Why not 100% PSLDX? [PIMCO StocksPLUS Long Duration Fund]

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
superjames1992
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2022 12:50 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by superjames1992 »

This fund looks very tempting to me, but I’m also concerned about how the 100% bonds portion will do going forward with interest rates having to rise. I’m interested in it as a less risky version of HFEA that I’d feel more comfortable investing a large portion of my Roth IRA into, but I’m just not so sure.
MindBogler
Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:05 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by MindBogler »

superjames1992 wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:52 pm This fund looks very tempting to me, but I’m also concerned about how the 100% bonds portion will do going forward with interest rates having to rise. I’m interested in it as a less risky version of HFEA that I’d feel more comfortable investing a large portion of my Roth IRA into, but I’m just not so sure.
In the long term, higher interest rates are good for bonds. Obviously the fund is struggling a bit in a rising yield environment, which is to be expected.
User avatar
kevinf
Posts: 843
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:35 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by kevinf »

superjames1992 wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:52 pm This fund looks very tempting to me, but I’m also concerned about how the 100% bonds portion will do going forward with interest rates having to rise. I’m interested in it as a less risky version of HFEA that I’d feel more comfortable investing a large portion of my Roth IRA into, but I’m just not so sure.
This is a long duration (actively managed) bond fund, so as long as your anticipated accumulation phase has 15+ years to go, you really shouldn't be terribly concerned about near-term rate fluctuations. One could make a decent argument for this fund being a potentially poor primary holding in the retirement spending phase due to its very high interest rate risk in combination with regular market risk.

My plan is to keep this fund as my primary tax-advantaged holding during accumulation and then convert to an unlevered total world fund... VT and chill.
fidream
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:59 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by fidream »

I need to sell some PSLDX in my IRA because I'm doing a reverse rollover into a 401k and have some non-deductible contributions I have to leave in there. Does it make sense to wait for the dividend/capital gains to distribute this quarter before doing so?
ChinchillaWhiplash
Posts: 1574
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:40 pm
Location: Land of Hypoxia

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by ChinchillaWhiplash »

I hope this does not result in major problems for PIMCO. They hold $1.5 bln in Russian sovereign debt and also CDS against Russia defaulting. Not sure of Pimco’s total financials, but hoping this is just a dent in it and not a giant chunk. https://finance.yahoo.com/m/84357f58-81 ... lions.html
airshow
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2014 1:54 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by airshow »

rockin and rollin with today's 2/3rds of 1 cent dividend.....giddy up!
pshonore
Posts: 8205
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 2:21 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by pshonore »

airshow wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 9:03 pm rockin and rollin with today's 2/3rds of 1 cent dividend.....giddy up!
Pimco website is showing a dividend of 4.2 cents
User avatar
firebirdparts
Posts: 4387
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
Location: Southern Appalachia

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by firebirdparts »

It'll be fun to look at a full prospectus when it comes out. The SP500 return swaps will be on the books with a big negative value.
This time is the same
dafioram
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2021 7:31 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by dafioram »

Looks like pimco might be in some bond issues because of Russia. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com ... 435ca87c1d

Think the bond part of PSLDX is at risk?
Booogle
Posts: 605
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:57 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by Booogle »

dafioram wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:30 am Looks like pimco might be in some bond issues because of Russia. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com ... 435ca87c1d

Think the bond part of PSLDX is at risk?

There are some Russian bonds in the holdings.

But I guess the issue is the percentage they are.
Last edited by Booogle on Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
runninginvestor
Posts: 1795
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:00 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by runninginvestor »

Booogle wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:47 am
dafioram wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:30 am Looks like pimco might be in some bond issues because of Russia. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com ... 435ca87c1d

Think the bond part of PSLDX is at risk?

There are some Russian bonds in the holdings.

But I guess the issue is the percentage they are.
For PSLDX it looked like less than 1% was currency denominated in Russia. I think (already forgot from a few moments ago), it was less than 0.50%. from the article though:

"The majority of the CDS sit in the marquee $140bn Income fund, run by chief investment officer Dan Ivascyn, alongside Alfred Murata and Joshua Anderson.

