Stock in Pacira Pharmaceuticals (PCRX)

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

excalibur

Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
655
Reaction score
9
Anyone following this stock? PCRX. Pacira pharmaceuticals are the makers of Exparel. It looks like it has been killing it the last week to 10 days.

For the record I own 0 stock in that. I am just starting out in the investment game. I just wanted to hear from the SDN stock gurus like BladeMDA and Dr. Doze. All opinions welcome of course.

Would this be a good investment? Is the rise an indication that Exparel is going to be approved for TAP blocks soon and maybe even PNB's?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Anyone following this stock? PCRX. Pacira pharmaceuticals are the makers of Exparel. It looks like it has been killing it the last week to 10 days.

For the record I own 0 stock in that. I am just starting out in the investment game. I just wanted to hear from the SDN stock gurus like BladeMDA and Dr. Doze. All opinions welcome of course.

Would this be a good investment? Is the rise an indication that Exparel is going to be approved for TAP blocks soon and maybe even PNB's?

Stock prices are an indication of past performance, not future performance.

Picking individual stocks works out poorly for the majority of professional active managers, who routinely fail to beat indexes. Why do you think you can do better than them? What do you know that they don't?

Market returns are there for the taking with low cost index funds. Take them. JMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Stock prices are an indication of past performance, not future performance.

Picking individual stocks works out poorly for the majority of professional active managers, who routinely fail to beat indexes. Why do you think you can do better than them? What do you know that they don't?

Market returns are there for the taking with low cost index funds. Take them. JMHO.

Yep. That is what I am doing. Again I am a novice, and I won't be buying Pacira because I am going to stick with the low cost index funds as mentioned.

I have just been keeping an eye on that stock for fun. I am fairly confident that Exparel will be approved for PNBs soon. When it does, I would imagine that there will be a very high demand for it. Those are just my thoughts, and I was curious to see what others think
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Could you enlighten us? I submitted my request for entry into private forum 3.5 months ago, and I am still waiting.

Hook me up, Arch Giullotti!

Submit your info again per the instructions on the sticky. Sometimes requests are automatically denied when the instructions are followed properly:)
 
I have just been keeping an eye on that stock for fun. I am fairly confident that Exparel will be approved for PNBs soon. When it does, I would imagine that there will be a very high demand for it. Those are just my thoughts, and I was curious to see what others think

That may be true, but your belief that Exparel will be approved for PNBs is not insider information. It's not something that you know, that the market doesn't. Consequently, the confidence that Exparel will be approved for PNBs is already accounted for in the stock price.

Those gains have been made, and most of what's left is risk. If Exparel is approved the stock price may go up a bit. But if it's not approved it may very well crash and burn.

We were all pretty sure Sugammadex would be approved a few years ago, too.
 
That may be true, but your belief that Exparel will be approved for PNBs is not insider information. It's not something that you know, that the market doesn't. Consequently, the confidence that Exparel will be approved for PNBs is already accounted for in the stock price.

Those gains have been made, and most of what's left is risk. If Exparel is approved the stock price may go up a bit. But if it's not approved it may very well crash and burn.

We were all pretty sure Sugammadex would be approved a few years ago, too.

Big risk and Big reward. Exparel/Pacira Stock will double from here if the drug works out as planned and becomes a hit among Anesthesiologists. But, if it doesn't pan out for nerve blocks then the stock is way overpriced right now.

I'm in the camp that Exparel will be bigger than Ropivacaine in terms of clinical relevance.
 
If you're just starting out and you're interested in this stock, do yourself a favor and invest instead in something like T. Rowe Price's Health Science mutual fund. You'll get some secondary exposure to Pacira (the fund owns 5% of their stock) while still getting A. the benefits of diversity within the sector, and B. money into a fund that's returned 11.7% a year since 2000.
 
BladeMDA said:
Big risk and Big reward. Exparel/Pacira Stock will double from here if the drug works out as planned and becomes a hit among Anesthesiologists. But, if it doesn't pan out for nerve blocks then the stock is way overpriced right now.

If such risk tolerance is necessary for your portfolio to meet your goals, then maybe the goal is unrealistic.

And if that kind of risk isn't necessary, why accept that excess risk at all?

And if you limit that kind of risk to such a small portion of your portfolio that your actual overall risk is low, then what's the point?

Is the entertainment value of picking stocks and timing the market worth the risk?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
If such risk tolerance is necessary for your portfolio to meet your goals, then maybe the goal is unrealistic.

And if that kind of risk isn't necessary, why accept that excess risk at all?

And if you limit that kind of risk to such a small portion of your portfolio that your actual overall risk is low, then what's the point?

Is the entertainment value of picking stocks and timing the market worth the risk?

Honestly, I believe Exparel has the potential to be a revolutionary product. I am an advocate and firm believer in the product.

That said, Vector2 was right on the money when he mentioned investing via T. Rowe Price Health Sciences to get exposure to Pacira.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Honestly, I believe Exparel has the potential to be a revolutionary product. I am an advocate and firm believer in the product.

That said, Vector2 was right on the money when he mentioned investing via T. Rowe Price Health Sciences to get exposure to Pacira.

I'm not sure I agree with that either.

Per the prospectus, it's an actively managed "aggressive" fund with an expense ratio 4-5x that of simple index funds.

And if the point of buying Pacira is the anesthesiologist hunch that Exparel will be huge, why dilute the position with a bunch of other stuff some manager picks? The fund may own 5% of Pacira but that holding is still probably <1% of the fund (I didn't look).
 
Hell, it's probably less than .5% of the fund. Buying that fund would more or less be for your psychological gratification of owning some minuscule part of Pacira without having to commit to owning just that security. I'd never buy that fund or the stock cause as you said, I don't have any information about exparel that everyone else doesn't already have (not to mention the stock is up 60% YTD so everyone's already missed buying it at anything approaching fair value assuming exparel isn't the next lipitor). And that's why I own a couple shares of Vanguard's ETF instead. Even if it had terrible performance it's almost impossible for it to be a loser with a 0.14% ER and long enough time horizon.
 
Last edited:
BTW, here's morningstar's analysis of that T Rowe fund just for ****s:

This fund's successful, longtime manager has left.

A manager departure at T. Rowe Price Health Sciences is a concern.
The fund's longtime manager, Kris Jenner, and two experienced analysts left T. Rowe Price effective Feb. 15, 2013. Combined, the three departing members had research responsibilities for roughly 40% of the fund's assets, including stocks in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, health-care services, and medical-technology industries.

Taymour Tamaddon, an analyst with the fund since 2004, has been promoted to manager, and he intends to stick with the fund's process. Tamaddon has covered stocks in the life-sciences and hospital-supply industries. He has been responsible for roughly 13% of the fund's assets, second only to Jenner, who oversaw 20% of assets. Tamaddon has also contributed to the firm's analyst-run fund for the past eight years.

Tamaddon has experience working with Jenner, though he inherits a team that requires additional staffing. He plans to hire three new analysts, though it could take time to find the right fit. He'll continue relying on five global health-care analysts who have been at T. Rowe for an average of roughly two and half years but have prior investment experience elsewhere. Still, the departure of three key team members is a huge loss for the fund, and it means analyst coverage responsibilities will shift.

There are some cases in which the current analyst team may find it relatively easy to adopt new coverage. For example, the analyst picking up coverage of Catamaran Corp CTRX, the fund's second-largest name, has past experience with it. But Jenner's departure is still a significant blow to the team, particularly given his experience in biotechnology, a highly specialized industry and historically a big part of the fund. The fund's low-turnover approach may buy more time for the current team to adjust while staying true to a process that delivered strong results under Jenner.

However, it's unclear how well Tamaddon will execute the fund's process with a reduced team, so the former Gold-rated fund is now rated Neutral.

Process Pillar:Neutral
This fund's new skipper, Taymour Tamaddon, doesn't plan to shake up a process that has historically succeeded. Tamaddon retains five dedicated analysts and has access to T. Rowe Price's broader team, though the departure of longtime manager Kris Jenner and two analysts still strikes a blow to the fund.

Jenner, who departed T. Rowe Price on Feb. 15, 2013, had employed a more aggressive approach than his typical rival. He invested across the health-care landscape, though most of his competitors have been more broadly diversified. Jenner favored biotech stocks to a greater extent than most rivals. He also favored smaller names than the competition, reflecting his belief that such names feature better growth prospects. Jenner built positions incrementally and kept turnover low, holding stocks for an average of more than four years. For example, Jenner held Gilead Sciences GILD as it grew from a small- to large-cap stock and became a top-three holding.

