CEF Holdings --- June 2026

[southpoint]

---- because for better or worse, I have a view regarding future policy/macro.

And you reliably express those views to provide context and rationale. Much appreciated.

 

[IncomeOriented]

This tells you that investors thought GOF was too expensive in October. It doesn't really tell you anything about the fund's performance. Valuations matter when choosing entry points for a closed end fund.

Yes, entry point matters! If someone bought every PIMCO CEF in March and April 2009, they would be very happy campers.

 

[GaltintheGulch]

Yes, entry point matters! If someone bought every PIMCO CEF in March and April 2009, they would be very happy campers.

 

[COcheesehead]

Yes, entry point matters! If someone bought every PIMCO CEF in March and April 2009, they would be very happy campers.

If you reinvest the dividends like I do, given a long enough time frame, it helps too.

 

[FD1000]

That's because you are 100% TR guy. I am a TR + Income guy. If I can generate $35K income with only 5% at risk, count me in. Do they invest in CEFs in Shark Tank?

If 5% of your portfolio can generate $35K annually, it means that your portfolio is around $4-5 million. Congrats.
Income investing doesn't exist and never will be. It's either TR or risk-adjusted return. Since income is part of these, you must look at these first. Let's look at your CEFs = PTY+GOF.

Example: In the last 5 years, a 50/50 PTY/GOF made almost nothing, maybe 1-2% total. Yes. See the chart below. PIMIX made 20%, SPY 87%.

But, let's go one more step and see SD=volatility, Sharpe, and TR. For that, I used PV from 5/21 to 5/26.
Below you can see CASH (U.S. 3-Month Treasury), PTY+GOF, PIMIX, and SPY. I can do much better than CASH but it's another matter. See (https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=3mHSmcs5JvnuxzcuS0ivfG)

As you can see, CASH made more than the 2 CEFs. You can use VMFXX(MM) instead, with volatility=zero. But wait, the CEFS SD is worse than SPY, and their Sharpe is negative; that's a pretty bad combo.

But let's go one more step. Instead of generating $35K annually from CEFs, let's make it $36K annually = $3K monthly. Let's run it again and see the results after the income. See (https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=7e22A9guqClpJW2JtO3mSb)

The results including income were not a surprise. The CEFs paid much more, but what counts are the end results. $1 million after all income ended at CASH=$991K, SPY=$1.64 million, PIMIX=$994K, the CEFs=$860K.
Your CEFs ended with a loss of 14%.
Remember, you can generate an income using funds. Example: At Fidelity, you can set up an AUTOMATIC monthly sale order on a specific day of the month to sell $3K and let it run for years. You can use funds like FXAIX(SP500), or FBALX(allocation), and others. BTW, if this money is in a taxable account, you will pay higher taxes on the CEFs because it's a ST distributions. FAXIX,FBALX have lower taxes with LTCG.

Sure, with a large portfolio, you can do whatever. You can invest in 50% MM and make it. Making it doesn't prove good investing; it proves big portfolios.

Lastly, I'm not against income, CEFs or anything else. There is a right time to use them based on market conditions and always looking at SD, Sortino, Sharpe, and TR. During my lifetime, I have used mostly US LC for stocks, but during 2000-10 I have used LC Value (with higher income), SC, and international because SPY lost money in these 10 years. It's also not a secret that I have been over 95% in bond OEFs since 2018.

 

[joejetski]

I appreciate this insight and investment thesis but always get stumped digging in the weeds trying to figure out which ROC is destructive versus intentionally intelligent tax planning.....and then realizing that even if I can find this information, I would have to revisit for every distribution unless the fund follows a particularly consistent distribution cadence..............so all that eventually means unless it is an incredibly unusual market misprice, I just avoid funds doing very much ROC, particularly those that sell at a premium

Check out NEOS ETFs (not CEFs). They do a good job with tax management. That is all I will say as they are not CEFs. I own them across my portfolio…taxable, Roth and TIRA.

 

[joejetski]

If 5% of your portfolio can generate $35K annually, it means that your portfolio is around $4-5 million. Congrats.
Income investing doesn't exist and never will be. It's either TR or risk-adjusted return. Since income is part of these, you must look at these first. Let's look at your CEFs = PTY+GOF.

Example: In the last 5 years, a 50/50 PTY/GOF made almost nothing, maybe 1-2% total. Yes. See the chart below. PIMIX made 20%, SPY 87%.
View attachment 64299

But, let's go one more step and see SD=volatility, Sharpe, and TR. For that, I used PV from 5/21 to 5/26.
Below you can see CASH (U.S. 3-Month Treasury), PTY+GOF, PIMIX, and SPY. I can do much better than CASH but it's another matter. See (https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=3mHSmcs5JvnuxzcuS0ivfG)
View attachment 64301

As you can see, CASH made more than the 2 CEFs. You can use VMFXX(MM) instead, with volatility=zero. But wait, the CEFS SD is worse than SPY, and their Sharpe is negative; that's a pretty bad combo.

But let's go one more step. Instead of generating $35K annually from CEFs, let's make it $36K annually = $3K monthly. Let's run it again and see the results after the income. See (https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=7e22A9guqClpJW2JtO3mSb)
View attachment 64302

The results including income were not a surprise. The CEFs paid much more, but what counts are the end results. $1 million after all income ended at CASH=$991K, SPY=$1.64 million, PIMIX=$994K, the CEFs=$860K.
Your CEFs ended with a loss of 14%.
Remember, you can generate an income using funds. Example: At Fidelity, you can set up an AUTOMATIC monthly sale order on a specific day of the month to sell $3K and let it run for years. You can use funds like FXAIX(SP500), or FBALX(allocation), and others. BTW, if this money is in a taxable account, you will pay higher taxes on the CEFs because it's a ST distributions. FAXIX,FBALX have lower taxes with LTCG.

Sure, with a large portfolio, you can do whatever. You can invest in 50% MM and make it. Making it doesn't prove good investing; it proves big portfolios.

Lastly, I'm not against income, CEFs or anything else. There is a right time to use them based on market conditions and always looking at SD, Sortino, Sharpe, and TR. During my lifetime, I have used mostly US LC for stocks, but during 2000-10 I have used LC Value (with higher income), SC, and international because SPY lost money in these 10 years. It's also not a secret that I have been over 95% in bond OEFs.

 

[joejetski]

@FD1000, How did you take income from SPY over that period vs the other investments? IMO, TR and RAR are portfolio performance metrics, not retirement strategies. Income vs TR are portfolio income strategies. Most people are not all income or all TR (TR retirees will likely have some type of SORR insurance which by definition is income, whether a bond or CD ladder, annuity, etc). Also most people are not all CEFs (ie, high yield PIMCO or similar risky CEFs [vs the universe of lower yielding, less risky, less volatile CEFs used in income portfolios, eg FOF, UTG, HTD]). Clearly, if you are 100% risky CEFs, you risk lower TR, but you can’t spend TR, only income. Many investors are ok with that as long as that monthly distribution hits their bank account to spend as they see fit.

 

[joejetski]

Yes, entry point matters! If someone bought every PIMCO CEF in March and April 2009, they would be very happy campers.

Entry point on CEFs is similarly critical as location is to real estate.

 

[IncomeOriented]

Entry point on CEFs is similarly critical as location is to real estate.

Yup and water is wet! (I’m agreeing with you).

 

[IncomeOriented]

If 5% of your portfolio can generate $35K annually, it means that your portfolio is around $4-5 million. Congrats.
Income investing doesn't exist and never will be. It's either TR or risk-adjusted return. Since income is part of these, you must look at these first. Let's look at your CEFs = PTY+GOF.

Example: In the last 5 years, a 50/50 PTY/GOF made almost nothing, maybe 1-2% total. Yes. See the chart below. PIMIX made 20%, SPY 87%.
View attachment 64299

But, let's go one more step and see SD=volatility, Sharpe, and TR. For that, I used PV from 5/21 to 5/26.
Below you can see CASH (U.S. 3-Month Treasury), PTY+GOF, PIMIX, and SPY. I can do much better than CASH but it's another matter. See (https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=3mHSmcs5JvnuxzcuS0ivfG)
View attachment 64301

As you can see, CASH made more than the 2 CEFs. You can use VMFXX(MM) instead, with volatility=zero. But wait, the CEFS SD is worse than SPY, and their Sharpe is negative; that's a pretty bad combo.

But let's go one more step. Instead of generating $35K annually from CEFs, let's make it $36K annually = $3K monthly. Let's run it again and see the results after the income. See (https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=7e22A9guqClpJW2JtO3mSb)
View attachment 64302

The results including income were not a surprise. The CEFs paid much more, but what counts are the end results. $1 million after all income ended at CASH=$991K, SPY=$1.64 million, PIMIX=$994K, the CEFs=$860K.
Your CEFs ended with a loss of 14%.
Remember, you can generate an income using funds. Example: At Fidelity, you can set up an AUTOMATIC monthly sale order on a specific day of the month to sell $3K and let it run for years. You can use funds like FXAIX(SP500), or FBALX(allocation), and others. BTW, if this money is in a taxable account, you will pay higher taxes on the CEFs because it's a ST distributions. FAXIX,FBALX have lower taxes with LTCG.

Sure, with a large portfolio, you can do whatever. You can invest in 50% MM and make it. Making it doesn't prove good investing; it proves big portfolios.

Lastly, I'm not against income, CEFs or anything else. There is a right time to use them based on market conditions and always looking at SD, Sortino, Sharpe, and TR. During my lifetime, I have used mostly US LC for stocks, but during 2000-10 I have used LC Value (with higher income), SC, and international because SPY lost money in these 10 years. It's also not a secret that I have been over 95% in bond OEFs since 2018.

I do admire what you do.

Your success with your methods speak volumes to your credit. Your willingness to share what works so well for you is nothing short of charitable.

Your point, DOCC’s point, that CEF’s (and most everything) must be traded to stay ahead, is a good one that gives me a reminder to pause and carefully consider my investment choices.

Thank you, and Dick, for all you add to these discussions.

 

[dickoncapecod]

If 5% of your portfolio can generate $35K annually, it means that your portfolio is around $4-5 million. Congrats.
Income investing doesn't exist and never will be. It's either TR or risk-adjusted return. Since income is part of these, you must look at these first. Let's look at your CEFs = PTY+GOF.

Example: In the last 5 years, a 50/50 PTY/GOF made almost nothing, maybe 1-2% total. Yes. See the chart below. PIMIX made 20%, SPY 87%.
View attachment 64299

But, let's go one more step and see SD=volatility, Sharpe, and TR. For that, I used PV from 5/21 to 5/26.
Below you can see CASH (U.S. 3-Month Treasury), PTY+GOF, PIMIX, and SPY. I can do much better than CASH but it's another matter. See (https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=3mHSmcs5JvnuxzcuS0ivfG)
View attachment 64301

As you can see, CASH made more than the 2 CEFs. You can use VMFXX(MM) instead, with volatility=zero. But wait, the CEFS SD is worse than SPY, and their Sharpe is negative; that's a pretty bad combo.

But let's go one more step. Instead of generating $35K annually from CEFs, let's make it $36K annually = $3K monthly. Let's run it again and see the results after the income. See (https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=7e22A9guqClpJW2JtO3mSb)
View attachment 64302

The results including income were not a surprise. The CEFs paid much more, but what counts are the end results. $1 million after all income ended at CASH=$991K, SPY=$1.64 million, PIMIX=$994K, the CEFs=$860K.
Your CEFs ended with a loss of 14%.
Remember, you can generate an income using funds. Example: At Fidelity, you can set up an AUTOMATIC monthly sale order on a specific day of the month to sell $3K and let it run for years. You can use funds like FXAIX(SP500), or FBALX(allocation), and others. BTW, if this money is in a taxable account, you will pay higher taxes on the CEFs because it's a ST distributions. FAXIX,FBALX have lower taxes with LTCG.

Sure, with a large portfolio, you can do whatever. You can invest in 50% MM and make it. Making it doesn't prove good investing; it proves big portfolios.

Lastly, I'm not against income, CEFs or anything else. There is a right time to use them based on market conditions and always looking at SD, Sortino, Sharpe, and TR. During my lifetime, I have used mostly US LC for stocks, but during 2000-10 I have used LC Value (with higher income), SC, and international because SPY lost money in these 10 years. It's also not a secret that I have been over 95% in bond OEFs since 2018.

If 5% of your portfolio can generate $35K annually, it means that your portfolio is around $4-5 million. Congrats.
Income investing doesn't exist and never will be. It's either TR or risk-adjusted return. Since income is part of these, you must look at these first. Let's look at your CEFs = PTY+GOF.

Example: In the last 5 years, a 50/50 PTY/GOF made almost nothing, maybe 1-2% total. Yes. See the chart below. PIMIX made 20%, SPY 87%.
View attachment 64299

But, let's go one more step and see SD=volatility, Sharpe, and TR. For that, I used PV from 5/21 to 5/26.
Below you can see CASH (U.S. 3-Month Treasury), PTY+GOF, PIMIX, and SPY. I can do much better than CASH but it's another matter. See (https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=3mHSmcs5JvnuxzcuS0ivfG)
View attachment 64301

As you can see, CASH made more than the 2 CEFs. You can use VMFXX(MM) instead, with volatility=zero. But wait, the CEFS SD is worse than SPY, and their Sharpe is negative; that's a pretty bad combo.

But let's go one more step. Instead of generating $35K annually from CEFs, let's make it $36K annually = $3K monthly. Let's run it again and see the results after the income. See (https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=7e22A9guqClpJW2JtO3mSb)
View attachment 64302

The results including income were not a surprise. The CEFs paid much more, but what counts are the end results. $1 million after all income ended at CASH=$991K, SPY=$1.64 million, PIMIX=$994K, the CEFs=$860K.
Your CEFs ended with a loss of 14%.
Remember, you can generate an income using funds. Example: At Fidelity, you can set up an AUTOMATIC monthly sale order on a specific day of the month to sell $3K and let it run for years. You can use funds like FXAIX(SP500), or FBALX(allocation), and others. BTW, if this money is in a taxable account, you will pay higher taxes on the CEFs because it's a ST distributions. FAXIX,FBALX have lower taxes with LTCG.

Sure, with a large portfolio, you can do whatever. You can invest in 50% MM and make it. Making it doesn't prove good investing; it proves big portfolios.

Lastly, I'm not against income, CEFs or anything else. There is a right time to use them based on market conditions and always looking at SD, Sortino, Sharpe, and TR. During my lifetime, I have used mostly US LC for stocks, but during 2000-10 I have used LC Value (with higher income), SC, and international because SPY lost money in these 10 years. It's also not a secret that I have been over 95% in bond OEFs since 2018.

FD, you don't usually do this. Let's dump the period of Fed tightening when I'll assert it made no sense to own ANY fixed income products and do some comparisons....
3yr total returns: PIMIX 7.73% GOF 14.65% PTY 15.18% No more math necessary.
Regards, Dick

 

[dickoncapecod]

Fun comparisons.....Last week
PDI NAV +15c. Market price (49)
PHK. +5. (1)
PTY. +14. (12)
GOF. +5. (16) Monday open
PDO. +16. (21)

Only point: with high income CEFs, folks who consider ONLY market price phenomena/chart formations have very views about the income CEF market.
Regards, Dick

 

[PaulR888]

If 5% of your portfolio can generate $35K annually, it means that your portfolio is around $4-5 million. Congrats.
Income investing doesn't exist and never will be. It's either TR or risk-adjusted return. Since income is part of these, you must look at these first. Let's look at your CEFs = PTY+GOF.

Example: In the last 5 years, a 50/50 PTY/GOF made almost nothing, maybe 1-2% total. Yes. See the chart below. PIMIX made 20%, SPY 87%.
View attachment 64299

But, let's go one more step and see SD=volatility, Sharpe, and TR. For that, I used PV from 5/21 to 5/26.
Below you can see CASH (U.S. 3-Month Treasury), PTY+GOF, PIMIX, and SPY. I can do much better than CASH but it's another matter. See (https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=3mHSmcs5JvnuxzcuS0ivfG)
View attachment 64301

As you can see, CASH made more than the 2 CEFs. You can use VMFXX(MM) instead, with volatility=zero. But wait, the CEFS SD is worse than SPY, and their Sharpe is negative; that's a pretty bad combo.

But let's go one more step. Instead of generating $35K annually from CEFs, let's make it $36K annually = $3K monthly. Let's run it again and see the results after the income. See (https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=7e22A9guqClpJW2JtO3mSb)
View attachment 64302

The results including income were not a surprise. The CEFs paid much more, but what counts are the end results. $1 million after all income ended at CASH=$991K, SPY=$1.64 million, PIMIX=$994K, the CEFs=$860K.
Your CEFs ended with a loss of 14%.
Remember, you can generate an income using funds. Example: At Fidelity, you can set up an AUTOMATIC monthly sale order on a specific day of the month to sell $3K and let it run for years. You can use funds like FXAIX(SP500), or FBALX(allocation), and others. BTW, if this money is in a taxable account, you will pay higher taxes on the CEFs because it's a ST distributions. FAXIX,FBALX have lower taxes with LTCG.

Sure, with a large portfolio, you can do whatever. You can invest in 50% MM and make it. Making it doesn't prove good investing; it proves big portfolios.

Lastly, I'm not against income, CEFs or anything else. There is a right time to use them based on market conditions and always looking at SD, Sortino, Sharpe, and TR. During my lifetime, I have used mostly US LC for stocks, but during 2000-10 I have used LC Value (with higher income), SC, and international because SPY lost money in these 10 years. It's also not a secret that I have been over 95% in bond OEFs since 2018.

I am different from you. I have many accounts and many investment strategies. Overall, I am 50:50. My individual holdings on the equity side have a target allocation of 3% PV, so I can have about 16 holdings. Next year when I move into a retirement community, my budget will be $10K a month. As I am drawing cash from my MM to pay annual expenses, I want my underlying investments to generate income to apply to the next year's expenses without having to sell anything. My bond CEFs allow me to generate a nice portion of my total income needs for now (but if assisted living or memory care needs come up, I will need levers to pull to generate more income) but I can't allow them to get outsized within a 50:50 portfolio as they have equity-like volatility. I am investing for me and my beneficiary per stirpes so I have an investing time frame beyond my life.

Edit: I don't have any pension or annuity. I feel I am creating a "synthetic" pension by the Income generation. More diversification. More levers to pull if need in the future. Optionality is important to me.

 

[joejetski]

Yup and water is wet! (I’m agreeing with you).

It is clearly not as obvious to some…

 

[BuckeyesRC]

Yes, entry point matters! If someone bought every PIMCO CEF in March and April 2009, they would be very happy campers.

Indeed! Related to the "total return" investor above who only actually makes comparisons beginning in the period the highest rate hikes in history (convenient), I was cherry picking my own dates. Buying GOF or PIMCO immediately following 2008 was quite the investment. Back testing without any actual context and then evaluating the forward prospects/value of an investment is amateur hour. Here we are, though.

 

[IncomeOriented]

Yes, The description I remember is "data mining". It's easy to pick dates and get a chart of the results someone desires, good or bad. I think in this forum, for the most part, it's purely unintentional, or just not recognizing the contextual elements that could substantially change the meaning of the illustration, hypothetical, chart, or other backtesting of data.

But even when there is a reasonable time frame chosen, there is still the problem of past results, that cannot, and do not predict future results. All charts of valuations are very good at describing value changes, right up to point of a crash of values.

Today my charts say. "Rosebud". I trust them completely.
I also have tea leaves and tara cards, but they are not so reliable, and I'm open to new ideas.

 

[Steelpony]

Yes, The description I remember is "data mining". It's easy to pick dates and get a chart of the results someone desires, good or bad. I think in this forum, for the most part, it's purely unintentional, or just not recognizing the contextual elements that could substantially change the meaning of the illustration, hypothetical, chart, or other backtesting of data.

But even when there is a reasonable time frame chosen, there is still the problem of past results, that cannot, and do not predict future results. All charts of valuations are very good at describing value changes, right up to point of a crash of values.

Today my charts say. "Rosebud". I trust them completely.
I also have tea leaves and tara cards, but they are not so reliable, and I'm open to new ideas.

I also have the sacred bag of animal bones I scatter on a sacred blanket courtesy of my Metis’ grandma through my Metis’ mother. I’m now the keeper of the bones. Predicts the future rather then dwelling on the past.

Of course there’s a margin of error. It predicts coming events amazingly accurate but the years are way off. As an example I was supposed to drown 7 years ago. I live on a lake and spend a lot of the summer on Lake Michigan boating and in the evening carousing on docks in the U.S. and Canada so the opportunity is still available.

 

[IncomeOriented]

“Predicts the future rather than dwelling on the past “, such a positive view!

My best to you and your bones.

 

[DrVenture]

Has anyone here considered the possibility that they are debating an issue with someone who neither appreciates CEFs for income, or argues in good faith? Many of us know this fellow from other investment forums where he generally created chaos, at every opportunity.

The "ignore" feature on this board works extremely well. Ask me how I know.

There are folks who "read a room" and are not just in it to get the last word, or prove some esoteric point.
Not the person you are entertaining. He has a long-standing bone to pick with CEF investors. And many times has stated that 4% return is all that he desires.

Myself, I have only just reached a point where I truly understand the value of steady income over total portfolio value, or total return. Something many here appreciate, I think. It isn't necessarily nominal.

Many here (I believe) also have way more than they will ever need. Some will take that income surplus and enjoy it. Others will fixate on the "score", meaning the net worth number, and live accordingly. They will probably fail to fully enjoy the rewards of a lifetime of work.

If ones $5 million portfolio fluctuates between $4 million and $6 million, but they reap $600,000 a year (12%) in gross income, why would they care? Oh no, I only left my kids $4,000,000?

 

[AudiDudi]

<snip>

If ones $5 million portfolio fluctuates between $4 million and $6 million, but they reap $600,000 a year (12%) in gross income, why would they care? Oh no, I only left my kids $4,000,000?

1) Kids won't get $4M as I won't have $4M left and 2) Oh wait, I don't have any kids

 

[dickoncapecod]

I also have the sacred bag of animal bones I scatter on a sacred blanket courtesy of my Metis’ grandma through my Metis’ mother. I’m now the keeper of the bones. Predicts the future rather then dwelling on the past.

Of course there’s a margin of error. It predicts coming events amazingly accurate but the years are way off. As an example I was supposed to drown 7 years ago but I live on a lake and spend a lot of summer on Lake Michigan boating and in the evening carousing on docks in the U.S. and Canada.

Actually, it has always amazed me that investors act as though future prices/trends/returns are unknowable and cannot be anticipated because that view is not only obviously false but also clearly at odds with the way they navigate through their lives. The future is not an epistemological blank wall. In fact, our every decision, every conclusion --- even our physical movements are based on conscious or unconsious/automatic probability assessments.
Regards, Dick

 

[DrVenture]

@AudiDudi

Gotcha. Those of us with offspring benefit by providing them the tools to flourish on their own. And it enables us to not hold back on spending. CEFs make that spending easier. Money is just a tool.

To be clear, I have just enough in CEFs to provide replacement income. I also have half our portfolio in stocks. And bond OEFs too. It isn't that I think one is qualitatively better than another, rather that they serve different purposes.

 

[sengsational]

investors act as though future prices/trends/returns are unknowable

The excuse I've seen is one that goes like this: by the time I see the writing on the wall, the market has already priced-in the news. I don't buy it, but that's what I've heard people say.

 

[DrVenture]

Actually, it has always amazed me that investors act as though future prices/trends/returns are unknowable and cannot be anticipated because that view is not only obviously false but also clearly at odds with the way they navigate through their lives. The future is not an epistemological blank wall. In fact, our every decision, every conclusion --- even our physical movements are are based on conscious or unconsious/automatic probability assessments.
Regards, Dick

Very wise. No one would ever leave the house if they fixated on all the ways that could end badly. Which goes to probability assessment.

I would submit that the future is unknowable, but that a person may 'game' the system with enough historical knowledge. If they can weigh it properly.