Why not 100% PSLDX? [PIMCO StocksPLUS Long Duration Fund]
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2022 12:50 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.
-
- Posts: 1446
- Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:05 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.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.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.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.
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.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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?
-
- Posts: 1574
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:40 pm
- Location: Land of Hypoxia
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
rockin and rollin with today's 2/3rds of 1 cent dividend.....giddy up!
- firebirdparts
- Posts: 4415
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Southern Appalachia
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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?
Think the bond part of PSLDX is at risk?
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.
-
- Posts: 1796
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:00 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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:Booogle wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:47 amdafioram 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.
"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.
"
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
runninginvestor wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:53 amFor 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:Booogle wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:47 amdafioram 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.
"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.
-
- Posts: 1796
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:00 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
I don't think much of any, this was their holdings report:Booogle wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 8:02 amrunninginvestor wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:53 amFor 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:Booogle wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 7:47 amdafioram 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.
"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.
https://www.pimco.com/handlers/displayd ... rHRTywCcHa
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
I see Russian stuff like Sberbank of Russia and Gazprom.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'm using this list of Russian companies:
https://companiesmarketcap.com/russia/l ... arket-cap/
-
- Posts: 1796
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:00 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Still not a lot though right?Booogle wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 8:12 amI see Russian stuff like Sberbank of Russia and Gazprom.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'm using this list of Russian companies:
https://companiesmarketcap.com/russia/l ... arket-cap/
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.
-
- Posts: 1287
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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?
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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 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?
-
- Posts: 1287
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
If 55/45 UPRO/TMF was available as a mutual fund, would you be invested in that instead?kevinf wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 12:58 pmSimplicity, 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 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?
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
I'd take a close look at it for sure.manlymatt83 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 2:50 pmIf 55/45 UPRO/TMF was available as a mutual fund, would you be invested in that instead?kevinf wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 12:58 pmSimplicity, 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 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?
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
I have PSLDX in an old IRA, NTSX in taxable, and a modified HFEA (50-25-25 of IXUS UPRO TMF) in my Roth.manlymatt83 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 2:50 pmIf 55/45 UPRO/TMF was available as a mutual fund, would you be invested in that instead?kevinf wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 12:58 pmSimplicity, 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 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?
So far, my Roth is holding up better than PSLDX, but not by much.
“TE OCCIDERE POSSUNT SED TE EDERE NON POSSUNT NEFAS EST"
- firebirdparts
- Posts: 4415
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Southern Appalachia
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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
-
- Posts: 1287
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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”.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Medical advice is off topic here.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”.
But backtests won't save your portfolio from the future either!
-
- Posts: 1287
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
000 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 8:28 pmMedical advice is off topic here.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”.
But backtests won't save your portfolio from the future either!
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Very likely depends on which 30 year timeframe you're looking at.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”.
- OuterBanks
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:19 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Impressive day, seems like rocket boosters are now refueled.
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2022 12:50 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.kevinf wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:08 pmThis 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.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.
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.
Also considering HFEA for a portion, but I am correct in my assertion that PSLDX is significantly less risky than pure HFEA, I assume?
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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)superjames1992 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:19 pmYeah, 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.kevinf wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:08 pmThis 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.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.
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.
Also considering HFEA for a portion, but I am correct in my assertion that PSLDX is significantly less risky than pure HFEA, I assume?
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.superjames1992 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:19 pmYeah, 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.kevinf wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:08 pmThis 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.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.
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.
Also considering HFEA for a portion, but I am correct in my assertion that PSLDX is significantly less risky than pure HFEA, I assume?
“TE OCCIDERE POSSUNT SED TE EDERE NON POSSUNT NEFAS EST"
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2022 12:50 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.bgf wrote: ↑Thu Mar 17, 2022 6:39 pmyou 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.superjames1992 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:19 pmYeah, 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.kevinf wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:08 pmThis 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.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.
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.
Also considering HFEA for a portion, but I am correct in my assertion that PSLDX is significantly less risky than pure HFEA, I assume?
