*Investors Blog*

From a equities standpoint, there are only like 10 different sectors in the S&P 500, and since 58% of the holdings are indexed, unless something unique happens they seem to move in pretty close formation. I used to trade a lot more stocks than I do. Now, if I just want to rotate sectors, I just buy the best in class or maybe 2 of what I want to rotate into.

Been trying very hard over the last couple years to understand banks. I may start making some picks in that sector soon - it seems like there could definitely be benefits of picking winners vs loosers there.

Bonds on the other hand, vary much more.

View attachment 237776
Not seeing your point exactly (probably me), but banks I generally avoid long holds other than bank preferred stocks which are rock solid bonds. I mean if a large bank preferred has issues, we are in really deep yogurt already. Just snap them up under par and sit on them if you are playing the income game. The BAC preferred 10,000 shares I own, never willingly relinquish, bought during a C19 fire sale. A ridiculous panic era.

I will from time to time do a trade on large or small bank that may be undervalued.
 
Not seeing your point exactly, but banks I generally avoid long holds other than bank preferred stocks which are rock solid bonds. I mean if a large bank preferred has issues, we are in really deep yogurt already. Just snap them up under par and sit on them if you are playing the income game. The BAC preferred I own, never will willingly relinquish is, bought during a C19 fire sale. A ridiculous panic era.

I will from time to time do a trade on large or small bank that may be undervalued.
My point was that I no longer feel the need to know every stock or trade multiple stocks within a sector because there all so tightly corelated at this point. My personal opinion only.

My other points was that stock picking banks might be the exception (again IMHO). I agree with you on bank prefered's, but only the big banks have prefered's and that isn't where I am going stock picking.
 
My point was that I no longer feel the need to know every stock or trade multiple stocks within a sector because there all so tightly corelated at this point. My personal opinion only.

My other points was that stock picking banks might be the exception (again IMHO). I agree with you on bank prefered's, but only the big banks have prefered's and that isn't where I am going stock picking.
Ah yes, good point. Similar to the reason I rarely buy sector funds anymore. Just look at the top 2-3.

There are actually some smaller financial co preferreds, but I can't claim to have any knowledge on them.
 
All this "small cap" rotation stuff in pop investment press...............do you folks react to that? I don't really. Do you buy anything specifically?
The theory is lower rates will help small caps because there more indebted than large caps.

Problem is that rates get lowered because economic activity is slowing which hurts them on the other side.

The market is looking for any excuse to continue IMHO - given that AI spending seems to have peaked. Rolling into a bunch of zombie small caps sounds like trying to get everyone in on the joke to me.
 
The theory is lower rates will help small caps because there more indebted than large caps.

Problem is that rates get lowered because economic activity is slowing which hurts them on the other side.

The market is looking for any excuse to continue IMHO - given that AI spending seems to have peaked. Rolling into a bunch of zombie small caps sounds like trying to get everyone in on the joke to me.
hahahaha yeah feels................."contrived" :)
 
All this "small cap" rotation stuff in pop investment press...............do you folks react to that? I don't really. Do you buy anything specifically?
The theory is small caps have to borrow much more because they are much less likely to be able to internally fund capital expenditures and expansion compared to large/mega caps and therefore they are much more sensitive to interest rates. How this will play out moving forward as rates come down? No, idea. There are too many moving parts IMO so I just keep following my investment plan and if I miss out on some small cap boom, oh well.
 
Stagnant wages - Not here. My payroll is up 25% in 4 years and national data says wage growth is outpacing inflation.
That doesn’t mean anything without context. Same number of employed, at the same level of tenure?

Is that the fully burdened cost of labor where health insurance and other costs have been rising faster than wages (and you may be paying a portion)?

There’s a difference in saying that fully burdened labor expenditures went up 25%, versus peoples’ salaries increased 25% in their take-home.
 
Dr. Lacy Hunt did an interview on the Julia LoRoach show. Amongst other things he discussed how the 800K employment revision (which he calculates at 920K BTW) will impact the rest or the economic numbers. He also discusses how the standard of living for modest and moderate income families has been declining for decades and why.

Its free on youtube. The fact that Dr. Hunt takes the time to educate us plebs for free is a testament to his character. You can educate yourself or site anecdotes.

To put into perspective how well respected Dr. Hunt is, he mentioned Anna Wong in the interview. He said he has not met Anna but has read her work and likes it. Anna Wong tweated after that she was honored Dr. Hunt mentioned her name. Anna Wong is the chief economist at Bloomberg.
 
That doesn’t mean anything without context. Same number of employed, at the same level of tenure?

Is that the fully burdened cost of labor where health insurance and other costs have been rising faster than wages (and you may be paying a portion)?

There’s a difference in saying that fully burdened labor expenditures went up 25%, versus peoples’ salaries increased 25% in their take-home.
Why would I comment on wage growth and my payroll being up 25% if wage growth wasn't the major contributor to payroll being up? Yes, to state the obvious, most of that wage growth is due to the raises given to existing staff for existing positions. Yes, some of that is due to promotions and new hires but it’s less that 3%, so to be fair, let’s call payroll up 22% due strictly to wage growth.
 