The fund disclosed that it had written $942mn of CDS protection on Russia by the end of 2021. The other funds to hold positions include Pimco’s Total Return bond fund, its Emerging Markets bond fund, Diversified Income and Low Duration income funds.
"
Booogle
Posts: 605
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:57 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by Booogle »

runninginvestor wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:53 am
Booogle wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:47 am
dafioram wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:30 am Looks like pimco might be in some bond issues because of Russia. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com ... 435ca87c1d

Think the bond part of PSLDX is at risk?

There are some Russian bonds in the holdings.

But I guess the issue is the percentage they are.
For PSLDX it looked like less than 1% was currency denominated in Russia. I think (already forgot from a few moments ago), it was less than 0.50%. from the article though:

"The majority of the CDS sit in the marquee $140bn Income fund, run by chief investment officer Dan Ivascyn, alongside Alfred Murata and Joshua Anderson.

The fund disclosed that it had written $942mn of CDS protection on Russia by the end of 2021. The other funds to hold positions include Pimco’s Total Return bond fund, its Emerging Markets bond fund, Diversified Income and Low Duration income funds.
"

CDS is a short on Russian bonds, isn't it?

We want to know the percentage of long Russian bonds in PSLDX.
runninginvestor
Posts: 1795
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:00 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by runninginvestor »

Booogle wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 8:02 am
runninginvestor wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:53 am
Booogle wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:47 am
dafioram wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:30 am Looks like pimco might be in some bond issues because of Russia. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com ... 435ca87c1d

Think the bond part of PSLDX is at risk?

There are some Russian bonds in the holdings.

But I guess the issue is the percentage they are.
For PSLDX it looked like less than 1% was currency denominated in Russia. I think (already forgot from a few moments ago), it was less than 0.50%. from the article though:

"The majority of the CDS sit in the marquee $140bn Income fund, run by chief investment officer Dan Ivascyn, alongside Alfred Murata and Joshua Anderson.

The fund disclosed that it had written $942mn of CDS protection on Russia by the end of 2021. The other funds to hold positions include Pimco’s Total Return bond fund, its Emerging Markets bond fund, Diversified Income and Low Duration income funds.
"

CDS is a short on Russian bonds, isn't it?

We want to know the percentage of long Russian bonds in PSLDX.
I don't think much of any, this was their holdings report:
https://www.pimco.com/handlers/displayd ... rHRTywCcHa
Booogle
Posts: 605
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:57 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by Booogle »

runninginvestor wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 8:10 am I don't think much of any, this was their holdings report:
https://www.pimco.com/handlers/displayd ... rHRTywCcHa
I see Russian stuff like Sberbank of Russia and Gazprom.

I'm using this list of Russian companies:
https://companiesmarketcap.com/russia/l ... arket-cap/
runninginvestor
Posts: 1795
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:00 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by runninginvestor »

Booogle wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 8:12 am
runninginvestor wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 8:10 am I don't think much of any, this was their holdings report:
https://www.pimco.com/handlers/displayd ... rHRTywCcHa
I see Russian stuff like Sberbank of Russia and Gazprom.

I'm using this list of Russian companies:
https://companiesmarketcap.com/russia/l ... arket-cap/
Still not a lot though right?
Sberbank 0.013%
Gazprom 0.172%
Gazpeom 0.067%

I'm not at the computer so I'm not searching after the top ten on the market cap list ha. Too annoying with excel on the phone. There's also a teeny amount of currency contracts in Rubles but that's very small.