The portfolio's smaller-cap bent and relatively pricey portfolio has made the fund vulnerable in downturns. The fund has mitigated some single-stock risk by avoiding heavy concentration in its largest holdings. Deep research and a long time horizon gave Jenner the conviction to stick with his picks in adverse environments. Time will tell how well Tamaddon, who worked alongside Jenner for more than nine years, executes this fund's process.

The fund stands out from its peers in a number of notable respects. Former manager Kris Jenner believed smaller health-care firms enjoy the best growth prospects. Aside from drug giants Merck MRK and Amgen AMGN, the portfolio is headlined by lesser-knowns like Renegeron Pharmaceuticals REGN, a top-10 holding. Overall, the fund's $7.2 billion average market cap clocks in well below the $18.1 billion category norm.

The fund has favored therapeutic firms with innovative treatments or technology, especially in biotech. Indeed, the industry accounts for 35% of the fund's assets. (Reflecting Jenner's preference for smaller firms, drug-manufacturer stocks make up 21% of the fund, less than the category average.) That said, through the years Jenner broadened the portfolio to invest across the health-care sector. And he targeted firms that can cut health-care costs, such as managed-care provider United Health Group UNH.

Jenner's portfolio was much more growth-oriented than the competition. It recently traded at 18.9 times price/prospective earnings, versus 16.9 for the health-care average. Its holdings have grown at far higher rates than the norm as well.


Performance Pillar:Neutral | Flynn Murphy 02/21/2013
This fund has been an outstanding long-term performer, though the departure of its longtime manager and two experienced analysts damp the significance of past returns.

From former manager Kris Jenner's January 2000 start through his Feb. 15, 2013, departure, the fund returned 11.7% annually, versus 7.8% for the average health-care fund. Performance had been consistent, too. The fund finished ahead of its rivals in all of the 122 rolling three-year periods over Jenner's tenure.

That isn't to say the fund has offered a smooth ride. Thanks to its smaller-cap, growth-oriented bent and relatively heavy biotech weighting, the fund's standard deviation (a measure of volatility) has been well above the category average. While health-care funds tend to hold up well in rough markets, that typically hasn't been the case here. In 2008's bear market, for example, the fund fell 29% versus 23% for the group norm. Overall, the fund has suffered 111% of its typical peer's losses in down markets. Jenner had been more than able to make up for lost ground. In the 2009 rally, the fund rose 32%, beating its average rival by 10 percentage points. Winners such as Regeneron REGN fueled its 32% gain in 2012, about 10 percentage points above the category norm. While new manager Taymour Tamaddon has contributed to the fund as an analyst since 2004, it will take time to assess how well the fund fares on his watch.


People Pillar:Neutral
This fund's longtime lead manager, Kris Jenner, left T. Rowe Price on Feb. 15, 2013, with veteran analysts Mark Bussard and Graham McPhail in tow. The three had been responsible for managing roughly 40% of the fund's assets, spread across the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, health-care services, and medical-technology industries, among others.

Taymour Tamaddon, who has worked as an analyst on the fund since 2004, will succeed Jenner as the fund's lead manager. As an analyst, Tamaddon had been responsible for roughly 20 stocks comprising 13% of the fund's assets. He also has contributed health-care ideas to the firm's analyst research fund, T. Rowe Price Capital Opportunity PRCOX, during the past eight years. Tamaddon will continue covering life sciences, ophthalmology, and hospital-supply companies, though he's bringing an associate analyst on board to assist with research.

Tamaddon will continue working with the fund's remaining five global analysts, two of whom are based in Baltimore, two in London, and one in Hong Kong. Four of the five have joined the firm since 2010, though all have previous investment experience. Tamaddon expects to hire an additional three analysts, though he plans to be patient to make sure he finds the right fit. It remains to be seen how well the team will adjust to the departure of Jenner and the two analysts.


Parent Pillar:positive | Katie Rushkewicz Reichart, CFA 12/18/2012
T. Rowe Price has made a name for itself by putting investors' interests first, maintaining a disciplined investment process, and consistently turning in peer-beating performances. The firm's sturdiness stems from its ability to attract and retain top talent. Professionals often spend their entire careers at the firm, and many of T. Rowe's top executives have come up through the ranks, including CEO James Kennedy and CIO Brian Rogers. Unsurprisingly, T. Rowe Price's manager tenure and retention rates rank well above industry norms, and analyst retention has been good, too. When a manager change does occur, it's typically because of a preannounced retirement, allowing for a months-long transition period. Managers write detailed shareholder letters, T. Rowe's website is exemplary, and manager ownership of fund shares is decent.

Security selection, based on the firm's in-house fundamental analysis, drives the funds' strategies and performance, which has proved remarkably good across the board with strong fixed-income and equity offerings that are often less volatile than peers. However, T. Rowe still hasn't established itself as a powerhouse on the international side following its decade-long build-out of a global team. Meanwhile, the huge asset bases of its small-cap funds bear watching. Overall, though, T. Rowe has kept investors' interests in mind.


Price Pillar:positive
This fund is a relative bargain. In 2011, it levied a 0.82% expense ratio, far below the 1.19% median for no-load sector funds. As such, the fund has a large price advantage over the competition.
 
Hell, it's probably less than .5% of the fund. Buying that fund would more or less be for your psychological gratification of owning some minuscule part of Pacira without having to commit to owning just that security.

This seems to be what picking individual stocks comes down to, since objectively the evidence of positive financial results just doesn't seem to be there.

Unless you accept self-reporting anecdotal big wins as evidence. :) Funny how people don't like to talk about the loser picks, or the picks that fail to beat an index. (Cafeteria talk about AAPL sure has dropped off in the last few months. Guess they must've all sold at 650 or 700 and moved on to their next winner.)


I'd never buy that fund or the stock cause as you said, I don't have any information about exparel that everyone else doesn't already have (not to mention the stock is up 60% YTD so everyone's already missed buying it at anything approaching fair value assuming exparel isn't the next lipitor). And that's why I own a couple shares of Vanguard's ETF instead. Even if it had terrible performance it's almost impossible for it to be a loser with a 0.14% ER and long enough time horizon.

I think that's much more reasonable. I'm not so sure any more if there's a logical place for sector funds in my portfolio. The only one I have left is a Vanguard energy fund VGENX, and although it's done well in the couple years since I bought it, I might get rid of it to simplify. I'm not sure what I'm really accomplishing with it, other than psychological gratification.
 
This seems to be what picking individual stocks comes down to, since objectively the evidence of positive financial results just doesn't seem to be there.

Unless you accept self-reporting anecdotal big wins as evidence. :) Funny how people don't like to talk about the loser picks, or the picks that fail to beat an index. (Cafeteria talk about AAPL sure has dropped off in the last few months. Guess they must've all sold at 650 or 700 and moved on to their next winner.)

Agreed, although the confirmation bias is gonna be such a b*tch when someone tells me in 6 months that pacira is up to $274 s/p 3 splits :laugh:

I think that's much more reasonable. I'm not so sure any more if there's a logical place for sector funds in my portfolio. The only one I have left is a Vanguard energy fund VGENX, and although it's done well in the couple years since I bought it, I might get rid of it to simplify. I'm not sure what I'm really accomplishing with it, other than psychological gratification.

Well, I'm sure your goals are probably different than someone in their 20s, but out of curiosity why is there no logical place in yours for a sector fund? My thought isn't to go for one just b/c your portfolio happens to be lacking in that sector, but I consider them fair buys if a particular fund happens to not only fill a sector gap, but also round out other spots where my portfolio might be lacking. For instance, I've been looking at VAW not only because I'm lacking in materials stocks, but also because my portfolio is concurrently lacking in cyclical and mid-large cap value stocks. You may ask why I just don't spring for a more diversified cyclical mid-large cap value fund, and my response would be that I'm young enough to deal with the risk of higher volatility if it eventually pays off. Let's just hope it's not a big if....
 
Doze is correct about diversification and low cost investing. PGG, I am one investor who will admit to having struck out more than hitting home runs which is why I agree Doze is correct.

Still, the excitement of hitting that home run draws me back into the game even though I know a low cost ETF is likely a better investment. I think of it as my alternative trip to Vegas without the airfare.
 
Doze is correct about diversification and low cost investing. PGG, I am one investor who will admit to having struck out more than hitting home runs which is why I agree Doze is correct.

Still, the excitement of hitting that home run draws me back into the game even though I know a low cost ETF is likely a better investment. I think of it as my alternative trip to Vegas without the airfare.


"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned"

-Quote from the movie the "Color of Money".
 
If such risk tolerance is necessary for your portfolio to meet your goals, then maybe the goal is unrealistic.

And if that kind of risk isn't necessary, why accept that excess risk at all?

And if you limit that kind of risk to such a small portion of your portfolio that your actual overall risk is low, then what's the point?

Is the entertainment value of picking stocks and timing the market worth the risk?

1. I need to lower my risk tolerance. All I need is a 4% annual return to meet my goals.
2. I limit my trading/individual stocks to 10% of my portfolio now. I'm actually selling my winners since 2009 to bring that allocation down to 10%.
3. The point of individual stock picking is that I like to own quality companies at bargain basement prices. I have more than a dozen that went up 50-100% since 2009. There are still bargains out there (some call them dogs).
4. I choose to embrace the excess risk. It keeps me motivated to save and invest rather than buy more material items. If i didn't own individual stocks then I would buy more luxury items.
5. Yes, the entertainment value and hard work of picking stocks along with market timing is worth the risk right now. But, in 5-10 years I may change my mind about it (probably not).

My cash position is at an all time high and likely to get bigger as I sell into the rally. I need a market correction to deploy some cash into low tunover, tax efficient ETFs. Or, if Gold hits 1350 an ounce I'm buying a lot more.
 
PCRX_epss.jpeg
 
3. The point of individual stock picking is that I like to own quality companies at bargain basement prices. I have more than a dozen that went up 50-100% since 2009. There are still bargains out there (some call them dogs).

Can't argue with success ... but I will anyway out of habit. :)

A good stock picking record from 2009 until now is not remarkable. The DOW itself is up 60% (from Jan 1, 2009) to 117% (from the nadir in 2009) to 35% (from Dec 31, 2009). You could've had the same results with a single index fund, minus the complexity, volatility, and time investment.

Have you run the numbers to see where you would be if instead of buying individual stocks, you had just put that money into an index?
 
Can't argue with success ... but I will anyway out of habit. :)

A good stock picking record from 2009 until now is not remarkable. The DOW itself is up 60% (from Jan 1, 2009) to 117% (from the nadir in 2009) to 35% (from Dec 31, 2009). You could've had the same results with a single index fund, minus the complexity, volatility, and time investment.

Have you run the numbers to see where you would be if instead of buying individual stocks, you had just put that money into an index?

Depends on the index. Some asset class returns have crushed US Large cap.

3/1/2009-2/1/2013:


US Large: 121.05%
US Large Value: 161.08%
US Small Value: 180.32%
Emerg Markets: 157.01%
REITs: 236.02%
International REIT: 160.55%
International Large Cap: 92.14%
International Large Value: 106.84%
International Small: 120.72%
Internationl Small value: 114.44%
GSCI Commodities Index: 48.36%
DJ-AIG Commodities Index: 89.73%

Beware mean reversion.

It is not just buy and hold. It is buy, hold, diversify, tax manage, cost manage, rebalance.
 
Depends on the index. Some asset class returns have crushed US Large cap.

3/1/2009-2/1/2013:


US Large: 121.05%
US Large Value: 161.08%
US Small Value: 180.32%
Emerg Markets: 157.01%
REITs: 236.02%
International REIT: 160.55%
International Large Cap: 92.14%
International Large Value: 106.84%
International Small: 120.72%
Internationl Small value: 114.44%
GSCI Commodities Index: 48.36%
DJ-AIG Commodities Index: 89.73%

Beware mean reversion.

It is not just buy and hold. It is buy, hold, diversify, tax manage, cost manage, rebalance.

Doze,

I think Bonds are a dangerous place to invest right now. But, I held my nose and invested some money into bonds (mostly international and corporate). When the Bond bubble breaks those holding mutual funds may lose 20-25%.

As for tax management individual stocks offer complete control of buy/sell vs ETF investing. Some Companies are worth holding long term as part of a diversified portfolio.

Rebalance? Into what exactly? Even though the stock market is near an all time high Bonds do not look attractive compared to Gold, Copper, Energy, Commodities, etc.

I agree about the reversion to the mean which is why I am holding Natural Gas and Coal in my portfolio. Several sectors are dogs right now and those include Steel, Coal, Natural Gas and even certain tech stocks.

Diversification remains the best tool available along with low cost and tax efficient investing in my taxable accounts.

Since Doze started posting about tax loss harvesting a year or two ago I have utilized his advice on more than one occasion.
 
