CEF Holdings ---- April 2026

[Steelpony]

As a buy and hold old world investor adding cash during the worse dips our “values” are slightly higher then the end of February at the present time and our income is up about 5% (this year).

I don’t know how this compares to buying a stock online with an I phone based on my favorite talking head and a chart in about a minute or staring at a bank of computer screens like the commercials. DCA and compounding may be low tech techniques taught in elementary school math with pennies and a calendar but they’ve worked fine for me since 1978 and DOW 750.

Of course whether values hold is a mystery but for me the better odds are cash flow will hold although as always are subject to distribution cuts. Investing monthly excess to needs cash buffers this possibility as well as keeping half our CEF’s compounding at high rates.

Anyway that’s the game.

@marget I’ll be adding to PAXS or PHK at the end of this month. They’re currently compounding at about 12%+ for us.

 

[marget]

@Steelpony
I still have a lot of PAXS. My window has changed a bit though.
The nice thing here is that I don't need to add much to increase the distribution back to where it was.
I really do everything now w/ the Pimco CEFs based on positioning. It just seems to work for me and it eliminates so much noise.
I had no idea what it is currently compounding but thanks for that info. It's nice to know that.

 

[Steelpony]

@marget

YOUR REQUEST HAS BEEN BLOCKED! Your Reference ID # is: 18.18623417.1776273601.3e72c24c

The up to date distribution information is at this website above^ from the day before all in one place. If this is blocked try Googling CEF Connect Daily Pricing.

The only events that alter my end of month routine is a sudden random “high jingo” event, which Washington provides plenty of these days, resulting in a blue light special. You can Google these technical terms.

 

[Old Dog Seeks New Tricks]

i am not seeing any posts done today

 

[dickoncapecod]

i am not seeing any posts done today

A lot of action reported along with equities on the what dud you trade why? thread.
D

 

[Old Dog Seeks New Tricks]

yes, i read both threads / seemed strange that nothing was posted here all day / no worries / sleep tight

 

[dickoncapecod]

Bondish CEFs have been putting in a strong performance, IMO on the weak economic news that has been overshadowed by stock touts and oil prices. The Fed funds futures have been oscillating between maybe a cut and maybe a hike. First look at Q1 GDP comes out soon -- may be interesting. I'm at 2% cash right now.
Regards, Dick

 

[IncomeOriented]

Crestmont Research posted an update. Basically, with the recent jump in month over month inflation, the next year will show continued higher inflation due to the way it’s calculated.

Not a good explanation on my part. Best to read the original on their website.

 

[GaltintheGulch]

Bondish CEFs have been putting in a strong performance, IMO on the weak economic news that has been overshadowed by stock touts and oil prices. The Fed funds futures have been oscillating between maybe a cut and maybe a hike. First look at Q1 GDP comes out soon -- may be interesting. I'm at 2% cash right now.
Regards, Dick

Same and added to PFN at 7.09

 

[GaltintheGulch]

Added to GOF at 11.27

 

[dickoncapecod]

Added to GOF at 11.27

LOL.....my tardy purchases gave you an immediate mark profit! D

 

[GaltintheGulch]

LOL.....my tardy purchases gave you an immediate mark profit! D

thank you

 

[COcheesehead]

GOF has always bounced when getting close to its NAV - little to no premium.

 

[GaltintheGulch]

Mid month update on CEFs
PDI 9.6
PHK 7.0
PFN 5.6
GOF 4.8
PAXS 3.0
WDI 2.4
DX 1.4
CASH 2.5
Dividend paying Funds and Stocks 63.7

 

[AG-YH]

For those interested in why these PIMCO taxable CEFs are able to pay upwards of 15% yields, this is how:

• The 'newer' funds have an ATM offering feature through Jones Trading that allows the issuance of new shares so long as the price is above NAV.
• The funds without an ATM program, PCM, PGP, RCS, PDX, need to generate NII that is closer to the distribution rate.
• The ATM offering supplants the shortfall between the yield earned on the bond portfolio held in the fund and the yield paid to shareholders of the fund.
• Below is a table showing the relevant data. It shows net investment income ("NII") plus/minus any realized or unrealized gains/losses, minus distributions paid to shareholders. The ATM offering+ div reinvest is new capital coming into the fund.
• You can see the shares issued for each fund and the resulting ending share count/growth.
• Also, you can see the coverage ratio using the traditional methodology of NII/distributions, and then the alternative coverage ratio when you include the capital coming in from new shares.
• Now, this perpetual motion machine only works if the share price stays at a premium. If the fund's price goes below NAV, then the ATM shuts off.
• A prolonged period of the price at a discount to the NAV means a significant shortfall of capital is going to occur. What does that mean?
• It means that either the fund can A) cut the distribution to not cannibalize their assets or B) pay the distribution shortfall out of the NAV, reducing total assets.
• Option B only works for so long as paying the shortfall out of the NAV would cause the fund's leverage to rise (all else equal) and the fund to eventually have to deleverage and cut the distribution anyway. The only hope by the fund would be to see a recovery in the share price back above the NAV to restart the ATM offering and recover the NAV.
• In the end, they've never had a prolonged time of the price below the NAV that resulted in this outcome. The last PIMCO CEFs to cut the distribution were PDX, PCM, and RCS back in Jan 2025. All three of those funds have no ATM offering.
• PDI has not altered its distribution since 2015 and it was a 5% increase. PCN hasn't changed since 2012 and it was a 6% increase.
• PHK was the last one to cut big back in 2021 reducing the distribution by 22%.
• PFL and PFN both cut back in 2021 by 10%. PTY cut in 2021 as well by 9%.
• PDO and PAXS are the post-modern funds and have a 'right-sized' distribution for this environment. You could argue that they are the best interpretations of where PIMCO sees the current rate environment. Still, they both have an ATM offering.
• PS: Hi Dick! Long time....

 

[richardsok]

Alpha -- Yours is my "Post of the Month" nominee.... clear, highly needed and timely information Great job.

 

[dickoncapecod]

Hi AGC.....yes, long time. The major point you make in your post is certainly correct --- that at-the-market sales and (sometimes) reinvestment of distributions contribute to distributable funds, increasing coverage ratios. However, there is an error in your analysis that significantly overstates the size/amount of such contributions.

The easiest way to see the problem is to look at the financial highlights section of any period financial statements that break out sources of distributable funds on a par share basis. These numbers are from PIMCO's fiscal 2025 annual report for the period ending 6/30/25. For PDI, the per share sources of distributable funds are:

(NII = 2.12) + (realized and un gains = 0.23) + (ATM sales premium capture = 0.44)
The total is 2.79. So the premium capture from ATM sales clearly helps PDI cover its annual distribution of 2.65 --- resulting in an all-in coverage ratio of 105.3%.

In addition to the per share stats from the financial statement, there are at least a couple other ways to see the problem with your over-coverage computation...
1. No CEF ETF or traditional mutual fund is permitted to simply sell new shares and distribute to total proceeds of such sales to original shareholders. Coverage for ALL funds would become a non-issue....just sell some more and distribute the receipts. Of course, funds received from the sale of new shares must be invested for the benefit of all shareholders --- the old and the new.
2. IF IF IF the coverage ratio for PDI in the period you analyze was really 229%, it follows that distributable funds grew by 6.07 per share. Since PDI only distributed 2.65 in the period, all else equal PDI's NAV would have grown by 3.42. That didn't happen ---- and further, the possibility that the 3.42 excess "filled a hole" created by falling values of portfolio holdings a) fails by market observations and b) obviously fails because the sum of realized and unrealized gains is positive.

Bottom line: your observation that ATM sales increase distributable funds is correct, but the amount of that contribution is overstated.
Regards, Dick

Regards, Dick

 

[AG-YH]

Correct. I did not reduce the ATM proceeds by the reinvested funds and assumed all the proceeds were distributable. Only the premium above the NAV is an incremental source for distributable income and can be used to fill the hole on traditional coverage. For PDI, that premium capture is ~$155M. In other words, coverage with the ATM could be calculated as (NII + (ATM proceeds - (shares issued * NAV per share)) / distributions.

 

[fjpajerski]

"Alpha Gen Capital" is a very respected analysis/author on SA who also has the highly-ranked service there "Yield Hunting". We are fortunate here to have his posts.
--- Frank

 

[marko]

For those interested in why these PIMCO taxable CEFs are able to pay upwards of 15% yields, this is how:

• The 'newer' funds have an ATM offering feature through Jones Trading that allows the issuance of new shares so long as the price is above NAV.
• The funds without an ATM program, PCM, PGP, RCS, PDX, need to generate NII that is closer to the distribution rate.
• The ATM offering supplants the shortfall between the yield earned on the bond portfolio held in the fund and the yield paid to shareholders of the fund.
• Below is a table showing the relevant data. It shows net investment income ("NII") plus/minus any realized or unrealized gains/losses, minus distributions paid to shareholders. The ATM offering+ div reinvest is new capital coming into the fund.
• You can see the shares issued for each fund and the resulting ending share count/growth.
• Also, you can see the coverage ratio using the traditional methodology of NII/distributions, and then the alternative coverage ratio when you include the capital coming in from new shares.
• Now, this perpetual motion machine only works if the share price stays at a premium. If the fund's price goes below NAV, then the ATM shuts off.
• A prolonged period of the price at a discount to the NAV means a significant shortfall of capital is going to occur. What does that mean?
• It means that either the fund can A) cut the distribution to not cannibalize their assets or B) pay the distribution shortfall out of the NAV, reducing total assets.
• Option B only works for so long as paying the shortfall out of the NAV would cause the fund's leverage to rise (all else equal) and the fund to eventually have to deleverage and cut the distribution anyway. The only hope by the fund would be to see a recovery in the share price back above the NAV to restart the ATM offering and recover the NAV.
• In the end, they've never had a prolonged time of the price below the NAV that resulted in this outcome. The last PIMCO CEFs to cut the distribution were PDX, PCM, and RCS back in Jan 2025. All three of those funds have no ATM offering.
• PDI has not altered its distribution since 2015 and it was a 5% increase. PCN hasn't changed since 2012 and it was a 6% increase.
• PHK was the last one to cut big back in 2021 reducing the distribution by 22%.
• PFL and PFN both cut back in 2021 by 10%. PTY cut in 2021 as well by 9%.
• PDO and PAXS are the post-modern funds and have a 'right-sized' distribution for this environment. You could argue that they are the best interpretations of where PIMCO sees the current rate environment. Still, they both have an ATM offering.
• PS: Hi Dick! Long time....

View attachment 63013

Question, not a challenge: as attractive as it is, how is this not a violation of the "Closed" part of CEF?

 

[keppelbay]

Question, not a challenge: as attractive as it is, how is this not a violation of the "Closed" part of CEF?

The funds are closed in the sense that shareholders cannot redeem from the fund. They can only sell to other buyers.

 

[dickoncapecod]

The week ended 4/17 was a very good one for all the bondish CEFs I watch. While all remain on slow-moving weekly MACD sell signals, the dailies have screamed up as the entire group rallied out of deep-oversold on positive oil/war news. Noteworthy: junk indicator/portfolio component HYG made a three year weekly high AND the BDCs many of us watch rose even more strongly out of even greater oversold territory, throwing weekly MACD buy signals.

Way below under the hood, Fed funds futures predict a possible rate cut near year end but with certainty by mid-2027. The year bill one year forward is 3.79%, and inflation breakevens are 5yrs 2.64%, 10yrs 2.37%, leaving Fed favorite 5yr-5yrs forward at a benign 2.10%. Lost in the oil price/war headlines, PPI and Ex/Im prices came in far lower than expected and industrial production fell surprisingly. All of this clearly helped spur the week's strong bounce out of oversold.

This coming week, the oil/war headlines will no doubt dominate again. However, retail sales are expected up a strong 1.4% --- until they are deflated by primary inflation drivers. Ex- cars and gas, that +1.4% becomes +0.2%. We need to take care to adjust all "happy" economic growth data for increased inflation when appropriate.
Finally, consumer sentiment is expected up a small amount from last month's all-time low reading.

So what next? IMO after such strong gains last week, a period of consolidation will likely start soon. However, in the intermediate term, bondish CEFs remain extremely cheap / attractive at Fed funds +8.5%, inflation +9%, investment grade bonds +5%, and in their duration zone, 5yr Treasuurys + 8.5%. Remember that they were already cheap BEFORE the war swoon. IMO there's is no doubt that war-driven inflation readings will persist for many months. The global energy supply chain has been seriously disrupted -- some of it destroyed --- and will not recover quickly. But Fed has wised-up in recent years --- they can't drill for oil or ship fertilizer or grow larger crops, so short interest rate changes are useless tools against price shocks like
these. Current "worst case" narrative: Fed holds rates steady UNTIL inflation stats turn down and the associated damage to the economy becomes impossible to ignore ---- THEN they ease in response.
Regards, Dick

 

[DrVenture]

What a "data dump"! Going to have to read this page at least 3 times.
Maybe take notes.

 

[marget]

Hi AGC.....yes, long time. The major point you make in your post is certainly correct --- that at-the-market sales and (sometimes) reinvestment of distributions contribute to distributable funds, increasing coverage ratios. However, there is an error in your analysis that significantly overstates the size/amount of such contributions.

The easiest way to see the problem is to look at the financial highlights section of any period financial statements that break out sources of distributable funds on a par share basis. These numbers are from PIMCO's fiscal 2025 annual report for the period ending 6/30/25. For PDI, the per share sources of distributable funds are:

(NII = 2.12) + (realized and un gains = 0.23) + (ATM sales premium capture = 0.44)
The total is 2.79. So the premium capture from ATM sales clearly helps PDI cover its annual distribution of 2.65 --- resulting in an all-in coverage ratio of 105.3%.

In addition to the per share stats from the financial statement, there are at least a couple other ways to see the problem with your over-coverage computation...
1. No CEF ETF or traditional mutual fund is permitted to simply sell new shares and distribute to total proceeds of such sales to original shareholders. Coverage for ALL funds would become a non-issue....just sell some more and distribute the receipts. Of course, funds received from the sale of new shares must be invested for the benefit of all shareholders --- the old and the new.
2. IF IF IF the coverage ratio for PDI in the period you analyze was really 229%, it follows that distributable funds grew by 6.07 per share. Since PDI only distributed 2.65 in the period, all else equal PDI's NAV would have grown by 3.42. That didn't happen ---- and further, the possibility that the 3.42 excess "filled a hole" created by falling values of portfolio holdings a) fails by market observations and b) obviously fails because the sum of realized and unrealized gains is positive.

Bottom line: your observation that ATM sales increase distributable funds is correct, but the amount of that contribution is overstated.
Regards, Dick

Regards, Dick

I thought PDI fiscal year ends in June. And it seems that a lot happens w/ that fund slightly before that date. What exactly are the correct dates? Does PDI begin a new year starting in JULY?
Is a chart of data from 1/1/25 to 12/31/25 a reliable chart for a fiscal year that ends in June?
thanks

 

[dickoncapecod]

I thought PDI fiscal year ends in June. And it seems that a lot happens w/ that fund slightly before that date. What exactly are the correct dates? Does PDI begin a new year starting in JULY?
Is a chart of data from 1/1/25 to 12/31/25 a reliable chart for a fiscal year that ends in June?
thanks

It's just the difference between PIMCOs choice for ALL taxable CEFs of a FISCAL year that ends June 30 and OUR concerns that tend to be centered on CALENDAR years that end 12/31 because we are calendar oriented and our taxes are based on calendar year income and investment performance. The charts are just charts and are as "reliable" (?) for one period as another.
Of interest: what do you believe happens just before 6/30?
Also: the selection of 6/30 for audits and production of annual reports relieves PIMCO and its auditors of the nutty overwork accounting frenzy caused by so many firms 12/31 fiscal year ends.
Regards, Dick