S&P500, ITT/LTTs are some of the most liquid instruments in the market. AKK on the other hand, the companies they invest in have a median market cap of 20B whereas the fund itself has a market cap of 25B. ARKK will move the market in whatever they're invested in whereas it'll be pretty much impossible for PSLDX/UPRO/TMF to get to the equivalent sizehuzaing wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:28 am Will these investments like PSLDX or HFEA (UPRO/TMF) suffer from becoming too big or too popular?
I am asking along the lines of something like ARKK. What I read about it was that when it was small, it was perhaps possible for the manger to outperform. But as it grows too big, it would be challenging to continue delivering the same outperformance going forward; becoming more and more difficult. Does that apply to PSLDX or HFEA?
Thanks.
Why not 100% PSLDX? [PIMCO StocksPLUS Long Duration Fund]
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
moptop wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:56 amThey are both essentially index strategies and not actively managed strategies besides some of the bond portion of PSLDX so size shouldn't become an issue unless they can no longer find counter parties.huzaing wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:28 am Will these investments like PSLDX or HFEA (UPRO/TMF) suffer from becoming too big or too popular?
I am asking along the lines of something like ARKK. What I read about it was that when it was small, it was perhaps possible for the manger to outperform. But as it grows too big, it would be challenging to continue delivering the same outperformance going forward; becoming more and more difficult. Does that apply to PSLDX or HFEA?
Thanks.
adamhg wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 12:11 pmS&P500, ITT/LTTs are some of the most liquid instruments in the market. AKK on the other hand, the companies they invest in have a median market cap of 20B whereas the fund itself has a market cap of 25B. ARKK will move the market in whatever they're invested in whereas it'll be pretty much impossible for PSLDX/UPRO/TMF to get to the equivalent sizehuzaing wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:28 am Will these investments like PSLDX or HFEA (UPRO/TMF) suffer from becoming too big or too popular?
I am asking along the lines of something like ARKK. What I read about it was that when it was small, it was perhaps possible for the manger to outperform. But as it grows too big, it would be challenging to continue delivering the same outperformance going forward; becoming more and more difficult. Does that apply to PSLDX or HFEA?
Thanks.
Okay makes sense. Thanks for this input
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Oh that's right, tells you how long ago I purchased PSLDX.codoriti wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:45 amNot true on the Schwab $100k minimum for some time now -- https://www.schwab.wallst.com/Prospect/ ... mbol=PSLDXjarjarM wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 12:24 pmSchwab minimum is $100k w/ $50 fee but no fee for dividend reinvestment. I think M1 maybe even lower, checkout the last 2 pages of this thread and there's ample discussion on this.S4C5 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 10:03 am PSLDX has a $1M minimum investment. For those seeking some exposure to this kind of investment without allocating such a large amount of capital, what's the best alternative.
On Fidelity, there is a minimum $1M. Not sure what others are talking about buying less but having to pay a fee.
$2500 for Brokerage and $1000 for IRA, but yes there is a $50 purchase fee.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Technically it's not a flat $50 fee. There is no fee with purchases under $100, and for purchases above $100 it is a percentage with a max fee of $50 (I forget the %).codoriti wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:45 am
Not true on the Schwab $100k minimum for some time now -- https://www.schwab.wallst.com/Prospect/ ... mbol=PSLDX
$2500 for Brokerage and $1000 for IRA, but yes there is a $50 purchase fee.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Purchase fees get brought here so frequently... not sure if this is possible, but has anybody explored just opening an IRA with PIMCO and purchasing shares directly? I'd have to think that would be free, even if it's a tiny bit of hassle.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
From the other thread seems like 43/57 UPRO/EDV can also replicate PSLDX?Hydromod wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 8:35 amVersion 2 has about half the explicit ER (the 2x and 3x funds have about the same ER), but the internal (hidden) borrowing costs are doubled for the 3x vs. 2x. You'd probably have a bit faster drift for version 2.
I'd go with version 2 if only because all of the funds are much more liquid.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
I know bond did well today but didn't expect PSLDX to be up 1.3%
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
What happens to PSLDX when interest rate rise?
