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.
Why not 100% PSLDX? [PIMCO StocksPLUS Long Duration Fund]
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.
-
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2020 5:44 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
If it makes you feel better you own a much smaller slice of the S&P through this fund.
- firebirdparts
- Posts: 4411
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Southern Appalachia
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Does it pay out dividends? Maybe that’s causing the outflow.
- firebirdparts
- Posts: 4411
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Southern Appalachia
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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?
This time is the same
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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?
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 590
- Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:36 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.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.
ETA: The long bond did in fact end in the green today also.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.
-
- Posts: 590
- Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:36 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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).
- firebirdparts
- Posts: 4411
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Southern Appalachia
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.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.
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.
This time is the same
-
- Posts: 3633
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:00 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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?
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?
The most precious gift we can offer anyone is our attention. - Thich Nhat Hanh
-
- Posts: 3633
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:00 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
I thought the leverage was used to buy bonds and not stocks?firebirdparts wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:22 pmThe 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.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.
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.
The most precious gift we can offer anyone is our attention. - Thich Nhat Hanh
-
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2020 5:44 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
It’s the other way around.finite_difference wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:53 pmI thought the leverage was used to buy bonds and not stocks?firebirdparts wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:22 pmThe 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.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.
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 1287
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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?
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.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.
-
- Posts: 3633
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:00 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Thanks for the clarification. There are some misleading posts in this thread.Tingting1013 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 12:27 amIt’s the other way around.finite_difference wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:53 pmI thought the leverage was used to buy bonds and not stocks?firebirdparts wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:22 pmThe 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.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.
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.
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.
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?
The most precious gift we can offer anyone is our attention. - Thich Nhat Hanh
-
- Posts: 1287
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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)rchmx1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:31 amFor 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.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.
-
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2018 11:30 am
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.manlymatt83 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:01 amIn 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)rchmx1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:31 amFor 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.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.
-
- Posts: 1287
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.snailderby wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:10 amPSLDX 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.manlymatt83 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:01 amIn 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)rchmx1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:31 amFor 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.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.
- UpsetRaptor
- Posts: 1068
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:15 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.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.
-
- Posts: 1287
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Awesome, thanks! So sounds like VT+PSLDX can easily be balanced with a little extra VXUS.UpsetRaptor wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:28 amIf 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.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.
- Steve Reading
- Posts: 2959
- Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:20 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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)?manlymatt83 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:12 amI’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.snailderby wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:10 amPSLDX 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.manlymatt83 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:01 amIn 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)rchmx1 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:31 amFor 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.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.
Like if you invested in, I don’t know, Wellesley, or some other balanced fund, you’d do something similar
"... so high a present discounted value of wealth, it is only prudent for him to put more into common stocks compared to his present tangible wealth, borrowing if necessary" - Paul Samuelson
-
- Posts: 1287
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Oy. I guess I could. My spreadsheet isn’t that fine grained though.Steve Reading wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:26 pmI don’t know the structure of your spreadsheet but can’t you count it as what it is (100% stocks, 100% bonds, -100% cash)?manlymatt83 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:12 amI’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.snailderby wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:10 amPSLDX 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.manlymatt83 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:01 amIn 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)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.
Like if you invested in, I don’t know, Wellesley, or some other balanced fund, you’d do something similar
-
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 8:49 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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?
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
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
"When there are multiple solutions to a problem, choose the simplest one" Jack Bogle
-
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2020 5:44 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
The better DIY PSLDX would look something like this: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
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?
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
You can find it here under "documents" https://www.pimco.com/en-us/investments ... -fund/inst
- firebirdparts
- Posts: 4411
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Southern Appalachia
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.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.
This time is the same
-
- Posts: 236
- Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:30 am
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
\
Last edited by Register44 on Mon Jan 11, 2021 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 8:40 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 236
- Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:30 am
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Last edited by Register44 on Mon Jan 11, 2021 7:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 236
- Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:30 am
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Last edited by Register44 on Mon Jan 11, 2021 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- firebirdparts
- Posts: 4411
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Southern Appalachia
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.
This time is the same
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.Register44 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 5:31 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.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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?
Does PSLDX have a lot of floating rate bonds?
-
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 4:19 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Capital gains day, hopefully, right?
- firebirdparts
- Posts: 4411
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Southern Appalachia
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Sometime around now. I seem to remember they're usually enormous.
This time is the same
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Looks like .46/sh (.25 st, .21 lt). Just under 5% of NAV.
- firebirdparts
- Posts: 4411
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Southern Appalachia
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.
This time is the same
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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?
Oh yeah so net is basically 0 gain from that right?firebirdparts wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:27 amThe 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?
deleted
Last edited by Ramjet on Wed Dec 09, 2020 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.