|
Post by richardsok on Aug 24, 2022 0:42:19 GMT
"First Guaranty employed 600 people before it filed bankruptcy in June" How is that PDI's UNII keeps growing, if it is that bad. I am sure PIMCO has some insurance for such failures. That is what people were talking PIMCO's ownership of Russian bonds. PIMCO got paid, because PIMCO had insurance. These bad news items will keep coming. I am not alarmed about it, because those guys know how to manage the problems. I remember the "Argentine" bankruptcy. That is when I accumulated a lot of PCI shares (something 10 thousand shares of PCI). Do I regret? No. If you are scared, sell the PDI shares. If they go down enough in price so that it goes on discount, I will buy more.Cannot find First Guaranty among the top 25 holdings in PAXS, PTY, PDO, PDI or PGP. Probably will not be an earth-shaker for any of these CEFs.
|
|
|
Post by ECE Prof on Aug 24, 2022 14:49:44 GMT
Holder Amount Position Size ($ in millions) As of Morgan Stanley 7,943,269 $165.776 06/30/2022 Bank of America Corp DE 3,170,291 $66,163 06/30/2022 UBS Group AG 2,076,313 $43.333 06/30/2022 Rivernorth Capital Management LLC 1,735,760 $36,225 06/30/2022 Royal Bank of Canada 1,698,653 $35.451 06/30/2022 Cohen & Steers Inc. 1,666,967 $34.790 06/30/2022 Invesco Ltd. 1,562,829 $32,616 06/30/2022 LPL Financial LLC 1,137,952 $23.749 06/30/2022 Howland Capital Management LLC 1,061,184 $22.383 06/30/2022 Advisor Group Holdings Inc. 876,572 $18.295 06/30/2022
The above list provides the top 10 financial institutions which hold PDI. For example, Morgan Stanley holds 7.9 million shares valued at 165.77 millions.
There are familiar names too. We are peanut investors. Any bad news about PIMCO will affect all these big guys immensely compared to us. So, I am not worried about anything.
|
|
|
Post by anitya on Aug 29, 2022 23:17:18 GMT
PIMCO CEFs with year end of June 30 have released their annual report for YE 6/30/2022, PAXS being one of them.
If anybody digs into them, please share your findings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2022 4:40:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by anitya on Aug 31, 2022 7:17:23 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2022 3:24:53 GMT
The UNII report for 31Aug2022 has been out since this morning, if not earlier. You can see all the details via www.pimco.com/en-us/investments/closed-end-funds . Note that this spreadsheet report also contains info for prior months this year, so you can compare changes as you see fit. The numbers for the taxable CEFs continue to be cheerfully healthy, and large enough to continue to suggest special distributions at year-end. In particular, the UNII for PDI and PDO approaches $1 and even that for the new PAXS nears $.50 ... and, the six-month rolling coverage for PDO is 201% (!) --- Frank
|
|
|
Post by ECE Prof on Sept 16, 2022 4:10:09 GMT
Thanks Frank for the recent UNII report.
|
|
|
Post by richardsok on Sept 16, 2022 17:27:39 GMT
August PIMCO numbers are published. Here is my breakdown, with past UNII numbers added for trend comparison.
Yield AUG UNII July UNII JUNE UNII MAY UNII 3mo coverage 6mo coverage
PTY 11 .36 .34 .39 .32 114 % 138 %
PDI 13 .94 .89 .76 .71 126 153
PDO 10.6 .95 .90 .80 .82 143 201
PAXS 10.6 .48 .42 .33 .14 194 148
PGP 11 .14 .18 .10 .17 75 112
RCS 11.5 .01 (.03) .01 (.02) 122 139
PFN 11.5 .07 .05 108 126 PDI PDO PAXS continue to show UNII accumulation, though the rate of accruals seem to be slowing. According to Schwab, PFN is the only fund that is currently using ROC.
As always, regrets for my crude presentation. You're dealing with a techno-dotard.
|
|
|
Post by ECE Prof on Sept 16, 2022 18:17:55 GMT
The estimated earning of PDI for September is a lot higher than the corresponding number for August. Instead of the PDI's UNII going up to 0.95, it went to 0.94 (a penny short). If the current estimated earning of PDI for September holds, the UNII of PDI will jump quite a bit. Hoping for the best.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2022 21:34:50 GMT
I do not understand this thread. Too technical for me.