Last edited by superjames1992 on Fri Mar 18, 2022 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1796
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:00 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
NTSX , another mentioned holding here, is leveraged US exposure. They also came out with leveraged international if that was also your thing.superjames1992 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 12:09 pmAh, 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.bgf wrote: ↑Thu Mar 17, 2022 6:39 pmyou 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.superjames1992 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:19 pmYeah, 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.kevinf wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 1:08 pmThis 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.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.
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.
Also considering HFEA for a portion, but I am correct in my assertion that PSLDX is significantly less risky than pure HFEA, I assume?
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.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.
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.
- hiddenpower
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2020 11:24 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
What would you consider? Mine seems to have a linked brokerage account with trading flexibility.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.
- firebirdparts
- Posts: 4415
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Southern Appalachia
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.hiddenpower wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 8:59 amWhat would you consider? Mine seems to have a linked brokerage account with trading flexibility.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.
This time is the same
- hiddenpower
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2020 11:24 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
- Wouldn't the ER be higher with LETFs?firebirdparts wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 12:27 pmI 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.hiddenpower wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 8:59 amWhat would you consider? Mine seems to have a linked brokerage account with trading flexibility.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.
- 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.
-
- Posts: 1287
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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?
Also, would starting with $100k of PSLDX essentially be the same as starting with $25k HFEA over 40 years?
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.
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"
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
I think there is far too much 'path dependency' to ever make that kind of claim.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?
“TE OCCIDERE POSSUNT SED TE EDERE NON POSSUNT NEFAS EST"
- OuterBanks
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:19 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
PIMCO's active bond managers in this fund are unbeatable. They are simply the best at the game.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?
- hiddenpower
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2020 11:24 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Doesn’t this perform basically the same at 55 SSO / 45 2x ITTOuterBanks wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 6:23 pmPIMCO's active bond managers in this fund are unbeatable. They are simply the best at the game.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?
-
- Posts: 717
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:58 am
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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 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?
-
- Posts: 1287
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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.OuterBanks wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 6:23 pmPIMCO's active bond managers in this fund are unbeatable. They are simply the best at the game.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?
- hiddenpower
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2020 11:24 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Not quite following what you mean by this? 3x vs 2xmanlymatt83 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 9:39 pmGiven 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.OuterBanks wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 6:23 pmPIMCO's active bond managers in this fund are unbeatable. They are simply the best at the game.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?
-
- Posts: 1287
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Right, but I'd be starting with a higher amount of PSLDX.hiddenpower wrote: ↑Wed Mar 30, 2022 1:35 pmNot quite following what you mean by this? 3x vs 2xmanlymatt83 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 9:39 pmGiven 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.OuterBanks wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 6:23 pmPIMCO's active bond managers in this fund are unbeatable. They are simply the best at the game.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?
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.
- hiddenpower
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2020 11:24 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
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 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 30, 2022 1:43 pmRight, but I'd be starting with a higher amount of PSLDX.hiddenpower wrote: ↑Wed Mar 30, 2022 1:35 pmNot quite following what you mean by this? 3x vs 2xmanlymatt83 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 9:39 pmGiven 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.OuterBanks wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 6:23 pmPIMCO's active bond managers in this fund are unbeatable. They are simply the best at the game.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?
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.
-
- Posts: 1287
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Anyone have this as their only domestic holding?
- OuterBanks
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:19 pm
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
It’s only available in my Roth IRA, which is probably a good thing as it forces me to be a bit more diversified
401K: FSKAX
HSA: FSKAX
Roth IRA: PSLDX
-
- Posts: 1287
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:23 am
Re: Why not 100% PSLDX?
Are those your only two holdings?OuterBanks wrote: ↑Sat Apr 02, 2022 7:44 pmIt’s only available in my Roth IRA, which is probably a good thing as it forces me to be a bit more diversified
401K: FSKAX
HSA: FSKAX
Roth IRA: PSLDX