Obama and Bernanke are economic fools

[gwb72tii]

no not retrenching
its annoying/amusing to watch rwh cover his mistakes by saying he really knew about a specific investment, when in fact he had no clue
such as the emerging market debt bubble (he's the ONLY person to see it), jp morgan em mkt fund (LOLOLOL) or that the 80's/90's were bad for investing (sarcasm bullshit)
most of you weren't around to see the 80's and have no basis to judge rwh's ignorance
its that he pulls shit out of thin air (jp morgan "fund") without knowing what he's talking about, then circles back to cover his ass after he know's i caught him in another mistake

rwh is a fool in that he cannot/won't admit he's made an error/mistake to anyone or even himself.

and rwh trying to make me look like i don't know the markets and investing is like me trying to make sleeve look like he doesn't know welding

but, to all, here's hoping you all make loads of money in your investments

[gwb72tii]

and since youall think everything's coming up roses, here's a chart to chew on
this is why bernanke "the keynesian" and his boss obama are fools
after 6.8 trillion this is where we are

[rwh11385]

no not retrenching
its annoying/amusing to watch rwh cover his mistakes by saying he really knew about a specific investment, when in fact he had no clue
such as the emerging market debt bubble (he's the ONLY person to see it), jp morgan em mkt fund (LOLOLOL) or that the 80's/90's were bad for investing (sarcasm bullshit)
most of you weren't around to see the 80's and have no basis to judge rwh's ignorance
its that he pulls shit out of thin air (jp morgan "fund") without knowing what he's talking about, then circles back to cover his ass after he know's i caught him in another mistake

rwh is a fool in that he cannot/won't admit he's made an error/mistake to anyone or even himself.

and rwh trying to make me look like i don't know the markets and investing is like me trying to make sleeve look like he doesn't know welding

but, to all, here's hoping you all make loads of money in your investments

So you're saying there is no such thing as JP Morgan Emerging Market fund? https://www.jpmorganfunds.com/cm/Sat...usip=4812A3684

Sorry I used a quick reference ETF to be able to look at how poorly the index you mentioned last year [but didn't actually invest in] performed and accidently included a descriptor from it and that this distracted you. Why not go back to the point and how your EM bonds are doing, or not doing? Maybe you ought to realize that you are petty and focusing on that tiny detail instead of all the bad calls you've made. I did admit my mistake including fund but you must not read or can't remember reading it, since you still say I can't admit an error. Clearly you are again projecting because you avoid talking about you being wrong and focus on crap like this. It's funny how you try to defend your huge ego like this - constantly.

You don't think that there is any possible chance that the emerging market bonds are overvalued by people being obsessed with them? Wow, how absolutely arrogant of you.

http://blogs.barrons.com/incomeinvesting/2012/12/28/the-silence-of-the-bond-bubble/

Bond prices, however, only have limited upside. So rather than being driven by the possibility of every higher prices, bond bubbles feature a sense of optimism that nothing can go wrong. As a result, investors hold their bonds–and trading volume falls, hence, a quiet bubble

And you think I'm the only one who thinks there is a possibility? Have you tried reading? You claimed to read WSJ but guess didn't see this article?

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130208-710726.html

Concern Grows on Possible Bubble in Emerging-Market Dollar Debt

He and other investors are convinced that emerging-market bonds that are issued in dollars are overdue for a significant selloff. Yet for now, their prices continue to hold up well.

The average yield on bonds sold in dollars by emerging-market sovereigns fell to 4.5% in January, its lowest level ever, after trading close to 5.5% a year ago, according to the J.P. Morgan Emerging Market Bond Index Global. This compares to a yield of about 2% on the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury note. Prior to the financial crisis, these bonds fetched 6.5% in yield on the index. A bond's yield moves inversely to its price.

An increasing number of market participants have said the asset class is dangerously overheating. Only a year ago, investors were snapping up emerging-market dollar bonds as an alternative to local currency debt, which was then being sideswiped by volatility in foreign-exchange markets. Now, investors such as Mr. Carter are selling their holdings in anticipation of a selloff.

"The way we look at it, all bonds are in a bubble and the returns people got in the past will not be around in the future," said Matthew Tuttle, chief investment officers at Tuttle Tactical Management, who last week sold his emerging-market bond holdings.

But you're absolutely sure that there couldn't possibly be a bubble in emerging market bonds because the people around you who tell you how to think don't think so? Don't you think it is wiser to consider the possibility than try to call me an idiot? No, of course not, because your ego won't allow you to and that's a big pretty big risk. And of course risking all of your clients wealth on your assumptions.

http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/70526/a-bubble-in-emerging-market-debt.aspx

A Bubble in Emerging Market Debt?

The strength of money flows into this asset class over the last few years has pushed yields to levels which are not only low on a historical basis, but perhaps also indicative of miscalculation of risk. To assert that we are on the cusp of a market bubble is perhaps too controversial. However, what seems pretty clear is that current emerging market debt market valuations tell the tale of a crowded trade. Rationally this means that investors considering emerging market debt at present are unlikely to enjoy the same level of high returns in the future while possibly taking on an unsuitably high level of risk relative to their personal circumstances.

...

Emerging market assets have become a mainstream investment. They have certainly provided good returns over the past few years. However, the maxim “past performance is no guarantee of future results” still applies. As always when investing, it is key to weigh up the risks against the expected rewards, particularly when the party has been going for such a long time.

http://blogs.barrons.com/emergingmarketsdaily/2012/09/05/emerging-market-bond-bubble-in-the-making-buffetts-berkshire-asset-manager-thinks-possibly/

Emerging Market Bond Bubble In the Making? Buffett’s Berkshire Asset Manager Thinks Possibly


It's one thing to take risks with your own money but you are putting your client's accounts in jeopardy because of your hubris.

[rwh11385]

and since youall think everything's coming up roses, here's a chart to chew on
this is why bernanke "the keynesian" and his boss obama are fools
after 6.8 trillion this is where we are

Let's sit back for a second and try to understand this post George. No one has ever claimed that we're back yet at the type of growth like was seen under Clinton or even back to the decent economy fueled by credit in the mid-2000s prior to the financial crisis, but rather not simply as bad as you would want to have us all believe and are cheering on to falter.

I am a bit confused by your premise that the trend in employment to population ratio and participation rate is the fault of Bernanke and Obama. It is not very challenging to notice that both peak in 2000, which was under Clinton and Greenspan. Bernanke was a professor at Princeton in 2000 and Obama was an IL state Senator... so it was rather amazing that they would be capable of influencing the entire labor market from those positions.

Perhaps you are overlooking something and over-simplying a complex issue to support your biased opinion?

Let's look at the source you pulled that chart from.



You hotlinked the chart but failed to disclose what was posted along with it and instead tried to impose your own interpretation. Now I don't know where you believe that puts you on the spectrum from honest to unethical, but I'd figure it is at the very least misleading to take it out of content.

Now why does the mention of demographics and participation rate seem familiar? Oh... maybe because that was what I talked about months ago...

3 sets of senior/chief economist's analysis into the labor force participation rate which drew similar conclusions to my independent analysis of the matter:

http://www.esa.doc.gov/Blog/2011/03/02/youth-labor-force-participation-and-school-enrollment

"Last July, fewer than half of young people had a job, the lowest level since records were first kept in 1948. The flip side is that in October 2009, 70.1 percent of 2009 high school graduates were enrolled in colleges or universities, the highest level on record for the series, which began in 1959. So, while youth employment is hitting record lows, school enrollment is climbing. These are long-standing trends; nevertheless, the Great Recession likely accentuated them.

Many people choose to stay out of the labor force precisely because they are enrolled in school and wish to focus on gaining skills and preparing for future careers."

"Human capital investment among people of all ages is a fundamental source of growth for our economy."

"Reaching this objective means some youths will remain out of the labor force for a few additional years as they invest in developing the skills that will make them, and our country, more productive in the long-run."

http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2012/cflmarch2012_296.pdf

"The authors conclude that just under half of the post-1999 decline in the U.S. labor force participation rate, or LFPR (the proportion of the working-age population that is employed or unemployed and seeking work), can be explained by long-running demographic patterns"

http://www.td.com/document/PDF/economics/special/jm0112_participation_rate.pdf

"Young people have seen the biggest change in participation rates over the last several years. Since the start of the recession, the percentage of people aged 16-24 participating in the workforce has declined from 61% to just over 55%. While a sour job market accelerated the fall, young people’s participation rates had been declining well before the recession. In fact, the overall participation rate of 16-24 year olds peaked in 1989"