But I notice PDI has been down -26.09% YTD and todays decline was -3.56%.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Sept 24, 2022 14:12:53 GMT
so from what CapeCod has said previously: PIMCO has the ability and does move money from current income to future, UNII to NAV and vice versa.
He said that one of the best way to look (and it worked in stable interest rate enviroment): If Jan NAV: $25 Feb NAV: $26 after 23c distribution means the CEF actually earned $1.23 (so if UNII fell during this time, it probably meant that PIMCO was using derivatives to move UNII into NAV or some other such stuff)
the UNII numbers show that PDI is still earning it's distribution and the fall in NAV is most likely due to bond values going down as interest rates go up; the earning power is still there and a cut in distribution is unlikely. 13% in a 8.5% inflation environment is pretty good.
The question is how many of the bonds will end up in bankruptcy (permanently hurting both earnings and NAV) during the recession.
works the same way in reverse.
|
|
|
Post by richardsok on Oct 19, 2022 0:40:31 GMT
It's that time of month. SEPT PIMCO numbers are published. Here is my breakdown, with past UNII numbers added for trend comparison. I have also added an extra column to compare the current 3-month rolling coverage with last month's 3-mo rolling coverage. A lot of good numbers here. Falling prices are really pumping up yields on current costs.
As far as UNII & Coverages are concerned, PDI, PDO and PAXS appear to be lapping the field. PAXS UNII leaped an impressive 15 cents this month and PDO, a fraction the size of PDI, looks to be able to pay out a full dollar special distribution in December.
Yield SEP UNII AUG UNII July JUNE MAY UNII 3mo cov prev 3 mo 6mo co
PTY 12 .39 .36 .34 .39 .32 108 114 131 %
PDI 13.8 1.01 .94 .89 .76 .71 130 126 145 PDO 11.5 1.05 .95 .90 .80 .82 163 143 187
PAXS 12 .63 .48 .42 .33 .14 169 194 185 PGP 12.7 .10 .14 .18 .10 .17 .89 75 84 RCS 12.2 .03 .01 (.03) .01 (.02) 121 122 144
PFN 12.5 .09 .07 .05 122 108 117
|
|
|
Post by nobhead on Oct 19, 2022 2:32:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by richardsok on Nov 16, 2022 19:23:21 GMT
October Pimco CEF Numbers are out
OCT UNII SEP UNII AUG UNII July unii 3 mo cov prev 3 mo PTY . 25 .39 .36 .34 .78 108 PDI .98 1.01 .94 .89 114 130 PDO 1.02 1.05 .95 .90 136 163 PAXS .61 .63 .48 .42 142 169 PGP .11 .10 .14 .18 .66 .89 RCS .02 .03 .01 (.03) 133 121 PFN .07 .09 .07 . 05 105 122
Numbers quite healthy, but coverages mostly slipping a bit. To be expected I guess. The summer numbers were too good to continue. Should be publishing the special disty numbers any day now. PAXS has notably slowed down, but it's curious the coverage remains very strong yet UNII slipped from .63 to .61. (how come?) Evidently more here than meets the eye..
|
|
|
Post by xray on Nov 16, 2022 21:28:56 GMT
Bond Report Ten year Treasury yield drops, driving popular bond-market recession gauge to most-negative level in more than 40 years Last Updated: Nov. 16, 2022 at 3:53 p.m. ET First Published: Nov. 16, 2022 at 5:37 a.m. ET By Vivien Lou Chen and Jamie Chisholm
The benchmark 10-year Treasury yield dropped to another one-month low on Wednesday, driving a popular bond-market gauge that is an indicator of a potential recession to its most negative level in more than 40 years. The spread between 2- and 10-year rates shrank to 67 basis points, a level not seen since Feb. 18, 1982, when it went to minus 70.5 basis points.
What’s happening
The yield on the 2-year Treasury TMUBMUSD02Y, 4.369% rose less than 1 basis point to 4.363% from 4.359% as of Tuesday. The yield on the 10-year Treasury TMUBMUSD10Y, 3.690% dropped 10.5 basis points to 3.693% from 3.798% late Tuesday. Wednesday’s level is the lowest for the 10-year yield since Oct. 4, based on 3 p.m. figures from Dow Jones Market Data. The yield on the 30-year Treasury TMUBMUSD30Y, 3.851% fell 12 basis points to 3.860% from 3.980% on Tuesday afternoon. Wednesday’s level is the lowest for the 30- year rate since Oct. 7.
What’s driving markets
Bond investors looked past Wednesday’s retail-sales report and focused instead on a worsening economic outlook as the Federal Reserve keeps hiking interest rates.