Doze,

I think Bonds are a dangerous place to invest right now. But, I held my nose and invested some money into bonds (mostly international and corporate). When the Bond bubble breaks those holding mutual funds may lose 20-25%.

As for tax management individual stocks offer complete control of buy/sell vs ETF investing. Some Companies are worth holding long term as part of a diversified portfolio.

Rebalance? Into what exactly? Even though the stock market is near an all time high Bonds do not look attractive compared to Gold, Copper, Energy, Commodities, etc.

I agree about the reversion to the mean which is why I am holding Natural Gas and Coal in my portfolio. Several sectors are dogs right now and those include Steel, Coal, Natural Gas and even certain tech stocks.

Diversification remains the best tool available along with low cost and tax efficient investing in my taxable accounts.


Since Doze started posting about tax loss harvesting a year or two ago I have utilized his advice on more than one occasion.

I fully expect bonds (short term highest quality) to provide a negative return after tax and inflation going forward. New money going to Vanguard Limited tax exempt. Bought the max of Ibonds and EEbonds Jan1.

I expect stocks to provide a slightly positive real return after taxes and inflation going forward.
I hold plenty of bonds despite this. Stocks can and do drop 50-90% and stay down for decades. Outside of hyperinflation, high quality bonds have never experienced anything like this.

I shared my portfolio with Blade in the past. Stocks are 50-50 US-Intenational with a strong value tilt 10%REITs also with a 50-50 us international split.

You play the hand that you are dealt. Sucks to be a retiree or soon to be retiree wanting to live off of nvestments. Future expected returns for financial assets just plain s***s.

BTW, Thinking of goinf 45-55, stock/bond split with the recent run up.
 
I bought 200 @ 14.80 a few months back after using the Exparel. I rarely buy stocks/funds on my own instead using a broker who has performed well for over 10 yrs. It was in impulse buy, I should sell 100 shares and recoup my investment, but I'll keep the money on the table. I've lost $$ in the past hedging medical stuff I thought would sell. Steris lost me a boatload as they were selling endoscope cleaners like mad. They had a sharps recycler that looked cool, but never sold. I lost $$ hedging the expanding American waistline , buying Lane Bryant (the big ladies store) , only to watch it slide.
I consider the market a big chess game that I'll never master. I let a pro buy mostly funds 50/50 bond/equity. I like utility co.'s - water and elctric and gas. Metals are nice.
Just realize that any little glitch can send PCRX into the toilet.
.
 
I fully expect bonds (short term highest quality) to provide a negative return after tax and inflation going forward. New money going to Vanguard Limited tax exempt. Bought the max of Ibonds and EEbonds Jan1.

I expect stocks to provide a slightly positive real return after taxes and inflation going forward.
I hold plenty of bonds despite this. Stocks can and do drop 50-90% and stay down for decades. Outside of hyperinflation, high quality bonds have never experienced anything like this.

I shared my portfolio with Blade in the past. Stocks are 50-50 US-Intenational with a strong value tilt 10%REITs also with a 50-50 us international split.

You play the hand that you are dealt. Sucks to be a retiree or soon to be retiree wanting to live off of nvestments. Future expected returns for financial assets just plain s***s.

BTW, Thinking of goinf 45-55, stock/bond split with the recent run up.

Why buy bonds instead of just holding cash for a few years? Both provide negative return but cash is readily deployable if we get a blowup in one area of the market. I'm just not comfortable buying an Asset like US treasuries paying 1 percent when Cash is almost the same return without ANY risk.

Europe could blowup, Bernanke could withdraw the punch bowl or a war in the Middle East oved Iranian Nuclear Weapons could hapopen tomorrow. Cash, Gold or Silver all look better than U.S. treasuries right now.
 
I fully expect bonds (short term highest quality) to provide a negative return after tax and inflation going forward. New money going to Vanguard Limited tax exempt. Bought the max of Ibonds and EEbonds Jan1.

I expect stocks to provide a slightly positive real return after taxes and inflation going forward.
I hold plenty of bonds despite this. Stocks can and do drop 50-90% and stay down for decades. Outside of hyperinflation, high quality bonds have never experienced anything like this.

I shared my portfolio with Blade in the past. Stocks are 50-50 US-Intenational with a strong value tilt 10%REITs also with a 50-50 us international split.

You play the hand that you are dealt. Sucks to be a retiree or soon to be retiree wanting to live off of nvestments. Future expected returns for financial assets just plain s***s.

BTW, Thinking of goinf 45-55, stock/bond split with the recent run up.

Your after tax return of I bonds and EE bonds are horrible. In my tax bracket I would be looking at return of under 1.5% at best per year. Sorry, I don't trust the U.S. govt to hold my money at 1.5%; I'd rather own Gold at under $1500 an ounce or Silver at under $25 an ounce.

The US govt. is legendary for printing money so deflation will not last and I suspect when the Communist/Socialist leaves office reversion to the norm will occur. In addition, we have a structural debt issue in this country which is getting worse. I'll pass on the subpar returns.
 
Stock prices are an indication of past performance, not future performance.

Picking individual stocks works out poorly for the majority of professional active managers, who routinely fail to beat indexes. Why do you think you can do better than them? What do you know that they don't?

Market returns are there for the taking with low cost index funds. Take them. JMHO.

PGG=Doze on the above post. Of course, you are both correct.

I looked at my portfolio over the past decade. If I had invested in diversified mutual funds (ETFs weren't avail yet) from Vanguard per Doze I would have a LOT more money right now. A lot more $$$
 

And this is the reason we have to invest and take risk. Really sucks. Not only that, we get taxed at a VERY HIGH RATE on our nominal returns, not real returns.

The question I have is, are we in 1933 Germany or 1938 Germany. Where do I hide my gold coins?
 
Your after tax return of I bonds and EE bonds are horrible. In my tax bracket I would be looking at return of under 1.5% at best per year. Sorry, I don't trust the U.S. govt to hold my money at 1.5%; I'd rather own Gold at under $1500 an ounce or Silver at under $25 an ounce.

The US govt. is legendary for printing money so deflation will not last and I suspect when the Communist/Socialist leaves office reversion to the norm will occur. In addition, we have a structural debt issue in this country which is getting worse. I'll pass on the subpar returns.

EE bonds if held a full 20 years promise 3.53% guaranteed federal tax deferred, state tax free. Backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. The price of safety is brutally high. Yes, I know the full faith and credit of the US govt ain't what it used to be but what do you think is safer?

All fixed income just plain suc*s. I buy the riskiest stocks with a "tilt" (small value, int small vale, EM) and hold the safest bonds because that is what the data show works best.

Look at your portfolio as a whole. Not component parts.
 
The interest rate for bonds bought between November 1, 2012 and April 30, 2013 is an annual rate of 0.20%.

Learn more on Interest Rates for EE Bonds – Current and Past



Is it taxable?


Federal income tax: Yes

State and local income tax: No

See: Tax Considerations for EE/E or I Bonds

Using the money for higher education may keep you from paying federal income tax on your savings bond interest. See: Using EE or I Bonds for Education
 
EE bonds if held a full 20 years promise 3.53% guaranteed federal tax deferred, state tax free. Backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. The price of safety is brutally high. Yes, I know the full faith and credit of the US govt ain't what it used to be but what do you think is safer?

All fixed income just plain suc*s. I buy the riskiest stocks with a "tilt" (small value, int small vale, EM) and hold the safest bonds because that is what the data show works best.

Look at your portfolio as a whole. Not component parts.

I have been doing just that since 2012. I still like Precious metals here more than EE bonds. As a diversifier 10% in Gold, Silver and Platinum looks quite solid.
 
I'm not saying own 100% of your portfolio in Gold. Gold can and likely will be volatile over the next few years. Perhaps, Gold will even pull back to $1350 (I can't wait to buy a lot more). But, you have to ask yourself one question: Will the U.S. Dollar be worth more or less in terms of purchasing power in ten years? I know my answer.


gold_1.jpg
 
According to World Gold Council, in the fourth quarter of 2012, central banks continued to purchase gold at an increasing pace. Central banks' net demand in the quarter was 145 tonnes (4.66 million ounces) worth $8.03 billion, accounted for 12.12% of overall gold demand during the period. In the third quarter of 2012, central banks purchased 113 tonnes (3.63 million ounces), which accounted for 10.2% of overall gold demand during the period. Total net purchases by central banks in 2012 was 534.6 tonnes (17.19 million ounces) worth $28.68 billion, accounted for 12.13% of overall gold demand during the period. Total net purchases by central banks in 2012 exceeded 2011's already strong total by 17% and signaled a return to levels of buying last seen almost 50 years ago.

According to the World Gold Council, since first becoming a net purchaser in Q2 2009, central banks have added almost 1,100 tonnes to global gold reserves, almost reversing the 1,143 tonnes net sales conducted over the preceding three years.

Among the main central banks that purchased gold in 2012; Russia bought 75 tonnes, Brazil 34, The Philippines 33.6, South Korea 30, Iraq 24.1, Mexico 19 and Paraguay bought 7.5 tonnes.
 
The interest rate for bonds bought between November 1, 2012 and April 30, 2013 is an annual rate of 0.20%.

Learn more on Interest Rates for EE Bonds – Current and Past



Is it taxable?


Federal income tax: Yes

State and local income tax: No

See: Tax Considerations for EE/E or I Bonds

Using the money for higher education may keep you from paying federal income tax on your savings bond interest. See: Using EE or I Bonds for Education

Yup. EE Bonds SUCK. At this point they are a decent deal If and only if they are held for a full twenty years. IMO they just suck less than most fixed income. Think of them as a tax defferred CD with a massive penalty for early withdrawl. They function exactly the same as cash if held for more than one year. Think of them as a put on interest rates.

Twenty year nominal T bonds pay about 2.8% fully taxable each year. EE Bonds are tax deferred. I plan to be alive 20 years from now drawing on fixed income. BTW if used for college tuition they are not tax deferred. They are tax free. With any luck I will have grandchildren that I can use that for.

Think of your portfolio as a whole. Not individual parts. The credit crisis of the last few years demonstrated the wisdom of ultra safe assets for the fixed income part of the portfolio.

People who held corporate bonds took a 10% plus haircut while stocks were taking a 40% haircut. People who held treasuries were able to sell them at a profit and buy stocks as the market was tanking. That is what rebalancing is all about.

Forget the individual dollars allocated to ultrasafe assets. See the whole portfolio. It doesn't work any other way.
 
I have been doing just that since 2012. I still like Precious metals here more than EE bonds. As a diversifier 10% in Gold, Silver and Platinum looks quite solid.

As I have said before there are multiple reasonable strategies that use precious metals as part of a diversified portfolio. Not as a sole diversifier. Deflation will crush stocks and gold.
Many corporate bonds will default. Only cash and highest quality bonds will protect you in this scenario.
 

I hold some gold because I do think that it's sufficiently non-correlated with other asset classes to maybe be of some use.

That said, this chart is a bit misleading. It states that gold was negatively correlated with equities from 2005-2012 ... but in late 2008 when stocks cratered, gold declined significantly too. IOW, at the one time when having assets negatively correlated with equities mattered most, gold wasn't.

Those Treasuries of soon-to-be-worthless fiat paper on the other hand ...
 
Depends on the index. Some asset class returns have crushed US Large cap.

The DOW was just an example to support my stock-picking=bad-plan bias. For my equity position I'm 55% US total stock market, 30% international (2:1 developed vs emerging), 15% REIT. I know some people don't like to lump REITs in with equities but I do. I've been trying to decide over the last couple years if I should have more international but I don't know, so I've just left it.


I hold half my Gold in physical terms and the other half via an ETF. If Gold breaks down some more then I will add to my position.

That's exactly what I do ... I'd feel warmer and fuzzier about having it all in my physical possession, but the point of owning it is diversification, and that means being able to sell it conveniently to immediately buy something else. Which means paper gold.

Also, physical gold is really difficult and expensive to hold in a tax-advantaged account, and further complicates selling efficiently.

Sort of ironic that if not for the existence of ETFs and paper gold, I'd own less of it. Which itself is perhaps a bit of a disturbing thought.
 
The DOW was just an example to support my stock-picking=bad-plan bias. For my equity position I'm 55% US total stock market, 30% international (2:1 developed vs emerging), 15% REIT. I know some people don't like to lump REITs in with equities but I do. I've been trying to decide over the last couple years if I should have more international but I don't know, so I've just left it.



Sort of ironic that if not for the existence of ETFs and paper gold, I'd own less of it. Which itself is perhaps a bit of a disturbing thought.

REITs definitely should be lumped in with equities. 70/30 US/International is perfectly reasonable. I am (50/50). It is an interestinq question as to whether the existence of GLD ETF has affected the price of gold.

Correlation coefficients do change over time. The diversification benefits of small, value, and international equities have been diminishing as more money has discovered the benefits of multiasset class investing.
 
Top