Very easily could be missing some as I'm on my phone.
manlymatt83
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by manlymatt83 »

Looks like it’s been a while since this was asked, why are folks in PSLDX instead of something like HFEA? Less leverage, no need to rebalance, lower ER, or do you prefer the active bond component?
User avatar
kevinf
Posts: 843
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:35 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by kevinf »

manlymatt83 wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 10:15 am Looks like it’s been a while since this was asked, why are folks in PSLDX instead of something like HFEA? Less leverage, no need to rebalance, lower ER, or do you prefer the active bond component?
Simplicity, the less time I need to dedicate to futzing with my portfolio the better. The ER is reasonable enough for an actively managed, leveraged fund that does what I want it to do. I hold NTSX in taxable for the same reason.
manlymatt83
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by manlymatt83 »

kevinf wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 12:58 pm
manlymatt83 wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 10:15 am Looks like it’s been a while since this was asked, why are folks in PSLDX instead of something like HFEA? Less leverage, no need to rebalance, lower ER, or do you prefer the active bond component?
Simplicity, the less time I need to dedicate to futzing with my portfolio the better. The ER is reasonable enough for an actively managed, leveraged fund that does what I want it to do. I hold NTSX in taxable for the same reason.
If 55/45 UPRO/TMF was available as a mutual fund, would you be invested in that instead?
User avatar
kevinf
Posts: 843
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:35 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by kevinf »

manlymatt83 wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 2:50 pm
kevinf wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 12:58 pm
manlymatt83 wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 10:15 am Looks like it’s been a while since this was asked, why are folks in PSLDX instead of something like HFEA? Less leverage, no need to rebalance, lower ER, or do you prefer the active bond component?
Simplicity, the less time I need to dedicate to futzing with my portfolio the better. The ER is reasonable enough for an actively managed, leveraged fund that does what I want it to do. I hold NTSX in taxable for the same reason.
If 55/45 UPRO/TMF was available as a mutual fund, would you be invested in that instead?
I'd take a close look at it for sure.
bgf
Posts: 2084
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:35 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by bgf »

manlymatt83 wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 2:50 pm
kevinf wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 12:58 pm
manlymatt83 wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 10:15 am Looks like it’s been a while since this was asked, why are folks in PSLDX instead of something like HFEA? Less leverage, no need to rebalance, lower ER, or do you prefer the active bond component?
Simplicity, the less time I need to dedicate to futzing with my portfolio the better. The ER is reasonable enough for an actively managed, leveraged fund that does what I want it to do. I hold NTSX in taxable for the same reason.
If 55/45 UPRO/TMF was available as a mutual fund, would you be invested in that instead?
I have PSLDX in an old IRA, NTSX in taxable, and a modified HFEA (50-25-25 of IXUS UPRO TMF) in my Roth.

So far, my Roth is holding up better than PSLDX, but not by much.
“TE OCCIDERE POSSUNT SED TE EDERE NON POSSUNT NEFAS EST"
User avatar
firebirdparts
Posts: 4387
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
Location: Southern Appalachia

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by firebirdparts »

Booogle wrote: Sat Mar 12, 2022 8:02 am

CDS is a short on Russian bonds, isn't it?
Depends on who you are. One guy is short and one is long. S stands for "swap". So the way this was reported, PIMCO is long. FWIW.
This time is the same
manlymatt83
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by manlymatt83 »

Curious, would a starting balance of $50k of PSLDX or $25k of HFEA win if held for 30 years based on back tests? Trying to understand how long it takes HFEA to catch up in “theory”.
000
Posts: 8211
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:04 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by 000 »

manlymatt83 wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 8:25 pm Curious, would a starting balance of $50k of PSLDX or $25k of HFEA win if held for 30 years based on back tests? Trying to understand how long it takes HFEA to catch up in “theory”.
Medical advice is off topic here. :mrgreen:

But backtests won't save your portfolio from the future either!
manlymatt83
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by manlymatt83 »

000 wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 8:28 pm
manlymatt83 wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 8:25 pm Curious, would a starting balance of $50k of PSLDX or $25k of HFEA win if held for 30 years based on back tests? Trying to understand how long it takes HFEA to catch up in “theory”.
Medical advice is off topic here. :mrgreen:

But backtests won't save your portfolio from the future either!
😂
DMoogle
Posts: 549
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2020 10:24 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by DMoogle »

manlymatt83 wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 8:25 pm Curious, would a starting balance of $50k of PSLDX or $25k of HFEA win if held for 30 years based on back tests? Trying to understand how long it takes HFEA to catch up in “theory”.
Very likely depends on which 30 year timeframe you're looking at.
User avatar
OuterBanks
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:19 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by OuterBanks »

Impressive day, seems like rocket boosters are now refueled.
superjames1992
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2022 12:50 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by superjames1992 »

kevinf wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:08 pm
superjames1992 wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:52 pm This fund looks very tempting to me, but I’m also concerned about how the 100% bonds portion will do going forward with interest rates having to rise. I’m interested in it as a less risky version of HFEA that I’d feel more comfortable investing a large portion of my Roth IRA into, but I’m just not so sure.
This is a long duration (actively managed) bond fund, so as long as your anticipated accumulation phase has 15+ years to go, you really shouldn't be terribly concerned about near-term rate fluctuations. One could make a decent argument for this fund being a potentially poor primary holding in the retirement spending phase due to its very high interest rate risk in combination with regular market risk.

My plan is to keep this fund as my primary tax-advantaged holding during accumulation and then convert to an unlevered total world fund... VT and chill.
Yeah, I think that makes sense. I’m around 30, so I’ve got plenty of time left before retirement. I’m torn between doing this as a large portion of my portfolio along with PISIX. With the $50 fee, it doesn’t really make sense for me to DCA into this, but I do have a fairly hefty lump sum I can convert in my Roth IRA right now. Not sure I’d want to put future contributions into it because of the fee, though.

Also considering HFEA for a portion, but I am correct in my assertion that PSLDX is significantly less risky than pure HFEA, I assume?
parval
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:23 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by parval »

superjames1992 wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:19 pm
kevinf wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:08 pm
superjames1992 wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:52 pm This fund looks very tempting to me, but I’m also concerned about how the 100% bonds portion will do going forward with interest rates having to rise. I’m interested in it as a less risky version of HFEA that I’d feel more comfortable investing a large portion of my Roth IRA into, but I’m just not so sure.
This is a long duration (actively managed) bond fund, so as long as your anticipated accumulation phase has 15+ years to go, you really shouldn't be terribly concerned about near-term rate fluctuations. One could make a decent argument for this fund being a potentially poor primary holding in the retirement spending phase due to its very high interest rate risk in combination with regular market risk.

My plan is to keep this fund as my primary tax-advantaged holding during accumulation and then convert to an unlevered total world fund... VT and chill.
Yeah, I think that makes sense. I’m around 30, so I’ve got plenty of time left before retirement. I’m torn between doing this as a large portion of my portfolio along with PISIX. With the $50 fee, it doesn’t really make sense for me to DCA into this, but I do have a fairly hefty lump sum I can convert in my Roth IRA right now. Not sure I’d want to put future contributions into it because of the fee, though.

Also considering HFEA for a portion, but I am correct in my assertion that PSLDX is significantly less risky than pure HFEA, I assume?
Yeah PSDLX is 2x leverage, so you get 100% stock/bond exposure; HFEA is 3x leverage, split evenly would be 150% stock/bond exposure. Former should be much less risky, unless the bond manager does something crazy (so far roughly same vs passive)
bgf
Posts: 2084
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:35 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by bgf »

superjames1992 wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:19 pm
kevinf wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:08 pm
superjames1992 wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:52 pm This fund looks very tempting to me, but I’m also concerned about how the 100% bonds portion will do going forward with interest rates having to rise. I’m interested in it as a less risky version of HFEA that I’d feel more comfortable investing a large portion of my Roth IRA into, but I’m just not so sure.
This is a long duration (actively managed) bond fund, so as long as your anticipated accumulation phase has 15+ years to go, you really shouldn't be terribly concerned about near-term rate fluctuations. One could make a decent argument for this fund being a potentially poor primary holding in the retirement spending phase due to its very high interest rate risk in combination with regular market risk.

My plan is to keep this fund as my primary tax-advantaged holding during accumulation and then convert to an unlevered total world fund... VT and chill.
Yeah, I think that makes sense. I’m around 30, so I’ve got plenty of time left before retirement. I’m torn between doing this as a large portion of my portfolio along with PISIX. With the $50 fee, it doesn’t really make sense for me to DCA into this, but I do have a fairly hefty lump sum I can convert in my Roth IRA right now. Not sure I’d want to put future contributions into it because of the fee, though.

Also considering HFEA for a portion, but I am correct in my assertion that PSLDX is significantly less risky than pure HFEA, I assume?
you can easily reduce the leverage and add international diversification by adding VXUS/IXUS to UPRO and TMF. For example, 50-25-25 of VXUS, UPRO, TMF works out to 2.0x leverage, or a 125/75 stock/bond allocation.
“TE OCCIDERE POSSUNT SED TE EDERE NON POSSUNT NEFAS EST"
superjames1992
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2022 12:50 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by superjames1992 »

bgf wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 6:39 pm
superjames1992 wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:19 pm
kevinf wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:08 pm
superjames1992 wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:52 pm This fund looks very tempting to me, but I’m also concerned about how the 100% bonds portion will do going forward with interest rates having to rise. I’m interested in it as a less risky version of HFEA that I’d feel more comfortable investing a large portion of my Roth IRA into, but I’m just not so sure.
This is a long duration (actively managed) bond fund, so as long as your anticipated accumulation phase has 15+ years to go, you really shouldn't be terribly concerned about near-term rate fluctuations. One could make a decent argument for this fund being a potentially poor primary holding in the retirement spending phase due to its very high interest rate risk in combination with regular market risk.

My plan is to keep this fund as my primary tax-advantaged holding during accumulation and then convert to an unlevered total world fund... VT and chill.
Yeah, I think that makes sense. I’m around 30, so I’ve got plenty of time left before retirement. I’m torn between doing this as a large portion of my portfolio along with PISIX. With the $50 fee, it doesn’t really make sense for me to DCA into this, but I do have a fairly hefty lump sum I can convert in my Roth IRA right now. Not sure I’d want to put future contributions into it because of the fee, though.

Also considering HFEA for a portion, but I am correct in my assertion that PSLDX is significantly less risky than pure HFEA, I assume?
you can easily reduce the leverage and add international diversification by adding VXUS/IXUS to UPRO and TMF. For example, 50-25-25 of VXUS, UPRO, TMF works out to 2.0x leverage, or a 125/75 stock/bond allocation.
Ah, that’s a good idea. I am a bit troubled about the lack of international exposure in HFEA/PSLDX, so that’s a good solution. I’m of the opinion that international is probably due to outperform US equity markets in the medium term simply because at some point it’s going to have to happen or the US share of total market cap will approach 100% (it’s already up to 60%). I don’t necessarily want to overweight international, but I definitely want exposure.
Last edited by superjames1992 on Fri Mar 18, 2022 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
runninginvestor
Posts: 1795
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:00 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by runninginvestor »

superjames1992 wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 12:09 pm
bgf wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 6:39 pm
superjames1992 wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:19 pm
kevinf wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:08 pm
superjames1992 wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:52 pm This fund looks very tempting to me, but I’m also concerned about how the 100% bonds portion will do going forward with interest rates having to rise. I’m interested in it as a less risky version of HFEA that I’d feel more comfortable investing a large portion of my Roth IRA into, but I’m just not so sure.
This is a long duration (actively managed) bond fund, so as long as your anticipated accumulation phase has 15+ years to go, you really shouldn't be terribly concerned about near-term rate fluctuations. One could make a decent argument for this fund being a potentially poor primary holding in the retirement spending phase due to its very high interest rate risk in combination with regular market risk.