Why would I comment on wage growth and my payroll being up 25% if wage growth wasn't the major contributor to payroll being up? Yes, to state the obvious, most of that wage growth is due to the raises given to existing staff for existing positions. Yes, some of that is due to promotions and new hires but it’s less that 3%, so to be fair, let’s call payroll up 22% due strictly to wage growth.
Because the costs of benefits have gone up substantially. Healthcare benefit cost has risen dramatically. Thus the ask.

Wages can be solely the amount you pay someone on paper, or, to be more honest, the burdened cost of labor which includes any benefits, etc. one is not like the other.

Someone making $100k getting bumped to $125k is different than someone’s burdened cost of labor (call it $150k for argument sake) to $188k, but the change in take home being much less. It is entirely conceivable that a 25% payrol increase in the last many years was 5-15% take home wages, and the rest in benefit costs.

If your actual take home wage is up 22%, is suspect that your total outlay increase is actually higher given disproportionate healthcare benefit cost increases. Unless your pay increases are offset by less subsidies for healthcare for the employees, netting them a lower actual wage increase. It’s all a balance.
 
I am heavy into small caps. I saw a significant valuation gap between them and the large caps 6-12 months ago, so I got in ahead of the Fed rate cuts. The small caps have begun to move in anticipation of Fed easing. The posters above are right. Smallcaps are much more debt dependant than large caps, that can primarily self fund themselves. As Fed rates fall, the small cap headwinds turn to tailwinds. I believe the rotation is real.
 
Because the costs of benefits have gone up substantially. Healthcare benefit cost has risen dramatically. Thus the ask.

Wages can be solely the amount you pay someone on paper, or, to be more honest, the burdened cost of labor which includes any benefits, etc. one is not like the other.

Someone making $100k getting bumped to $125k is different than someone’s burdened cost of labor (call it $150k for argument sake) to $188k, but the change in take home being much less. It is entirely conceivable that a 25% payrol increase in the last many years was 5-15% take home wages, and the rest in benefit costs.

If your actual take home wage is up 22%, is suspect that your total outlay increase is actually higher given disproportionate healthcare benefit cost increases. Unless your pay increases are offset by less subsidies for healthcare for the employees, netting them a lower actual wage increase. It’s all a balance.

Yeah, full-time employees with excellent benefits package are very expensive.

Most employees don’t realize this and only focus on their pay.
 
Well Ill now longer cry about taking a tiny to me lose getting out of NVDA when it didnt behave like I wanted. Dont misunderstand, Im not saying anything is wrong with the stock but I bail when things dont happen like I expect. Sometimes that can cost me, but the vast majority of times it prevents losses since I am only in for the short term.

I DO regret selling off some WMT and possibly GM (cant remember) but also bought META at the same time and that is still up so no net realized losses but no gains (meta unrealized gain of 2.45% at 12 noon today, which I would have had significant unrealized gains with WMT and maybe GM

I still like META and trying to decide if I walk on the wild side and buy more with the NVDA proceeds (or GM or WMT) I wish the market would trash for a few days *LOL*
 
Well Ill now longer cry about taking a tiny to me lose getting out of NVDA when it didnt behave like I wanted. Dont misunderstand, Im not saying anything is wrong with the stock but I bail when things dont happen like I expect. Sometimes that can cost me, but the vast majority of times it prevents losses since I am only in for the short term.
I am not emotional about such things, but I do sometimes hedge my speculative buys with options.

Yes NVDA is down, and I am not worried because although speculative it's a very small percentage of a single account and I am going long. I bought my calls back for pennies twice now, making thousands each time - I just assume nothing behaves as I want. 🤪 :cool:
 
The only stocks I've bought lately are BDC's and I just nibble at them. When I was younger I traded alot. Futures, stocks, bonds, currencies, options, etc. Nowadays at retirement age I'm much more risk averse. I don't think fast enough anymore to trust myself trading anyway. Anybody else buying BDC's? I also buy some CLO and bank loan rate short term closed end bond funds but right now I'm very selective because the Z scores and discounts are not at buy points for me on most of them.
 
The only stocks I've bought lately are BDC's and I just nibble at them. When I was younger I traded alot. Futures, stocks, bonds, currencies, options, etc. Nowadays at retirement age I'm much more risk averse. I don't think fast enough anymore to trust myself trading anyway. Anybody else buying BDC's? I also buy some CLO and bank loan rate short term closed end bond funds but right now I'm very selective because the Z scores and discounts are not at buy points for me on most of them.
Which BDC's? I own a few. Holding up OK today.
 
Right now I own PSEC and OBDC. Looking to add also FSK and MRCC. I own bonds of PSEC, OBDC, ARCC, GBDC, and Blackstone. I'll add ARCC if they ever have bad news. Right now they're the analyst's BDC pick. I like to buy on bad news. It's near 5 year highs which make me wait. I'm a mean reverting value investor at heart.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom