays out 3-month LIBOR plus a spread.

The bonds are held on the balance sheet.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:53 am
by manlymatt83
Does this fund lean closer to a 90%/10% VT/BNDW portfolio, or a 55%/45% UPRO/TMF? Trying to decide if this is a happy medium between choosing to partake (or not partake) in UPRO/TMF.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:31 am
by rchmx1
manlymatt83 wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:53 am Does this fund lean closer to a 90%/10% VT/BNDW portfolio, or a 55%/45% UPRO/TMF? Trying to decide if this is a happy medium between choosing to partake (or not partake) in UPRO/TMF.
For AA considerations most people seem to treat this as 100% S&P500, but since this fund uses leverage I feel like it makes sense to view it as a way to add some leverage to your portfolio without going quite so far as the 3x the hedgefundie strategy would entail.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:48 am
by finite_difference
Tingting1013 wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 12:27 am
finite_difference wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:53 pm
firebirdparts wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:22 pm
gabbar wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:26 pm Just trying to understand the composition of this fund. I tried reading their fact-sheet, but I couldn't find details on how much leverage this fund takes on. I am assuming the 2.55x leverage number quoted earlier in the thread is correct. Looks like the fund is down 2.26% today (Sept 23).

Given that the S&P 500 is down 2.37%, corporate bonds are down 1% and long-term treasuries are also down today, I am not sure how this fund outperformed the S&P today. This fund should have been down more than 2.8%. Either the actively managed bond portfolio significantly outperformed the respective indexes (for today) or I am missing something.
The bond portfolio is actively managed and quite complex. They are always very late in getting a price out. I'm sure even at 8 pm they probably still have some stale bond prices in there, but I am just making that up.

Even if you read the prospectus, it's not that easy to figure out the amount of leverage. They use return contracts on the S&P, and so some of the time these contracts create an obligation and have negative unrealized value.

If you look at what they're trying to track, it's much simpler, so I go by that. It tracks pretty closely.
I thought the leverage was used to buy bonds and not stocks?
It’s the other way around.

The fund gets its S&P exposure through Total Return Swaps - it receives the S&P total return and pays out 3-month LIBOR plus a spread.

The bonds are held on the balance sheet.
Thanks for the clarification. There are some misleading posts in this thread.

What did Jack Bogle think about leverage? Did he use it personally? His comment about leverage being OK if you have someone who can bail you out at the bottom implies having access to a large cash pile, which further (to me) implies you’d be better off just going 100% stocks with everything and not having a huge cash pile.

Are these types of funds essentially taking full advantage of tax-advantaged accounts to do something magical, or wouldn’t you just be better off going 100% stocks for everything?

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:01 am
by manlymatt83
rchmx1 wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:31 am
manlymatt83 wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:53 am Does this fund lean closer to a 90%/10% VT/BNDW portfolio, or a 55%/45% UPRO/TMF? Trying to decide if this is a happy medium between choosing to partake (or not partake) in UPRO/TMF.
For AA considerations most people seem to treat this as 100% S&P500, but since this fund uses leverage I feel like it makes sense to view it as a way to add some leverage to your portfolio without going quite so far as the 3x the hedgefundie strategy would entail.
In my spreadsheet I only have “TSM” and “SCV” line items. Would this be a third line item, or can I just factor PSLDX as part of my TSM allocation @ 100% (alongside VT)

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:10 am
by snailderby
manlymatt83 wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:01 am
rchmx1 wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:31 am
manlymatt83 wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:53 am Does this fund lean closer to a 90%/10% VT/BNDW portfolio, or a 55%/45% UPRO/TMF? Trying to decide if this is a happy medium between choosing to partake (or not partake) in UPRO/TMF.
For AA considerations most people seem to treat this as 100% S&P500, but since this fund uses leverage I feel like it makes sense to view it as a way to add some leverage to your portfolio without going quite so far as the 3x the hedgefundie strategy would entail.
In my spreadsheet I only have “TSM” and “SCV” line items. Would this be a third line item, or can I just factor PSLDX as part of my TSM allocation @ 100% (alongside VT)
PSLDX is very different from VT. PSLDX does not hold any international stocks. It has significant bond exposure. And it's leveraged. I would not recommend using leveraged funds unless you're fully aware of --- and have carefully considered -- the risks of leverage.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:12 am
by manlymatt83
snailderby wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:10 am
manlymatt83 wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:01 am
rchmx1 wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:31 am
manlymatt83 wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:53 am Does this fund lean closer to a 90%/10% VT/BNDW portfolio, or a 55%/45% UPRO/TMF? Trying to decide if this is a happy medium between choosing to partake (or not partake) in UPRO/TMF.
For AA considerations most people seem to treat this as 100% S&P500, but since this fund uses leverage I feel like it makes sense to view it as a way to add some leverage to your portfolio without going quite so far as the 3x the hedgefundie strategy would entail.
In my spreadsheet I only have “TSM” and “SCV” line items. Would this be a third line item, or can I just factor PSLDX as part of my TSM allocation @ 100% (alongside VT)
PSLDX is very different from VT. PSLDX does not hold any international stocks. It has significant bond exposure. And it's leveraged. I would not recommend using leveraged funds unless you're fully aware of --- and have carefully considered -- the risks of leverage.
I’m educated on it and have held a fixed dollar amount of it for almost a year in my IRA. But recently made a spreadsheet to track asset allocation and trying to determine where to put PSLDX — if I can loop it into something else, or make it it’s own category with a fixed %. I do plan to add to it long term.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:28 am
by UpsetRaptor
manlymatt83 wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:12 am
I’m educated on it and have held a fixed dollar amount of it for almost a year in my IRA. But recently made a spreadsheet to track asset allocation and trying to determine where to put PSLDX — if I can loop it into something else, or make it it’s own category with a fixed %. I do plan to add to it long term.
If you're trying to work into your AA, most seem to proxy it as 100% US equities. It basically acts like that plus some extra juice from the bonds, which has been nice the past decade but will likely be a smaller amount moving forward.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:12 pm
by manlymatt83
UpsetRaptor wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:28 am
manlymatt83 wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:12 am
I’m educated on it and have held a fixed dollar amount of it for almost a year in my IRA. But recently made a spreadsheet to track asset allocation and trying to determine where to put PSLDX — if I can loop it into something else, or make it it’s own category with a fixed %. I do plan to add to it long term.
If you're trying to work into your AA, most seem to proxy it as 100% US equities. It basically acts like that plus some extra juice from the bonds, which has been nice the past decade but will likely be a smaller amount moving forward.
Awesome, thanks! So sounds like VT+PSLDX can easily be balanced with a little extra VXUS.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:26 pm
by Steve Reading
manlymatt83 wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:12 am
snailderby wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:10 am
manlymatt83 wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:01 am
rchmx1 wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:31 am
manlymatt83 wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:53 am Does this fund lean closer to a 90%/10% VT/BNDW portfolio, or a 55%/45% UPRO/TMF? Trying to decide if this is a happy medium between choosing to partake (or not partake) in UPRO/TMF.
For AA considerations most people seem to treat this as 100% S&P500, but since this fund uses leverage I feel like it makes sense to view it as a way to add some leverage to your portfolio without going quite so far as the 3x the hedgefundie strategy would entail.
In my spreadsheet I only have “TSM” and “SCV” line items. Would this be a third line item, or can I just factor PSLDX as part of my TSM allocation @ 100% (alongside VT)
PSLDX is very different from VT. PSLDX does not hold any international stocks. It has significant bond exposure. And it's leveraged. I would not recommend using leveraged funds unless you're fully aware of --- and have carefully considered -- the risks of leverage.
I’m educated on it and have held a fixed dollar amount of it for almost a year in my IRA. But recently made a spreadsheet to track asset allocation and trying to determine where to put PSLDX — if I can loop it into something else, or make it it’s own category with a fixed %. I do plan to add to it long term.
I don’t know the structure of your spreadsheet but can’t you count it as what it is (100% stocks, 100% bonds, -100% cash)?

Like if you invested in, I don’t know, Wellesley, or some other balanced fund, you’d do something similar

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:34 pm
by manlymatt83
Steve Reading wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:26 pm
manlymatt83 wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:12 am
snailderby wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:10 am
manlymatt83 wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:01 am
rchmx1 wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:31 am

For AA considerations most people seem to treat this as 100% S&P500, but since this fund uses leverage I feel like it makes sense to view it as a way to add some leverage to your portfolio without going quite so far as the 3x the hedgefundie strategy would entail.
In my spreadsheet I only have “TSM” and “SCV” line items. Would this be a third line item, or can I just factor PSLDX as part of my TSM allocation @ 100% (alongside VT)
PSLDX is very different from VT. PSLDX does not hold any international stocks. It has significant bond exposure. And it's leveraged. I would not recommend using leveraged funds unless you're fully aware of --- and have carefully considered -- the risks of leverage.
I’m educated on it and have held a fixed dollar amount of it for almost a year in my IRA. But recently made a spreadsheet to track asset allocation and trying to determine where to put PSLDX — if I can loop it into something else, or make it it’s own category with a fixed %. I do plan to add to it long term.
I don’t know the structure of your spreadsheet but can’t you count it as what it is (100% stocks, 100% bonds, -100% cash)?

Like if you invested in, I don’t know, Wellesley, or some other balanced fund, you’d do something similar
Oy. I guess I could. My spreadsheet isn’t that fine grained though.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:55 pm
by M1garand30064
nehawk87 wrote: Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:00 pm Anyone else think it feels odd to invest $100K into PSLDX and then realize you own .01% of the entire fund? Just surprised this fund is still <$1B assets under management.
The fund is incredibly tax inefficient and is really only suitable for tax advantaged accounts. I'd imagine that holds the fund back.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:00 pm
by Rlew
For anyone who invests in PSLDX, why don't you just use 50% SSO / 50% UBT instead? It seems that would provide the same basic exposure (100% S&P + 100% long bonds), sans the actively managed bond position/fees? Looks like the prior performance is in line (or better) based on returns/Sharpe/Sortino, and has the benefit that it can be more easily purchased at nay brokerage firm.

Seems to be a very interesting risk-parity approach, similar to HEDGEFUNDIE's adventure but with less leverage. I don't partake... But I find it dangerously fascinating.




https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion3_2=50

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:34 pm
by guyinlaw
--deleted--

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:49 pm
by Tingting1013
Rlew wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:00 pm For anyone who invests in PSLDX, why don't you just use 50% SSO / 50% UBT instead? It seems that would provide the same basic exposure (100% S&P + 100% long bonds), sans the actively managed bond position/fees? Looks like the prior performance is in line (or better) based on returns/Sharpe/Sortino, and has the benefit that it can be more easily purchased at nay brokerage firm.

Seems to be a very interesting risk-parity approach, similar to HEDGEFUNDIE's adventure but with less leverage. I don't partake... But I find it dangerously fascinating.




https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... tion3_2=50
The better DIY PSLDX would look something like this:

1. Open margin account at Interactive Brokers
2. Buy 50% VOO / 50% something else (perhaps VXUS)
3. Borrow another 50% on margin and buy BLV or ILTB
4. Rebalance between the VOO and BLV regularly

This has the advantage of further diversification with the “something else”, rock bottom borrow rates with IBKR, and much lower expense ratio.

Here is a comparison of two DIY PSLDX strategies during a 7 year period when interest rates stayed low and flat:

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/bac ... ion5_3=100

The ILTB one had lower volatility and slightly higher return but it also has higher tax cost.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2020 12:15 pm
by Ramjet
Wanted to share that Pimco has published the Q3 report for PSLDX

You can find it here under "documents" https://www.pimco.com/en-us/investments ... -fund/inst

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2020 6:58 pm
by firebirdparts
Rlew wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:00 pm For anyone who invests in PSLDX, why don't you just use 50% SSO / 50% UBT instead? It seems that would provide the same basic exposure (100% S&P + 100% long bonds), sans the actively managed bond position/fees? Looks like the prior performance is in line (or better) based on returns/Sharpe/Sortino, and has the benefit that it can be more easily purchased at nay brokerage firm.

Seems to be a very interesting risk-parity approach, similar to HEDGEFUNDIE's adventure but with less leverage. I don't partake... But I find it dangerously fascinating.
So my boring answer is that i am holding it a 401k. I can do none of the alternatives, no matter how good. I am not allowed any ETF at all.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2020 5:42 pm
by Register44
\ :arrow:

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2020 6:35 pm
by sonosoldi3112
NUSI looks interesting .. Nationwide Risk-Managed Income ETF

Looks great in portfolio VIS .. for what it is worth ..plus regular income each month .... but just a very short timeline to judge it. Worth dipping a toe into I think. Has out performed many of the favorites here in the downturn this year.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2020 7:31 pm
by Register44
:arrow:

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 6:31 pm
by Register44
:arrow:

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:42 pm
by firebirdparts
Looking at their prospectus earlier this year, their swap contracts created a liability when the market went down. They mark the value to market every day like any mutual fund. It was interesting to see the magnitude of these factors on March 31. They certainly would have to sell bonds to pay these liabilities if they come due, but it’s a very small fund. They wouldn’t create a ripple in the market by selling.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:21 pm
by 000
Register44 wrote: Sun Nov 22, 2020 6:31 pm Curious if anyone has analyzed or if its possible to determine the chance of PSLDX blowing up. Since they use derivatives then buy bonds with the left over I would think they would likely have to sell bonds first in a protracted sell off to build margin requirements for the derivatives. But maybe derivatives are not like futures?

So I'm guessing it would not go to zero or become terminated like we have seen 3x etfs, but it probably could have a serious drawdown.
IIRC this fund holds a lot of corporate bonds. The liquidity on those can be an issue especially during selloffs. Which means this fund could be worse than the leveraged approaches using just treasuries.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2020 4:33 pm
by Ramjet
Saw an article that LIBOR is going away after 2021 and the U.S. will likely move to using the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR). Does this impact PSLDX negatively or positively in any way or is it likely neutral?

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2020 7:41 pm
by 000
Ramjet wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 4:33 pm Saw an article that LIBOR is going away after 2021 and the U.S. will likely move to using the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR). Does this impact PSLDX negatively or positively in any way or is it likely neutral?
Does PSLDX have a lot of floating rate bonds?

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:26 am
by BullHouse_BearMarket
Capital gains day, hopefully, right?

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:44 am
by firebirdparts
Sometime around now. I seem to remember they're usually enormous.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 12:17 pm
by SVT
I'm interested to see what that is then...the gains I've seen already have been great. If there's an "enormous" amount of capital gains coming on top of that, then :shock:

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 12:20 pm
by dudemize
Looks like .46/sh (.25 st, .21 lt). Just under 5% of NAV.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 12:27 pm
by firebirdparts
SVT wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 12:17 pm I'm interested to see what that is then...the gains I've seen already have been great. If there's an "enormous" amount of capital gains coming on top of that, then :shock:
The phrase "on top of" just has no place in that sentence. The price will drop when it comes out. I was thinking it might be $1.

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 12:49 pm
by dudemize
Yeah, it's really not a big deal. As you said, the fund price will just drop that much. If you reinvest you'll just be back to where you were before the distribution. Sucks if you hold it in a taxable account though (which is not advised).

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 12:56 pm
by SVT
firebirdparts wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 12:27 pm
SVT wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 12:17 pm I'm interested to see what that is then...the gains I've seen already have been great. If there's an "enormous" amount of capital gains coming on top of that, then :shock:
The phrase "on top of" just has no place in that sentence. The price will drop when it comes out. I was thinking it might be $1.
Oh yeah so net is basically 0 gain from that right?

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:07 pm
by Ramjet
deleted

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:07 pm
by Ramjet
dudemize wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 12:49 pm ...the fund price will just drop that much. If you reinvest you'll just be back to where you were before the distribution
Yes, this is right