My plan is to keep this fund as my primary tax-advantaged holding during accumulation and then convert to an unlevered total world fund... VT and chill.
Yeah, I think that makes sense. I’m around 30, so I’ve got plenty of time left before retirement. I’m torn between doing this as a large portion of my portfolio along with PISIX. With the $50 fee, it doesn’t really make sense for me to DCA into this, but I do have a fairly hefty lump sum I can convert in my Roth IRA right now. Not sure I’d want to put future contributions into it because of the fee, though.

Also considering HFEA for a portion, but I am correct in my assertion that PSLDX is significantly less risky than pure HFEA, I assume?
you can easily reduce the leverage and add international diversification by adding VXUS/IXUS to UPRO and TMF. For example, 50-25-25 of VXUS, UPRO, TMF works out to 2.0x leverage, or a 125/75 stock/bond allocation.
Ah, that’s a good idea. I am a bit troubled about the lack of international exposure in HFEA/PSLDX, so that’s a good solution. I’m of the opinion that international is probably due to outperform US equity markets in the medium term simply because at some point it’s going to have to happen or the US share of total market cap will approach 100% (it’s already up to 60%). I don’t necessarily want to overweight international, but I definitely wasn’t exposure.
NTSX , another mentioned holding here, is leveraged US exposure. They also came out with leveraged international if that was also your thing.

NTSX WisdomTree U.S. Efficient Core Fund

NTSI WisdomTree International Efficient Core Fund
NTSI is int'l equities + us treasury futures similar to NTSX.

Edit: not providing recs, just information learned from these forums. There's threads on the funds above as well.
User avatar
kevinf
Posts: 843
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:35 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by kevinf »

I'm still holding out for a total world PSLDX or NTSX equivalent 1-fund. NTSX and PSLDX will do for now until such a creature exists.
Booogle
Posts: 605
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:57 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by Booogle »

kevinf wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 1:11 pm I'm still holding out for a total world PSLDX or NTSX equivalent 1-fund. NTSX and PSLDX will do for now until such a creature exists.
UPAR or BLNDX would be close?
RosieQ
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 2:52 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by RosieQ »

For those investing in this fund, how are you handling the bond NAV crash over the last 3 months with regards to continued investment? Continue to DCA into it as this could still work as a long term play? Wait until inflation stabilizes and long bond NAV prices seem to stop their downward drift (momentum strategy)? Sell and move to old fashioned non levered position?

I'm personally holding on. I made a sizable contribution in early July 2021 and was outperforming for a while and now substantially underperforming in 2022. New contributions going to SWTSX (Schwab total stock market index).

This has been an educational period for me as I think I got a bit greedy with the hype around HFEA and it's associates. I can handle the volatility and haven't sold...but I also have an insane 80% savings rate, low cost of living, and really don't need a huge return to have a very comfortable life. On the other hand I think that the main risk of PSLDX is underperformance, and not risk of getting totally decimated like an unhedged 100% 3x strategy ie TQQQ.
User avatar
hiddenpower
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2020 11:24 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by hiddenpower »

firebirdparts wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 12:27 pm I'll just preemptively add that my 401k (Fido, brokeragelink) allows me to hold mutual funds only, and this is one. I think if I could buy other instruments, not mutual funds, in my 401k, I might do so.
What would you consider? Mine seems to have a linked brokerage account with trading flexibility.
User avatar
firebirdparts
Posts: 4387
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
Location: Southern Appalachia

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by firebirdparts »

hiddenpower wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 8:59 am
firebirdparts wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 12:27 pm I'll just preemptively add that my 401k (Fido, brokeragelink) allows me to hold mutual funds only, and this is one. I think if I could buy other instruments, not mutual funds, in my 401k, I might do so.
What would you consider? Mine seems to have a linked brokerage account with trading flexibility.
I am running the pinwheel portfolio without the benefit of ETF's. I include PSLDX in the pinwheel because I can, basically. But if I was doing it with ETF's, I wouldn't have to pay the expense ratio that I pay with PSLDX, and of course properly I wouldn't have long term bonds at all.
This time is the same
User avatar
hiddenpower
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2020 11:24 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by hiddenpower »

