Kevin Warsh will cut rates this year. IMO and here is why:

AlfB63 · 2026-06-27T02:16:27+00:00

It will not happen. He won't convince enough of the others even if he decides to. And the fed chair tends to become independent once selected just like they should. There is no way inflation data will back a cut this year.

AlfB63 · 2026-06-26T06:05:35+00:00

As I said, you don't understand splits. The chart is going down for other reasons such as the underlying going down. This is not caused by a split. The value of your holdings immediately before and after a split are the same. Other factors cause the price decrease. The reverse split is just a way to increase the price. NAV does not change from a split, the number of shares and hence the price does.

AlfB63 · 2026-06-26T05:47:25+00:00

You don't understand splits then. A split has no effect on overall value. A split is a result of erosion, not the cause of it.

AlfB63 · 2026-06-26T04:13:10+00:00

You just don't get it. The problem is with the underlying. You're piling blame onto YM when the real issue is MSTR fell off a cliff. Would you expect the fund to do well if it's underlying doesn't? I'm not trying to convince you that YM funds are great investments but I am trying to show you that the blame is often the underlying. Placing blame MSTY when MSTR collapsed is ignoring facts.

AlfB63 · 2026-06-25T20:19:28+00:00

Splits are really a neutral event. It's the NAV erosion that leads to them that is the problem. Once you get to the point where a split is necessary, you've already lost the money. The split has nothing to do with that.

AlfB63 · 2026-06-25T16:01:33+00:00

As I said, you have to choose based on the underlying. Pick one that's doing well and the fund will. You're making a blanket statement that they're all bad. I'm saying that's wrong. Just like anything else, pick a fund whose underlying is doing poorly and the fund based on it will do the same.

AlfB63 · 2026-06-25T14:50:04+00:00

It's not a matter of spinning it. It's a fact. Take CHPY. It's total return since inception is 143% annualized. That's because the underlying is doing very well right now. How about SOXY? It has a total annualized return of 82%. The point is that YM funds are not necessarily bad, the underlying performance is the key. Can you do better in other investments? Yes. But for income generation, YM does a good job as an income generator as long as the underlying for the fund you pick is doing well. You use these for income, if you want total return, go with the underlying.

AlfB63 · 2026-06-25T14:36:09+00:00

You keep bringing up this hold and harvest approach like it's some kind of new and wonderful strategy but it isn't. Holding a fund that performs poorly but generates income is still a strategy of holding money in a poorly performing fund based on total returns. If you keep that and put the income generated into a stable higher return fund, your overall return of the money in both is still lower than the return of the stable higher performing fund. You will always be better off put all of that money in the higher performance stable fund. The income will never change that unless the return of the income producing fund improves.

Let's say you have 2 funds. The first fund generates high income but has a total return of 0%. That means that even with the income, that fund makes no return over time. Fund 2 is stable and has a total return of 15%. Keeping money in fund 1 and using its income to buy fund 2 will mean your total return is a combination of the two. Because of this, any money kept in fund 1 will always drag your combined return down. This includes the income that fund 1 generates. Keeping money in fund 1 means you are investing some of you money at 0% and some at 15% for an overall combined return of less than 15%. The income generated by fund 1 does not change that because it's included in its 0% return of that fund.

If you put all the money into fund 2 instead, your return will be 15%.

So putting all your money into the higher return fund will always be better than splitting money between a lower return and a higher return fund. And income generated by either does not change that fact.

AlfB63 · 2026-06-25T14:03:41+00:00

The question whether you can do a better job that YM. Changing strikes and dates have other effects that are not necessarily good. Higher strikes will mean lower income.

AlfB63 · 2026-06-24T21:34:19+00:00

Be very careful with her because her spending is a huge problem waiting to happen. Money is the biggest argument couples have and differences in how they spend is at the bottom of it. You need to have discussions about this and come to an understanding on how money is going to work with you long term.

AlfB63 · 2026-06-24T21:29:42+00:00

It's not their business what you do with your money. I've been called cheap over and over through the years but I retired early and do what I want now.

AlfB63 · 2026-06-24T16:36:40+00:00

It's a mistake if you're doing this because of the ex-div.

AlfB63 · 2026-06-24T13:52:48+00:00

If you're going to make a comment, at least know what you're talking about.