Isn't it going to plummet?
Isn't it going to plummet?
- firebirdparts
- Posts: 4411
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Southern Appalachia
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
That's the plan. The value of everything in the universe gets revalued based on the cost of capital.
Hide if you think you can.
This time is the same
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Can someone please share the historic PSLDX simulation?
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
firebirdparts wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 7:53 pmThat's the plan. The value of everything in the universe gets revalued based on the cost of capital.
Hide if you think you can.
what
-
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:55 am
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
The most representative (excluding fees, borrowing costs, tracking error, etc) would be something like
100% VFINX (or SPY)
100% VBLLX (or BLV)
-100% Cash/STT?
since VFINX and VBLLX track the same indices that PSLDX targets. Not sure how far back this might get you.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Can PSLDX play a role in Early Retirement?
If so, how would that work and what would it look like?
PSLDX is not recommended in taxable, but I think for early retirement the main account would be the taxable account.
Would appreciate any discussion on this aspect, please.
If so, how would that work and what would it look like?
PSLDX is not recommended in taxable, but I think for early retirement the main account would be the taxable account.
Would appreciate any discussion on this aspect, please.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Well, PSLDX throws off a lot of distributions each quarter. Total return should always be the focus, but if I was of the mindset to live (partially at least) off of distributions, I'd feel much better about doing that with PSLDX than individual stocks or etfs which focus on dividends. It would be a much more diversified approach than those other options.huzaing wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 9:36 pm Can PSLDX play a role in Early Retirement?
If so, how would that work and what would it look like?
PSLDX is not recommended in taxable, but I think for early retirement the main account would be the taxable account.
Would appreciate any discussion on this aspect, please.
- firebirdparts
- Posts: 4411
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Southern Appalachia
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
It's not dependable, but you're right, it is well-timed. The distributions being thrown off are (mostly) the result of S&P return. So if the return is negative, it actually creates a deficit that PIMCO has to pay out, if I understand correctly the prospectus. I imagine they have to pay that by selling bonds in a typical downturn scenario. In the last 10 years, there just aren't very many occasions where that's been negative. Comparing these payouts to dividends is not the right thing to do, really. They're not dividends. They are mostly automatic payouts of the S&P return, and I guess they have the worst possible tax treatment, but I don't pay taxes on PSLDX, so I could certainly be proved wrong.huzaing wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 9:36 pm Can PSLDX play a role in Early Retirement?
If so, how would that work and what would it look like?
PSLDX is not recommended in taxable, but I think for early retirement the main account would be the taxable account.
Would appreciate any discussion on this aspect, please.
That begs the question, I guess, whether it's the best/cheapest source of leverage. Leverage is what you're getting, that and an actively managed long term bond fund. You have to ask yourself whether you actually want an actively managed long term bond fund. If the tax treatment is "worst available" then clearly there's no further magic to it. You could do it yourself. Selling something like SSO would have better tax treatment, I think.
This time is the same
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
My holdings summary at Vanguard is listing PSLDX with an expense ratio of 0.61% instead of the usual 1.01% today. This appears to be the ER for the 'Institutional Class' shares versus the 'Class A' shares ER of 1.01%.
PSLDX Prospectus
Has Vanguard struck a deal with Pimco?
Vanguard Fund SummaryInstitutional Class and I-2
The minimum initial investment for Institutional Class and I-2 shares of the Fund is $1 million, except that the minimum initial investment may be modified for certain financial firms that submit orders on behalf of their customers.
PSLDX Prospectus
Has Vanguard struck a deal with Pimco?
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Curious, does Fidelity minimum requirement comes from PSLDX Inst ? Wouldn't the Inst class have unique ticker ?kevinf wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 7:30 pm My holdings summary at Vanguard is listing PSLDX with an expense ratio of 0.61% instead of the usual 1.01% today. This appears to be the ER for the 'Institutional Class' shares versus the 'Class A' shares ER of 1.01%.
Vanguard Fund SummaryInstitutional Class and I-2
The minimum initial investment for Institutional Class and I-2 shares of the Fund is $1 million, except that the minimum initial investment may be modified for certain financial firms that submit orders on behalf of their customers.
PSLDX Prospectus
Has Vanguard struck a deal with Pimco?
- firebirdparts
- Posts: 4411
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Southern Appalachia
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
It would. PSLDX itself is the institutional class and now has ER of .61 on PIMCO's website.
Institutional class is the only share class of this fund. I don't see a "Class A" I don't know if PIMCo just uses that chart for multiple products, or if somebody at PIMCO mixed up one of their other products that actually has class A shares. But clearly there is only one class. If they make another class it would have to have a ticker.
Last edited by firebirdparts on Tue Aug 17, 2021 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This time is the same
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
I'm interested in the reason behind Pimco dropping the fund ER by 40 basis points.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Oh wow. The Schwab page for this fund updated to the .61% expense ratio as well. Can't complain about that.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Oh wow, it's true, that's good for all us.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Very rare situation where I feel like a .61% expense ratio is soooo cheap lol
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
This puts it much more in line with NTSX, which has an ER of .20 but is a far simpler fund to manage. Given the increased leverage of PSLDX and the complexity of both the bond portion and the equities derivatives I'd say that the .61 is a reasonable number. The ER reduction will also help its performance against alternatives in the long run.
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:19 am
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
My understanding based on the summary in their prospectus is that the fund purchases 100% bonds directly and borrows against this (using the bonds as collateral) to invest in S&P futures to get the 100% stock allocation.The most representative (excluding fees, borrowing costs, tracking error, etc) would be something like
100% VFINX (or SPY)
100% VBLLX (or BLV)
-100% Cash/STT?
I don't think my understanding is correct because:
1. You don't need to borrow 100% short term cash since one can buy futures is a fraction of value of the intended securities. Why does the fund borrow 100% Cash (3 month LIBOR)?
2. I see references to 100% bonds + 100% stocks - 100% 3-month LIBOR in the summary but the asset allocation from schwab as
Stocks, Bonds, Cash as 100%, 160%, -160%
https://www.schwab.com/research/mutual- ... olio/psldx
Appreciate if someone can clarify.
- OuterBanks
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:19 pm
- firebirdparts
- Posts: 4411
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Southern Appalachia
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
The fund consists mainly of an actively managed long term bond fund plus S&p 500 return swap contracts with notional value approximately equal to the total assets of the fund.dalekinvades wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 3:53 pmMy understanding based on the summary in their prospectus is that the fund purchases 100% bonds directly and borrows against this (using the bonds as collateral) to invest in S&P futures to get the 100% stock allocation.The most representative (excluding fees, borrowing costs, tracking error, etc) would be something like
100% VFINX (or SPY)
100% VBLLX (or BLV)
-100% Cash/STT?
I don't think my understanding is correct because:
1. You don't need to borrow 100% short term cash since one can buy futures is a fraction of value of the intended securities. Why does the fund borrow 100% Cash (3 month LIBOR)?
2. I see references to 100% bonds + 100% stocks - 100% 3-month LIBOR in the summary but the asset allocation from schwab as
Stocks, Bonds, Cash as 100%, 160%, -160%
https://www.schwab.com/research/mutual- ... olio/psldx
Appreciate if someone can clarify.
This time is the same
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
It is lowered at TD as well, but it looks like the minimum was raised back up to $1M
-
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:23 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
I thought the previous minimum buy in of PSLDX at Vanguard was $50k. It's now $25k. Did this change as well or is my memory incorrect?
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
I bought $25k at Vanguard in February this year. It was my first purchase of PSLDX, so I can't speak to the minimums before that.mrjohnanderson007 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 9:42 am I thought the previous minimum buy in of PSLDX at Vanguard was $50k. It's now $25k. Did this change as well or is my memory incorrect?
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
I’m coming on this thread a bit late but have read much of it and the prospectus.
One question I had, why does PSLDX hold substantial non US treasury bonds? Historically corporate, mortgage, junk, foreign bonds have dipped during recessions while US government has risen. I understand that the stocks + bond strategy (HFEA) is only effective when stocks are paired with government bonds not any old bonds.
Just look at JNK (junk bonds) during March 2020 and you’ll see the massive crash. Compare with TLT which rose considerably and would have been a good way to balance out the drop in SPY.
One question I had, why does PSLDX hold substantial non US treasury bonds? Historically corporate, mortgage, junk, foreign bonds have dipped during recessions while US government has risen. I understand that the stocks + bond strategy (HFEA) is only effective when stocks are paired with government bonds not any old bonds.
Just look at JNK (junk bonds) during March 2020 and you’ll see the massive crash. Compare with TLT which rose considerably and would have been a good way to balance out the drop in SPY.
- firebirdparts
- Posts: 4411
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Southern Appalachia
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
I assume they think they can outsmart the market, and they are proceeding based on what they believe. You have to have that mentality to run a fund, don't you?
The good news is, if you just want to do treasuries, you already know how to do that with all sorts of cheap leverage and free trades and no minimums.
The good news is, if you just want to do treasuries, you already know how to do that with all sorts of cheap leverage and free trades and no minimums.
This time is the same
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
The name of the fund may contain the answer: StocksPLUS. I think the objective is for the bond portion of the portfolio to enhance the returns, not necessarily to maximize crash protection or be a lightweight version of HFEA. Presumably PIMCO thinks they can get better returns from the bond portion with diversification and riskier types of bonds.joelin02 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 12:52 pm I’m coming on this thread a bit late but have read much of it and the prospectus.
One question I had, why does PSLDX hold substantial non US treasury bonds? Historically corporate, mortgage, junk, foreign bonds have dipped during recessions while US government has risen. I understand that the stocks + bond strategy (HFEA) is only effective when stocks are paired with government bonds not any old bonds.
Just look at JNK (junk bonds) during March 2020 and you’ll see the massive crash. Compare with TLT which rose considerably and would have been a good way to balance out the drop in SPY.
-
- Posts: 568
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:39 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
I bought it about 2 years ago after seeing this thread. It was $25k.iskey wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 9:54 amI bought $25k at Vanguard in February this year. It was my first purchase of PSLDX, so I can't speak to the minimums before that.mrjohnanderson007 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 9:42 am I thought the previous minimum buy in of PSLDX at Vanguard was $50k. It's now $25k. Did this change as well or is my memory incorrect?
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
While I have basically no interest in active funds, I do feel like PIMCO's track record with active bond trading is compelling. Being aggressive and in the accumulation phase, my bond holdings are very limited. These are some reasons why I like having a portion of my portfolio in this fund. Basically, the bond portion is PIMCO's attempt to capture excess returns over a pure S&P500 fund.
You can look at how TLT did during the COVID crash, but you can also look at how TLT did during the first half of this year. PSLDX didn't do so hot in riding out the COVID crash, but it managed to keep up with the S&P500 in the first half of 2021 while TLT were holding back the portfolios of everyone who held them. One of the reasons I like running both HFEA and PSLDX.
You can look at how TLT did during the COVID crash, but you can also look at how TLT did during the first half of this year. PSLDX didn't do so hot in riding out the COVID crash, but it managed to keep up with the S&P500 in the first half of 2021 while TLT were holding back the portfolios of everyone who held them. One of the reasons I like running both HFEA and PSLDX.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
I'm still wondering about how this fund can remain solvent when having a the equivalent of 100% stocks, 100% bonds, -100% cash.
There are many risks here.
When stocks drop, corporate bonds, junk bonds, real estate bonds (especially during the GFC) will fall alongside.
If everything fell 50% and you had -100% cash, you would be effectively wiped out.
If they don't borrow cash for the fund and just do 90% bonds, and 10% leveraged S&P (using options), the options would be wiped out over and over as the market drops and then you would still be permanently damaged.
I don't see how this fund can survive GFC and March 2020 and come back stronger than ever.
There are many risks here.
When stocks drop, corporate bonds, junk bonds, real estate bonds (especially during the GFC) will fall alongside.
If everything fell 50% and you had -100% cash, you would be effectively wiped out.
If they don't borrow cash for the fund and just do 90% bonds, and 10% leveraged S&P (using options), the options would be wiped out over and over as the market drops and then you would still be permanently damaged.
I don't see how this fund can survive GFC and March 2020 and come back stronger than ever.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
They don't use options. They use SP500 futures contracts.joelin02 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 11:07 pm I'm still wondering about how this fund can remain solvent when having a the equivalent of 100% stocks, 100% bonds, -100% cash.
There are many risks here.
When stocks drop, corporate bonds, junk bonds, real estate bonds (especially during the GFC) will fall alongside.
If everything fell 50% and you had -100% cash, you would be effectively wiped out.
If they don't borrow cash for the fund and just do 90% bonds, and 10% leveraged S&P (using options), the options would be wiped out over and over as the market drops and then you would still be permanently damaged.
I don't see how this fund can survive GFC and March 2020 and come back stronger than ever.
You can go review how this fund performed in 2008 and 2020. It did better than SP500 in both instances. The long term bonds were a ballast....as interest rates often fall during stock crisis.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
PSLDX has actively managed bonds where the HFEA doesn't. I think it has corporates, LTT, MBS, etc.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Can I put all my IRA life savings into this fund?
I'm talking over $2,000,000.
I don't mind underperforming the S&P 500.
My concern is being completely wiped out.
I'm talking over $2,000,000.
I don't mind underperforming the S&P 500.
My concern is being completely wiped out.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Then you rely on PIMCO's active trading to minimize the hit to the fund. We had some of that in Q3&4 of last year and Q1&2 of this year, and while PSLDX lagged the S&P500 a bit, it was able to catch up during Q2. Performed a bit better than just holding treasuries.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
The equities go up? Obviously there are all kinds of scenarios where hypothetically the fund wouldn't do well.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Also I think it's worth noting that this fund is likely to either outperform or underperform the S&P 500, and I think that the chance of outperformance is greater given that the stock market on average goes up and bonds usually provide some (even if rather modest lately) return and you'll get 100% exposure to both. I often see comments both here and in other investment circles worried about full blown collapse of the fund due to the leverage etc which just doesn't seem possible. In my mind I'm mainly considering a period of relative underperformance due to interest rate risk etc as the main potential downside. I think that this risk is similar in magnitude to things like international stocks continuing to underperform due to some macroeconomic trends, yet many invest in them anyways.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
You really should consider your own risk tolerance before putting all your IRA saving into this. While the chance is complete wipe out is small, it's probably bigger than your typical 50/50 balanced fund due to leverage. And expense ratio is a bit higher too. So you may want to really assess your comfort level first. Full disclosure, I have 7 figure in the fund and feel comfortable with it.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Remember, the fund is using SP500 swap contract for the 100% SP500 exposure (no margin requirement like retail investors). From 1/1/2020 to 8/23/21, PSLDX total return 58.5%, VFINX (SP500) total return 41.0%. The drop in bond yield helped propel the fund performance ahead of s&p500. Going forward, if interest rate do raise significantly, one would expect some lackluster performance but that's expected with the 100% total bond exposure. Some of us buy into the argument that Pimco's bond active management controls that bond risk reasonably well. BTW, PSLDX started on Aug 2007 so it did went thru GFC and survived.joelin02 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 11:07 pm I'm still wondering about how this fund can remain solvent when having a the equivalent of 100% stocks, 100% bonds, -100% cash.
There are many risks here.
When stocks drop, corporate bonds, junk bonds, real estate bonds (especially during the GFC) will fall alongside.
If everything fell 50% and you had -100% cash, you would be effectively wiped out.
If they don't borrow cash for the fund and just do 90% bonds, and 10% leveraged S&P (using options), the options would be wiped out over and over as the market drops and then you would still be permanently damaged.
I don't see how this fund can survive GFC and March 2020 and come back stronger than ever.