"Two main factors explain the secular decline in young people’s participation rates: increased school enrollment and declining labor force participation rates among students in high school and college. Since 1985 (the first year data is available), the share of young people enrolled in school has risen by 18 percentage points. Enrollment in school does not exclude a person from participating in the labor market, but the enrolled have a much lower participation rate. In fact, from 1985 to 2000, the fall in the participation rate of 16-24 year olds was due entirely to rising enrollment."

statistics are for liers (not you rwh, the o-admin BLS) and statistics lie

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/real-unemployment-rate-hits-117-spread-between-reported-and-propaganda-data-hits-record

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/reason...h-31-year-lows

Seriously dude, you're a broken record and it seems that the only thing that can make it past the tinfoil and your thick skull is some crazy blogging that confirms what you are wanting to hear. It's like logic and reason are hopeless in battling your bias and simplistic view of the world as the sum of what people want you to think instead of being capable of thinking for yourself.

Yes the labor force participation rate influences the calculation of unemployment rate, but it's not some conspiracy or lies, but rather how it is determined on who to consider looking for work. Yes, they should add in controls and provide a more clear image of school and retirees but that doesn't mean someone is trying to lie to you because you are poorly informed. Half of the rate trend is longstanding democraphic changes, more people going to college and for longer and not working while they do it (hello student loans) as well as a shitton of baby boomers retiring.

This has already been covered in this thread. http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/show...&postcount=111

The only way the participation rate to return to its peak would be to have all retirees off themselves and kids not going to college and working instead. Otherwise, the enrollment of young people will continue to grow and more people retired will reduce the percentage of the population who is considered in the labor force. Do you really think that college kids should be considered unemployed because they don't have a job? Or Grandma in her rocking chair?

The system would be more accurate of normalized for these things, but your lack of understanding does not mean it is done with ill intentions or to be misleading. The smaller labor force number does benefit Obamas numbers by doesn't mean he determined how they are calculated like you allege. Anyone who is capable of reading can find that out. It's the medias lack of concern for properly informing and giving context that misleads people, not the BLS.

The financial crisis was a shock to many college students and graduates who relied on the notion that if you go to a university you should be guaranteed a job - hence that OWS protest thing where they felt lied to because their masters in philosophy didn't get them a secure $40K job. So some had to go back to school and that takes time

I know many people who went back to school for other degrees, masters, MBAs, law, nursing licenses, etc. They are removed from the labor force participation pool, but will eventually emerge more qualified for a skilled labor force. As long as they aren't the 10% in history and social science or nearly 6% in visuals arts who result in no job.

But choices like that should be a better result in the long run than people remaining in the labor force as long-term unemployed people too lazy to adjust to the labor market demands and hold out for their old jobs to come back.

In any case, though, getting a bachelors degree is a path to help defend against unemployment, as this chart clearly shows:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BBb0jLinOCE/UTyk8gcIGvI/AAAAAAAAZXw/g0C__u21w6Q/s1600/UnemployEdFeb2013.jpg

Other factors such as higher minimum wage hurt since it questions the value of teenager employees and has decreased their employment which takes down the ratios. Additionally, helicopter parents want them to do more activities and participate in more sports/leadership in clubs so they have less time to work throughout HS like I did.



Yes, if the economy was booming like in the 90s, more people might be pulled into the job market but not even that will keep George's generation from eventually retiring and being a huge drag on both ratios, as well as the federal budget because of their medicare and social security costs. A better educated or trained workforce will help the economy grow - particularly in technology fields and healthcare, but being well educated means a longer time in college which reduces their contribution to these ratios. One of the strongest job growth opportunities in healthcare and my friends who are becoming doctors will certainly spend a lot time in school before truly entering the labor market permanently.

Of course, the truth doesn't matter to George. His twist of reality to suit his views and protect his ego is displayed well on the forum. People should be informed about the facts of the labor market, but not some Glenn, Rush, ZeroHedge, or Drudge spin of it.

[Morrison]

Love that demographics rationale that was conveniently over-looked. Good catch!

[gwb72tii]

rwh - please explain what the "Grand Rotaion" is and exactly how ot works?

[Farbin Kaiber]

I would love to sit down for a beer at a bar inbetween the both of you. I may end up shooting myself, but it would be fun.

[rwh11385]

rwh - please explain what the "Grand Rotaion" is and exactly how ot works?

I have no idea what "Grand Rotaion" is...
And OT works as a place to have off-topic discussion.


However, maybe you meant Grand Rotation. I am shocked you haven't heard of it... The concept would be the potential for a swing of money from bonds back into equities, which would be pretty sad for your investments. (While I would have been ahead of this movement and it would benefit me)

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/parry-a-grand-rotation-back-into-equities-g8x44wqqTfCKRHzpZfYnIA.html

Parry: A Grand Rotation Back Into Equities

Some may have also referred to it as Great Rotation, but if you get confused by synonyms you have a fundamental lack of language skills (as demonstrated by your spelling). The importance is what the concept is about, not what someone chooses to call it. If you like to split hairs because you have no leg to stand on, then I guess you can do that instead of talking about the real issues - like you intentionally trying to mislead people by not disclosing facts and context.

Maybe you don't worry about it because you're arrogant about your bonds or Tyler Durden told you it wasn't going to happen, so you choose to ignore anything that goes against your assumptions and only listen to opinion that backs your beliefs.

[gwb72tii]

so to carry your thought further
what exactly happens when i sell bonds to buy stocks
or more likely, sell stocks to buy bonds?

take us thru the trades please and explain further

[rwh11385]

so to carry your thought further
what exactly happens when i sell bonds to buy stocks
or more likely, sell stocks to buy bonds?

take us thru the trades please and explain further

Lol, dude... discussing anything with you is like talking to a brick wall. If it sometimes burst into flames of anger.

If I wanted to weigh more towards stocks, I'd switch my investments to have more stocks and buy less bonds. Can you not do that too? It can be as simple as changing the target date, earlier for more bonds and later for more stocks.

With as many boomers and geezers out there, some people will always be heavy on fixed income. But, what is important to watch for is people younger than you George getting over their fears, licking their wounds, and re-entering the equity market. As I posted and mentioned that WSJ article, people aren't expected to get the returns they enjoyed last year in bonds so that people will forage back into stocks. Of course, instead of having a conservation about that, you have continued to try to protect your fragile ego or gone ape. Some may want to make it seem like it will be a giant instant and constant wave so critics rejoice that it didn't happen because of one week of stock outflow (maybe people taking out their profits but not yet confident to stick around), although it would probably tend to be more gradual.

Are you not considering the possibility because you assume that every one else will always be full-on bonds like you are? Or...?

[rwh11385]

I guess in George's FA buzzword or lingo, it is risk-on/risk-off, right?

And what did you say about Treasury yields?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-08/treasuries-drop-as-payrolls-increase-unemployment-rate-falls.html

Treasury Yields Rise to 11-Month High as Job Gains Top Forecasts

in today' lingo, its called the risk trade, risk on, risk off. today was what??? here, i'll help again, it was risk off, stocks went down. and guess what?? the ten year went from 1.982 yield to 1.952. money left stocks and went into bonds. rememer econ 101? demand affects market price? the price of the ten yr went up (more demand) and yield went down.

huge sums of $ are being invested in bonds (primarily the ten yr treasury note) when there is bad news in europe, bad news here, or if rwh burps. when huge sums of $ are invested in bonds, it drives the value up and the yield down, usually when the stock market is puking on itself.

the reverse happens also. we have a tentative agreement by the European Central Bank (ECB) to inject euros directly into spanish banks, preventing (hopefully) catastrophe, and huge sums of $ exit bonds and go into stocks. bond yields go up as stocks go up.

Yup, 10 year Treasury note yield up from 1.6 from beginning of Dec to over 2 now, stocks up with it. Right?

Is it only correct when I use your insider lingo or what you decided was the best terminology? Or is it the concept that matters and application of it?

[gwb72tii]

so to carry your thought further
what exactly happens when i sell bonds to buy stocks
or more likely, sell stocks to buy bonds?

take us thru the trades please and explain further

since you didn't answer this or didn't understand the question, i'll answer for you

there is no such thing as a "Grand Rotation" from stocks to bonds or vice versa.
every time someone sells a bond there is a buyer, and everytime someone buys a stock, there is a seller.

and isn't the timing of this so called "Grand Rotation" curious? and who's talking about it (Wall Street strategists)? the market is up 125% since '09 and somehow now the public is going to rotate out of bonds into stocks? and the proponenets of that line of thinking are the ones who want to sell?

over half of the daily volume on the stock exchanges is hedge funds, whose average hold time is under 3 minutes. bernanke has the hedgie's backs with monetary policy, so they play along knowing big Ben wants the Russell 2000 index (small cap core) to go up. Because somehow stocks going up in price will make us all feel like taking our Visa cards out for a walk (absent any historical correlation of stocks and consumer spending).

and you should know this by now if you've paid attention. risk-on and risk-off are DAILY trends based on short term economic/political news.

your quote rwh
"And it's not just 2 months. 9.6% < 15.58% in 2012. But of course, you want to avoid talking about that so you redirect to this year"

And I've mentioned, more than once, we don't manage to the s&p 500 index. we do not care (re-read that again) about outperforming ANY index.
it's just that you keep trying to convince (yourself?) that you smarter than the rest of us when in fact almost any bond fund (as i've stated before) has outperformed stocks over the last 5,10 and 15 year time periods. and with 20% of the risk (standard deviation) of stocks.

and for those that don't know about standard deviation (rwh??), it is a measure of variance around a mean. lower is less variance.
to the investor, that correlates to an account that doesn't fluctuate in value as much as the s&p month to month.
And why does that matter? economic fundamentals are not driving stocks up. Ben Bernanke and his magic ability to create excess money is. And the hedgies will play along. For now. But wait until they don't want to play anylonger, and then please let us all know how much fun you're having being long stocks.

and a side note about the bond "bubble". bubbles, by definition, don not occure when everyone is talking about them. bubbles occur when everyone thinks the gains will go on forever (real estate in 2007).
if there is a bubble today. it might be stocks, purchased by mr and mrs jones in kansas city because their CD's yield less than .5%. you and everyone else believe this market will go forever and today is a great time to go long. good luck!

[rwh11385]

since you didn't answer this or didn't understand the question, i'll answer for you

there is no such thing as a "Grand Rotation" from stocks to bonds or vice versa.
every time someone sells a bond there is a buyer, and everytime someone buys a stock, there is a seller.

and isn't the timing of this so called "Grand Rotation" curious? and who's talking about it (Wall Street strategists)? the market is up 125% since '09 and somehow now the public is going to rotate out of bonds into stocks? and the proponenets of that line of thinking are the ones who want to sell?

over half of the daily volume on the stock exchanges is hedge funds, whose average hold time is under 3 minutes. bernanke has the hedgie's backs with monetary policy, so they play along knowing big Ben wants the Russell 2000 index (small cap core) to go up. Because somehow stocks going up in price will make us all feel like taking our Visa cards out for a walk (absent any historical correlation of stocks and consumer spending).

and you should know this by now if you've paid attention. risk-on and risk-off are DAILY trends based on short term economic/political news.

your quote rwh
"And it's not just 2 months. 9.6% < 15.58% in 2012. But of course, you want to avoid talking about that so you redirect to this year"

And I've mentioned, more than once, we don't manage to the s&p 500 index. we do not care (re-read that again) about outperforming ANY index.
it's just that you keep trying to convince (yourself?) that you smarter than the rest of us when in fact almost any bond fund (as i've stated before) has outperformed stocks over the last 5,10 and 15 year time periods. and with 20% of the risk (standard deviation) of stocks.

and for those that don't know about standard deviation (rwh??), it is a measure of variance around a mean. lower is less variance.
to the investor, that correlates to an account that doesn't fluctuate in value as much as the s&p month to month.
And why does that matter? economic fundamentals are not driving stocks up. Ben Bernanke and his magic ability to create excess money is. And the hedgies will play along. For now. But wait until they don't want to play anylonger, and then please let us all know how much fun you're having being long stocks.

and a side note about the bond "bubble". bubbles, by definition, don not occure when everyone is talking about them. bubbles occur when everyone thinks the gains will go on forever (real estate in 2007).
if there is a bubble today. it might be stocks, purchased by mr and mrs jones in kansas city because their CD's yield less than .5%. you and everyone else believe this market will go forever and today is a great time to go long. good luck!

lol, whatever George. In your explanation, you make it seem binary (buying or selling) because there's seller when there is a buyer, but that is disregarding the dynamics of price. [But you like to oversimply things, don't you?] An additional desire to buy drives up price while that encourages people to sell at the higher price, and in reverse a drop in price might make people want to get out now while others buy to scoop up lower prices.

Well you said last year was a horrible time to buy stocks so maybe people trusted people like you then and now are sick of lower bond returns?

You don't seem to be concerned about performance now, period. Do your clients?

Enjoy your emerging market bonds and assume there isn't any risk or even a potential for a bubble... because we all know there has never been a emerging market debt crisis or anything... [if you are bad at picking up on sarcasm, that was sarcasm] ....


America doesn't seem to be spending like they share your outlook on the economy (or life in general):

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/us-economy-retail-idUSBRE92C0I820130313

U.S. retail sales expanded at their fastest clip in five months in February, the latest sign of momentum for an economy facing headwinds from higher taxes and pricier gasoline.

"Consumers have been less fazed by the increase in taxes than we expected," said Gus Faucher, a senior economist at PNC Financial Services in Pittsburgh. "Because the labor market has been doing a bit better than we were expecting, people are feeling a bit confident and not cutting back their spending."

Retail sales increased 1.1 percent, the largest rise since September, after a revised 0.2 percent gain in January, the Commerce Department said on Wednesday. That was well above economists' forecasts for a 0.5 percent advance.

The strong pace of inventory accumulation in January and the healthy reading on core retail sales prompted some economists to raise their first-quarter GDP estimates.

JPMorgan analysts bumped their forecast up by eight-tenths of a percentage point to 2.3 percent, while Goldman Sachs raised theirs by three-tenths of a point to 2.9 percent.

http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2013/03/13/us-retail-sales-up-solid-11-percent-in-february

Solid gain in Feb. US retail sales eases concerns

Naroff said he thinks retail spending, if it strengthens further, could increase economic growth from an annual rate of 2 percent or slightly higher in the January-March quarter to a 4.2 percent rate in the April-June quarter. That would likely be strong enough to drive down the unemployment rate, which is a still-high 7.7 percent.

But Naroff said his forecast is based on the assumption that Congress and the Obama administration will strike a deal to reverse the automatic government spending cuts that took effect March 1. If they don't, he said the economy would likely grow more slowly — at an annual rate of around 3 percent — in the April-June quarter.

Economists said the end of a two-year cut in the Social Security tax is being offset by stronger job growth, along with rising home and stock prices. Gains in home equity and stock holdings tend to make consumers feel wealthier and more willing to spend.

Who knows if Congress and Obama will be able to be grown ups and make a budget deal? But hopefully they will finally be actual leaders for the country. I think America has gotten sick of it a while ago and maybe they got that now. Oh well - let's hope the private realm can continue growing and make up for government's struggle bus antics.

[gwb72tii]

apparently someone else likes bonds

hey, i'm not alone!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-14/inflation-coming-buy-bonds-says-socgens-albert-edwards

[rwh11385]

hey, i'm not alone!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...albert-edwards

Wow, you posted ZeroHedge... Shocker.

Maybe try reading something other than a blogger who is banned from securities because of insider trading. Like this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...0C6FMK20130314
UPDATE 1-US-based stock funds gain $11.26 bln as Dow run continues- Lipper

Investors in U.S.-based funds poured $11.26 billion in new cash into stock funds in the latest week, the most since late January, as the Dow Jones industrial average extended its streak of record highs, data from Thomson Reuters' Lipper service showed on Thursday.
Investors heavily favored the U.S. and gave $8.72 billion to mutual funds and exchange-traded funds that hold U.S. stocks in the week ended March 13, the most since the first week of the year.

Bond funds had their weakest turnout this year as investors committed just $1.23 billion. That is the least amount of inflows since the funds suffered outflows of $331.2 million over the week ended January 2.
Bond mutual funds took in $1.81 billion in new cash, while bond ETFs suffered outflows of $579.12 million. Those marked the largest redemptions in five weeks.
Investors soured on high-yield "junk" bond funds and redeemed $418.1 million. That marked a loss in favor for the bonds after the funds reaped $820 million in inflows the previous week.
Investors are taking profits from high-yield as they bet on equities rising higher, said Roseen of Lipper.
Instead, investors sought higher-quality in investment-grade corporate bond funds, to which they committed $2.13 billion.
That amount marked the highest inflows into the funds since the first week of the year.
As investors crowded into U.S. stock ETFs over the week, money market funds suffered outflows of $2.4 billion. Those outflows were, however, much less than the prior week's outflows of $12.9 billion.

Yeah... keeping denying the possibility of people rotating their focus to stocks vs. bonds, if you care about reality at all.

And about those emerging market bonds... [the ETF that tracks EMBI]