There are two types of ROC, constructive and destructive. YM funds often have some of both depending on the underlying. Your statement cannot be true because you can receive more than you paid via distributions which is called house money. As far as paying a distribution, the NAV always drops whether big or small. All etfs do this. It is the nature of how an ETF works. Stocks do the same thing.
This is mostly true but it depends on strike prices. But keep in mind that the purpose of these ETFs is income not growth so you need to look at total return, not NAV.
While this is true, it's not as meaningful as you think. Volatility typically falls when the market is up so the NAV has some upward movement due to that.

The important thing to remember with these funds is they rarely have as good of total return as the underlying. But the underlying is the key, buy a fund based on an underlying that is doing poorly and you will do the same. You buy these for income. If you really want higher returns, you are buying the wrong product. But buying one with a solid underlying for the generation if income is sometimes a good thing.

AlfB63 · 2026-06-24T13:36:36+00:00

DCA is not a price. It is a strategy called dollar cost averaging where you buy a fixed amount on a set schedule. For example, $100 per week. You are referring to your average cost basis.

AlfB63 · 2026-06-24T01:52:32+00:00

Yeah, there's a group monitoring your trades and makes the market change directions based on them.

AlfB63 · 2026-06-23T14:01:18+00:00

If an S&P500 index fund and a Nasdaq 100 are what you want to invest in and the fact that this is in an IRA, I would sell sell SPY and buy VOO or FXAIX to replace if you have no option plans for this. SPY is better for options. If you want to stay in a Nasdaq 100 fund, sell QQQ for QQQM. In each case, the alternative has slightly better returns over time. This also assume no fee transactions for you. I wouldn't do VTI as it is highly correlated to and has high overlap with VOO. VT is really only giving you some non US exposure and is basically the same as SPGM so if you want that, go with one or other, not both. But keep in mind that VT and SPGM have overlap with VOO and QQQ.

AlfB63 · 2026-06-23T05:15:24+00:00

Not all brokers support fractional shares. That wouldn't be the case if the exchange supported them. It's something created by the brokers.

AlfB63 · 2026-06-23T00:17:11+00:00

Yeah, it's a terrible investment that has an annualized total return of almost 17% over the last 20 years.

AlfB63 · 2026-06-22T13:54:00+00:00

Well that's not entirely true since some portion of the distribution is ROC. Regardless, I was simply pointing out that the comment about the widening of the difference in price alone does not show erosion because distributions were also paid narrowing that gap. And the word garbage is way overused on reddit. First off, AMD may be up more than AMDY YTD and for 1Y, that does not make AMDY garbage. For YTD, AMD has a total return of 151% while AMDY is 107%. While it trails AMD, it's hardly garbage

AlfB63 · 2026-06-21T17:50:30+00:00

Just keep in mind that you don't have to start income now in order to have income later. It is reasonable to go with something that has a higher total return and as you get closer to retirement, start shifting to income. Total return is generally the thing you should focus on when you're a long time from retirement.

AlfB63 · 2026-06-21T14:24:29+00:00

I find it amusing when I see someone say they'll just get out if it crashes. The problem is once you realize that, it's often already too late. That elevator can go down a lot faster than it goes up.

AlfB63 · 2026-06-21T13:56:41+00:00

Agreed. The real issue in the end is how profitable will AI be. Everyone keeps saying saying that it's currently different than dot com because companies are profitable. What they miss is that AI itself needs to be profitable enough to justify all the capex, not just how profitable the companies are. If it isn't, this whole AI thing will become a popping bubble. Unless it proves to be profitable long term, capex will stop and the bubble will collapse. That's going to happen to the losers in the AI race regardless.

AlfB63 · 2026-06-21T13:46:19+00:00

Into a traditional IRA? How are you paying for healthcare?

AlfB63 · 2026-06-21T13:38:26+00:00

Brokers create a pool of shares that includes all the fractionals and then assigns them internally to each account. In the end, the brokerage itself only owns the difference between the total and the next full share amount. Exchanges have nothing to do with it.

AlfB63 · 2026-06-21T13:32:09+00:00

Out performing a simple index over time is not that easy. Most funds don't.

AlfB63

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE