Correct. But for our purpose it is immaterial as the semi annual report is a 6-month ending report and the annual report through 6/30 will be a 12-month period. With the two we can carve up the data into either consecutive six month periods or consecutive annual periods every six months.
Not AGC, but IF IF "healthy/safe" has something to do with covering distributions, then at least with these three it's pick-'em. Nobody can tell the future, so here's the recent past ---- total returns on NAV. When they exceed distributions, cuts are really unnecessary, although fund boards can do what they please. Luckily, PIMCO typically won't permit DESTRUCTIVE ROC to appear much less persist.
Yes. Remember most of the PIMCO funds except for PDI, PDO, and PAXS were created BEFORE the 2008 financial crisis and were incepted in a different interest rate world (unless the last couple of years). PIMCO is a sponsor that rarely wants to change their distribution policy. Interest rates at the time of IPO have a large influence on the distribution rate set for these funds.
PDI might well have cut it's distribution if folks weren't willing to pay a significant premium. And arguably it is currently priced for a cut. Really!
Interesting, but I wouldn't take the average of NII + gains for the past 5 years too far. The NII has been pretty stable in the period and often exceeded last year. Negative marks and maybe losses during the most rapid Fed tightening cycle in decades drove your 71c average, and as I love to say (actually repeat ad nauseam), anyone who held ANY bondish fund through the tightening cycle deserves the returns they suffered.
No, not for investment companies like CEFs. They can and do immediately invest the new funds in return-generating assets.
True. Hard to predict the future but I can't see a repeat of the 2021-2022 rate rising environment unless oil goes to $200 and stays there. We played that one well and didn't get back in until mid-2022 (mostly munis) because of the uber-wide discounts.
The PDI price adjustment of $15.44 matches the low of 10/23 that was $15.45.
I don't find this comforting. It seems like a disconnect between fundamentals and chasing results? Does it make sense on a longer term basis? Or just for trading?
For recent years PDI PDO and PAXS have over-covered and performed very well as evidenced by their total returns ON NAV well in excess of distribution yields. Mangers are responsible for NAV, and (usually) retail investors different/often strange preferences drive premiums and discounts. What you describe as a disconnect is just retail preferences at work ---- what flavor do individual investors prefer? A larger distribution and likely less NAV growth or a modestly lower yield and likely greater NAV growth? It's all just about how you like your very similar total returns carved up.
I agree with all of that that. Still, the notion that PDI can only support (not cut) its distribution because people pay up for it seems a bit uncertain.
Don't know what to say. Investments with certainty pretty much end with 3 month Treasury bills where you're not exposed to credit or interest rate risk.
The allocations and other data for 3/31 are on the main page.
Nope. Just double-checked. Page 1 for 3/31 matches page 1 for 12/31 ... filled with info and no room for this portfolio info. Column 1 has fund objectives and return info, column 2 has fund info such as asset size, managers, market/NAV price and premium as of 3/31, # of shares, etc. Page 2 has large blank areas when portfolio/holdings info would appear. If I did want such info now, I go to the fund itself and click on a tab for this info. Hopefully, I successfully attached the 3/31 PAXS fund card (which downloads as a PDF) to show this.