Markets are pricing in an 85% probability that the Fed will raise interest rates by another 50 basis points to a range of 4.25% to 4.50% on Dec. 14, according to the CME FedWatch tool. Traders also slightly boosted their expectations that the central bank will take the fed-funds rate target above 5% next year.
A team at Goldman Sachs now sees the likelihood that the Fed will raise borrowing costs to between 5% and 5.25% in 2023, above its prior forecast of 4.75% and 5%. Meanwhile, San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly told CNBC that the central bank’s benchmark interest-rate target may have to rise above 5% to put downward pressure on inflation.
However, Fed Governor Christopher Waller said Wednesday that recent economic data should allow the Federal Reserve to at least consider stepping down the pace of its interest rate hikes at its next meeting in December,
U.S retail sales jumped 1.3% for October, signaling that consumers are still spending plenty of money, despite persistent inflation and the Fed’s efforts to combat it. That’s better than the 1.2% rise that had been forecast by economists polled by The Wall Street Journal. Other data released on Wednesday showed that industrial production was down 0.1% in October after a revised 0.1% gain in the prior month.
Overseas, U.K. 10-year gilt yields TMBMKGB-10Y, 3.146% fell 14.7 basis points to 3.147% even though data showed surging food and energy prices pushed inflation up last month by more than expected to 11.1%, the highest since October 1981. Investors are waiting for the U.K. finance minister’s Autumn Budget statement on Thursday.
----------
Live Long and Prosper....
|
|
|
Post by xray on Nov 19, 2022 23:03:13 GMT
Bloomberg Bond Market Heads Into Treacherous Waters as Activity Subsides Michael MacKenzie and Liz Capo McCormick Sat, November 19, 2022, 4:00 PM
(Bloomberg) -- As the bond market limps toward 2023, it faces the prospect of a final bout of chaos, exacerbated by dwindling trading volume typical during the last weeks of the year. The most punishing time period on record for investors in US government bonds has also been one of the most volatile, with frequent large daily changes in yield. Mostly, those were about pricing in Federal Reserve rate increases aimed at squelching inflation. Developments this week made clear that the turbulence may endure a while longer. The benchmark 10-year note’s yield’s daily range exceeded 12 basis points three times. One case involved comments by St. Louis Fed President James Bullard on Thursday suggesting a higher eventual peak for the policy rate than the current consensus of about 5%. It wasn’t unusual. There have been yield swings exceeding 10 basis points on 51 days so far this year, Beth Hammack, co-head of Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s global financing group and an adviser to the Treasury Department, said on a panel at the New York Fed’s annual Treasury market structure conference this week. hat’s too many, Hammack said, even if such changes were arguably too rare during the previous 10 years, when the Fed was providing extraordinary accommodation. “The Treasury market is still particularly volatile right now and liquidity feels thin,” she said. A gauge of the market’s volatility based on options prices, the ICE BofA MOVE Index, resumed its advance this week after a month-long retreat from the highest levels since the onset of the pandemic in March 2020.
Trading volume has increased this year, exceeding $600 billion per day on average in recent months, Nellie Liang, the Treasury Department’s top domestic finance official, said at the same event. But it’s been boosted by investors shedding old-vintage Treasuries, though to a lesser extent than during the market breakdown in March 2020.
To investors like Matt Smith, investment director at London-based Ruffer LLP and a recent buyer of 30-year bonds, Treasuries remain a short-term trade despite the highest yields of the past decade. The rally that Bullard’s comments halted is “a counter trend move in rates and I don’t expect that will last too long,” he said.
Potential flash points between now and year-end are mostly in the next four weeks, when employment and inflation data for November set the tone for the Fed’s Dec. 14 policy decision. The minutes of its last meeting are set to be released on Wednesday.
Bullard’s Nov. 17 suggestion that 5% to 5.25% is the lowest level the Fed’s policy rate should eventually reach drove the bond market to various new extremes this week, even as yields remained below their year-to-date highs. His comments came the day after stronger-than-estimated October retail sales data cast doubt on the effectiveness of the central bank’s six rate increases since March.
The two-year note’s yield, a proxy for near-term expectations for the Fed’s rate, climbed, exceeding the 5- and 10-year yields by the most in a generation. Meanwhile the 10-year dipped below the central bank’s target range, currently 3.75%-4%, for the first time in the cycle, another sign that investors foresee economic damage that will necessitate rate cuts.
“This is a market that wants to trade the future outcome today” in spite of sub-optimal conditions, said George Goncalves, head of US macro strategy at MUFG. “Putting new money to work at this time of the year doesn’t make sense.”
What to Watch
Economic calendar
Nov. 21: Chicago Fed national activity index Nov. 22: Richmond Fed manufacturing index Nov. 23: MBA mortgage applications; durable goods orders; jobless claims; S&P Global manufacturing and services PMIs; University of Michigan sentiment revisions; new home sales
Fed calendar:
Nov. 22: Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester; Kansas City Fed President Esther George; St. Louis Fed President James Bullard Nov. 23: FOMC Nov. 1-2 meeting minutes
Auction calendar:
Nov. 21: 13- and 26-week bills; 2- and 5-year notes Nov. 22: 2-year floating rate notes; 7-year notes Nov. 23: 4-, 8- and 17-week bills
----------
Live Long and Prosper....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2022 23:19:18 GMT
Thanks for posting. Lots more economic data, Fed speak and another decision to come out before the year ends. Do you think the comment about putting new money to work is limited to bonds?
|
|
|
Post by xray on Nov 19, 2022 23:20:46 GMT
MarketWatch Premium Opinion: Bonds aren’t more attractive than stocks even as yields register a 15-year high Last Updated: Nov. 19, 2022 at 10:44 a.m. ET First Published: Nov. 18, 2022 at 11:59 a.m. ET By Mark HulbertFollow
The S&P 500’s return is similar when the 10-year Treasury yield is high or low
How much competition do stocks face from bonds?
For the first time in years, investors are beginning to ask this question, given the dramatic rise in bond yields to a 15-year high. For nearly a decade beforehand, yields were so low that stocks faced virtually no apparent competition. This low-yield era even spawned the acronym T.I.N.A. — there is no alternative.
In a recent research note sent to clients, Goldman Sachs coined a new acronym for the current market environment: T.A.R.A. In contrast to the T.I.N.A. era, the bank believes, investors now “are facing T.A.R.A. (there are reasonable alternatives) — investment-grade credit offers relatively high nominal yields with comparably low risk.”
This table summarizes the alternatives, listed in descending order of their current yields.
Asset Current S&P 500 earnings yield based on forward 4-quarter estimated EPS 5.1% Moody’s Seasoned Aaa Corporate Bond Yield 4.9% S&P 500 earnings yield based on trailing actual 4-quarter EPS 4.8% S&P 500 dividend yield 1.8%
It certainly looks as though there are reasonable alternatives to stocks. Triple-A bonds’ yield (4.9%) is almost as high as the S&P 500’s SPX, +0.48% earnings yield that is based on analysts’ earnings per share (EPS) estimates for the next four quarters (5.1%). Furthermore, since analysts are almost always too optimistic, we probably should discount that 5.1%, which would in turn put triple-A bonds at the top of the ranking.
Apples versus oranges
This comparison is unfair, however. Dividends and earnings will almost certainly be higher in 10 years’ time, perhaps markedly so, and by investing in stocks you participate in that growth potential. With bonds, in contrast, you lock in a coupon payment that doesn’t change.
Historically, in fact, the S&P 500’s earnings per share and dividends per share have on average grown faster than inflation. Assuming the future is like the past, you therefore should view the market’s current earnings and dividend yields as real yields, as opposed to bond yields, which are nominal.
So we are comparing apples to oranges when comparing equity market yields with bond yields. Simply comparing the two yields, as the accompanying table invites us to do, tells us nothing. (For the record, Goldman Sachs focuses on many more factors besides this yield spread when concluding that “the case for allocations to higher quality credit remains strong into next year.”)
To show that the yield spread by itself tells us nothing, I segregated all months since 1871 into two groups. The first contained those in which the S&P 500’s earnings yield was higher than the 10-year Treasury TMUBMUSD10Y, 3.827% yield, while the second contained those in which it was lower. For each month I then calculated the stock market’s real total-return over the subsequent one-, five- and 10-year periods. Averaging across the two groups, I found there to be no statistically significant difference.
This is illustrated in the accompanying chart, below. At the one-year horizon, the average returns are neck and neck. At the five-year horizon, the stock market turned in slightly better average returns following months in which the 10-year yield was below the S&P 500’s earnings yield. At the 10-year horizon, it was the reverse.
The bottom line? While fixed-income yields are dramatically higher today than they were a year ago, that doesn’t necessarily mean bonds are now more attractive than equities.
----------
Live Long and Prosper....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2022 23:36:20 GMT
Thanks for posting. Lots more economic data, Fed speak and another decision to come out before the year ends. Do you think the comment about putting new money to work is limited to bonds? The title of the one from Bloomberg, should have been Treasury Bonds .... The next article is not limited to bonds. Only the calendar reporting is meaningful: although, I have posted on my lack of motivation to buy now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2022 0:03:07 GMT
xray, Your second post is very appreciated and does answer my question. I am thinking MW premium is a good product.
|
|
|
Post by richardsok on Dec 19, 2022 20:16:09 GMT
New UNII numbers are out and .... wow .... coverages appear to have deteriorated sharply. PAXS looks least ugly.
Not including distributions, a lot of the CEFs are back near one-year support levels, with PDI's present YOC almost 14%.
Question: can it or PDO continue current payouts at present levels? I am guessing no change for now. These CEF payouts are commonly lumpy, but didn't expect such a big difference from one three-month rolling to the next. Earnings for the last 30 days must have fallen off the edge of the table. At first blush, am surprised the special distys were so generous. Management must have already known about these new coverages. I'll take that as a vote of confidence going forward.
No big price shock that I can see, yet....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2022 1:20:41 GMT
richardsok, For these PIMCO FI CEFs, "experts" have advised paying more attention to the six-month rolling coverage numbers than the three-month ones. This, for the November report seen via www.pimco.com/en-us/investments/closed-end-funds , presents a bit more cheery view of things. It's suggested that these three-month numbers can be too easily and temporarily distorted by various slight-of-hand actions under the covers involving swaps or special-buys or who-knows-what-else. If you have access to the Fido Community, note CapeCod's recent thoughts about all this plus the improved NAV's when the recent distributions are factored in. Of course, whatever our logical and thoughtful view here, all can be topsy-turvy when irrational investor actions warp the market-prices seen. --- Frank
|
|
|
Post by retiredat48 on Dec 20, 2022 6:30:25 GMT
New UNII numbers are out and .... wow .... coverages appear to have deteriorated sharply. PAXS looks least ugly. Not including distributions, a lot of the CEFs are back near one-year support levels, with PDI's present YOC almost 14%. Question: can it or PDO continue current payouts at present levels? I am guessing no change for now. These CEF payouts are commonly lumpy, but didn't expect such a big difference from one three-month rolling to the next. Earnings for the last 30 days must have fallen off the edge of the table. At first blush, am surprised the special distys were so generous. Management must have already known about these new coverages. I'll take that as a vote of confidence going forward. No big price shock that I can see, yet.... Posts from the guy on the Cape... ----------------------------- "...Well, the report's limited usefulness is nicely underlined by this example......the case of RCS. 1. Between 10/31 and 11/30, the RCS UNII dropped from +2c to MINUS 6c --- a swing down of 8c --- and the coverage ratio dropped from 133% to 53%. Finally, the statisic "3 mo average NII per share" dropped from 7c/mo to 3c/mo. 2. The frequently "leap to" conclusion drawn from these data is that somehow the RCS portfolio not only failed to cover its October distribution but also "un-earned" an additional 3c/share during the period. BUT that conclusion requires that the fund SOLD ALL ITS FIXED INCOME ASSETS early in November and held it as uninvested cash through the period AND either left leverage hedges in place or simply discarded 3c/sh in a toilet. 3. Obviously that disinvestment did not happen AND decisively the RCS portfolio NAV INCREASED by 12c per share during the period. 4. IMO correct conclusion: since NAV increased during the period, the drop in stated NII, monthly earnings, and UNII can ONLY be a consequence of a recharacterization and redistribution of fund assets among accounting buckets. What types of portfolio transactions could REDUCE NII and UNII? Two are obvious, and both involve paying premiums for fund assets --- resulting in a reduction of NII/UNII with an offsetting increase in either bond holdings unrealized profits or swap book unrealized profit. So most probably, RCS managers made moves to increase subsequent curren income by entering a premium swap(s) or paying a premium for some bonds with above market coupon rates. Regards, Dick dickoncapecod yesterday Some folks appear concerned about changes in earnings/UNII report. Take a look at analysis of RCS below AND here are the NAVs of some PIMCO taxables during that 10/31 to 11/30 period... PTY +33c. PCN +23c. PDI +20c. PHK +8c. PFN +15. PDO +21. PAXS (7) With the minor exception of PAXS, IF UNII / Coverage stats dipped, it is almost certainly a recharacterization of NII into other accounting buckets. Regards, Dick --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Post by richardsok on Dec 20, 2022 17:43:34 GMT
Noted. TY, r.
|
|
|
Post by retiredat48 on Dec 21, 2022 3:49:46 GMT
richardsok,...et al....Edit my above post to add: Hi _____. As in the piece about RCS below, a reasonably informed guess about the cause of that "recharacterization" is this: they bought some premium bonds or paid premiums for interest rate swaps --- both of which would tend to increase future NII. The re-bucketing following such trades is required by straightforward accounting rules. Also on concern over coverage: probably 90+% of income CEFs AREN'T COVERING DISTRIBUTIONS AT ALL! If one is worried about PIMCO coverage, one must sell all the rest first. Regards, Dick
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Dec 21, 2022 12:28:35 GMT
I love "dickoncapecod", he brings real smarts to the table and then gives you the tools to do the same work yourself.
The thing about NAV I learnt from him and that has helped me keep steady while prices have been falling for PDO, PDI & PTY.
I tried to explain the NAV thing previously, dickoncapecod does a way better job than I did.
Brilliant!
|
|
|
Post by richardsok on Dec 21, 2022 12:34:36 GMT
richardsok ,...et al....Edit my above post to add: Hi _____. As in the piece about RCS below, a reasonably informed guess about the cause of that "recharacterization" is this: they bought some premium bonds or paid premiums for interest rate swaps --- both of which would tend to increase future NII. The re-bucketing following such trades is required by straightforward accounting rules. Also on concern over coverage: probably 90+% of income CEFs AREN'T COVERING DISTRIBUTIONS AT ALL! If one is worried about PIMCO coverage, one must sell all the rest first. Regards, Dick Oh, I certainly agree on that, R. I have developed a suspicious attitude about earnings/payout coverage for the whole dern bunch. The only brokerage website that even attempts to routinely break down CEF earnings/ROC/distys is Schwab (to my knowledge). And with all the multitude of variables across dozens of funds, their numbers have to be viewed with an element of doubt. The very fact that most CEFs bury the relevant numbers deep in arcane documents over the heads of the general public is cause for anyone to tread lightly.
|
|
|
Post by mnfish on Dec 21, 2022 13:11:18 GMT
Is this any news? PIMCO filed this with the SEC on 11/29 and pertains to all of their CEFs
Link APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER UNDER SECTIONS 17(d) AND 57(i) OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940 AND RULE 17d-1 THEREUNDER PERMITTING CERTAIN JOINT TRANSACTIONS OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY SECTIONS 17(d) AND 57(a)(4) AND RULE 17d-1 In particular, the relief requested in this application for an Order (the “Application”) would allow a Regulated Fund and one or more other Regulated Funds (as defined below) (including one or more BDC Downstream Funds (as defined below) or any Wholly-Owned Investment Subs (as defined below) and/or one or more Affiliated Funds (each as defined below) to participate in the same investment opportunities through a proposed co-investment program where such participation would otherwise be prohibited under Section 17(d) or Section 57(a)(4) and the rules under the Act (the “Co- Investment Program”).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2022 17:12:01 GMT
Is this any news? PIMCO filed this with the SEC on 11/29 and pertains to all of their CEFs
Link APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER UNDER SECTIONS 17(d) AND 57(i) OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940 AND RULE 17d-1 THEREUNDER PERMITTING CERTAIN JOINT TRANSACTIONS OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY SECTIONS 17(d) AND 57(a)(4) AND RULE 17d-1 In particular, the relief requested in this application for an Order (the “Application”) would allow a Regulated Fund and one or more other Regulated Funds (as defined below) (including one or more BDC Downstream Funds (as defined below) or any Wholly-Owned Investment Subs (as defined below) and/or one or more Affiliated Funds (each as defined below) to participate in the same investment opportunities through a proposed co-investment program where such participation would otherwise be prohibited under Section 17(d) or Section 57(a)(4) and the rules under the Act (the “Co- Investment Program”). It depends on how ethical the participants are and the governance standards and supervision by the parent organization/company. The SEC has given exemptions to the cited rules in some cases.
|
|
|
Post by mnfish on Dec 21, 2022 18:28:54 GMT
@haven , Thanks for the reply. It's just that when I saw "BDC Downstream Funds", in my mind it conjured up visions of more risk/leverage.
|
|