firebirdparts wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 12:27 pm
hiddenpower wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 8:59 am
firebirdparts wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2021 12:27 pm I'll just preemptively add that my 401k (Fido, brokeragelink) allows me to hold mutual funds only, and this is one. I think if I could buy other instruments, not mutual funds, in my 401k, I might do so.
What would you consider? Mine seems to have a linked brokerage account with trading flexibility.
I am running the pinwheel portfolio without the benefit of ETF's. I include PSLDX in the pinwheel because I can, basically. But if I was doing it with ETF's, I wouldn't have to pay the expense ratio that I pay with PSLDX, and of course properly I wouldn't have long term bonds at all.
- Wouldn't the ER be higher with LETFs?
- Why would you avoid long term bonds? I saw that hedgefundie himself went with 60/40 SCHG/EDV at 1.35x leverage and was curious why he selected long term bonds again.
manlymatt83
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by manlymatt83 »

Why is this doing better than HFEA recently?

Also, would starting with $100k of PSLDX essentially be the same as starting with $25k HFEA over 40 years?
bgf
Posts: 2084
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:35 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by bgf »

I'm still holding. People are WAY overconfident that they know what bonds are going to do over the next few months, years, even 10 years. People accept they can't tell the future with equities but they apparently have little problem foretelling future interest rate moves and bond performance. It's the single most interesting thing on this forum over the past quarter or so.

Every boglehead is now somehow a bond expert.

What I think is that they are equally good at forecasting rates and bond performance as stock performance, which is to say, they're hot garbage.
“TE OCCIDERE POSSUNT SED TE EDERE NON POSSUNT NEFAS EST"
bgf
Posts: 2084
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:35 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by bgf »

manlymatt83 wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 1:21 pm Why is this doing better than HFEA recently?

Also, would starting with $100k of PSLDX essentially be the same as starting with $25k HFEA over 40 years?
I think there is far too much 'path dependency' to ever make that kind of claim.
“TE OCCIDERE POSSUNT SED TE EDERE NON POSSUNT NEFAS EST"
User avatar
OuterBanks
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:19 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by OuterBanks »

manlymatt83 wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 1:21 pm Why is this doing better than HFEA recently?

Also, would starting with $100k of PSLDX essentially be the same as starting with $25k HFEA over 40 years?
PIMCO's active bond managers in this fund are unbeatable. They are simply the best at the game.
User avatar
hiddenpower
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2020 11:24 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by hiddenpower »

OuterBanks wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 6:23 pm
manlymatt83 wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 1:21 pm Why is this doing better than HFEA recently?

Also, would starting with $100k of PSLDX essentially be the same as starting with $25k HFEA over 40 years?
PIMCO's active bond managers in this fund are unbeatable. They are simply the best at the game.
Doesn’t this perform basically the same at 55 SSO / 45 2x ITT
thenextguy
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:58 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by thenextguy »

manlymatt83 wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 1:21 pm Why is this doing better than HFEA recently?

Also, would starting with $100k of PSLDX essentially be the same as starting with $25k HFEA over 40 years?
Well, PSLDX is "only" 100/100. I believe the average bond duration is shorter, too. So the bond sell off hasn't crushed its bond holdings as much.
manlymatt83
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by manlymatt83 »

OuterBanks wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 6:23 pm
manlymatt83 wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 1:21 pm Why is this doing better than HFEA recently?

Also, would starting with $100k of PSLDX essentially be the same as starting with $25k HFEA over 40 years?
PIMCO's active bond managers in this fund are unbeatable. They are simply the best at the game.
Given that I only have a small portion of my portfolio in HFEA, I wish I could just take MORE and put it into PSLDX. $100k in PSLDX instead of $25k in HFEA for example. Guess that math doesn’t work that way since 3x compounded is way different than 2x compounded.
User avatar
hiddenpower
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2020 11:24 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by hiddenpower »

manlymatt83 wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 9:39 pm
OuterBanks wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 6:23 pm
manlymatt83 wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 1:21 pm Why is this doing better than HFEA recently?

Also, would starting with $100k of PSLDX essentially be the same as starting with $25k HFEA over 40 years?
PIMCO's active bond managers in this fund are unbeatable. They are simply the best at the game.
Given that I only have a small portion of my portfolio in HFEA, I wish I could just take MORE and put it into PSLDX. $100k in PSLDX instead of $25k in HFEA for example. Guess that math doesn’t work that way since 3x compounded is way different than 2x compounded.
Not quite following what you mean by this? 3x vs 2x
manlymatt83
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by manlymatt83 »

hiddenpower wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 1:35 pm
manlymatt83 wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 9:39 pm
OuterBanks wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 6:23 pm
manlymatt83 wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 1:21 pm Why is this doing better than HFEA recently?

Also, would starting with $100k of PSLDX essentially be the same as starting with $25k HFEA over 40 years?
PIMCO's active bond managers in this fund are unbeatable. They are simply the best at the game.
Given that I only have a small portion of my portfolio in HFEA, I wish I could just take MORE and put it into PSLDX. $100k in PSLDX instead of $25k in HFEA for example. Guess that math doesn’t work that way since 3x compounded is way different than 2x compounded.
Not quite following what you mean by this? 3x vs 2x
Right, but I'd be starting with a higher amount of PSLDX.

Assuming a 16% annual return of PSLDX vs a 24% annual return of HFEA over 20 years:

$100k of PSLDX becomes $1946075.
$25k of HFEA becomes $1846603.

So the end number are close to the same... but I started with a higher amount of PSLDX. Just curious if these numbers make sense. For someone who only wants to leverage part of their portfolio, could they just put $100k in PSLDX vs. $25k in HFEA.
User avatar
hiddenpower
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2020 11:24 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by hiddenpower »

manlymatt83 wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 1:43 pm
hiddenpower wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 1:35 pm
manlymatt83 wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 9:39 pm
OuterBanks wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 6:23 pm
manlymatt83 wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 1:21 pm Why is this doing better than HFEA recently?

Also, would starting with $100k of PSLDX essentially be the same as starting with $25k HFEA over 40 years?
PIMCO's active bond managers in this fund are unbeatable. They are simply the best at the game.
Given that I only have a small portion of my portfolio in HFEA, I wish I could just take MORE and put it into PSLDX. $100k in PSLDX instead of $25k in HFEA for example. Guess that math doesn’t work that way since 3x compounded is way different than 2x compounded.
Not quite following what you mean by this? 3x vs 2x
Right, but I'd be starting with a higher amount of PSLDX.

Assuming a 16% annual return of PSLDX vs a 24% annual return of HFEA over 20 years:

$100k of PSLDX becomes $1946075.
$25k of HFEA becomes $1846603.

So the end number are close to the same... but I started with a higher amount of PSLDX. Just curious if these numbers make sense. For someone who only wants to leverage part of their portfolio, could they just put $100k in PSLDX vs. $25k in HFEA.
Sure. That makes sense. One is more risky. I'm also leaning towards weighting PSLDX. But it's tempting to just go all in on HFEA :-).
manlymatt83
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by manlymatt83 »

Anyone have this as their only domestic holding?
User avatar
OuterBanks
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:19 pm

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by OuterBanks »

manlymatt83 wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:31 pm Anyone have this as their only domestic holding?
It’s only available in my Roth IRA, which is probably a good thing as it forces me to be a bit more diversified :D
401K: FSKAX
HSA: FSKAX
Roth IRA: PSLDX
manlymatt83
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am

Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?

Post by manlymatt83 »

OuterBanks wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 7:44 pm
manlymatt83 wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 12:31 pm Anyone have this as their only domestic holding?
It’s only available in my Roth IRA, which is probably a good thing as it forces me to be a bit more diversified :D
401K: FSKAX
HSA: FSKAX
Roth IRA: PSLDX
Are those your only two holdings?
Post Reply