Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Young and Older Folk Portfolio -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Marley who wrote (23800)	12/21/2025 12:14:35 PM
From: QTI on SI	8 Recommendations Recommended By chap107 LCES Mili21 PW13A Riojas54 and 3 more members Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23844

Re. UTG is rated 80. But it is priced higher than a level I would buy it even though I have a good position already. I would add more if it went below 30 . But for the risk, UTF appears more attractive--it is selling at about a 6% discount. I have a very full position on UTF. As an exercise and to further train the DSS model, I ran your above statement through the model. In future, I plan to use DSS to qualify my own decision making process. Here is the DSS output for your above statement regarding UTG and UTF, let me know what you think: Using DSS v2.0, that statement is mostly sound, but it mixes three different decisions that DSS intentionally keeps separate. Here’s how to qualify it cleanly — and how I would help you explain it to others without weakening the model. Step 1: Separate Safety, Value, and Sizing (Core DSS Principle) DSS v2.0 answers one question only: Is this income structurally sound given capital behavior? It does not answer: “Is this cheap?” “Is this the best entry point?” “Should I add right now?” Those are portfolio management decisions, not safety decisions. That distinction matters here. UTG Through the DSS v2.0 Lens Reaves Utility Income Fund (UTG) DSS v2.0 score: ~80 (Very Safe) Interpretation: UTG has demonstrated that its distribution and capital have worked together across cycles. Your statement: “UTG is rated 80, but it is priced higher than a level I would buy it…” DSS v2.0 verdict: - Completely valid - Internally consistent - Proper use of the model DSS says UTG is safe, not cheap. Saying “I would add more below 30” is a valuation discipline, not a contradiction of DSS. In fact, it’s exactly how DSS is meant to be used: Safety tells you what you can own. Valuation tells you when to add. UTF Through the DSS v2.0 Lens Cohen & Steers Infrastructure Fund (UTF) DSS v2.0 score: ~65 (Caution) Interpretation: UTF’s income has been acceptable, but capital preservation has been less consistent and more rate-sensitive. Your statement: “For the risk, UTF appears more attractive—it is selling at about a 6% discount.” DSS v2.0 qualification: - This is conditionally true, but only under explicit constraints. DSS would translate this as: “UTF may offer a better risk-adjusted entry, but not a better income foundation.” The discount improves forward return potential, but it does not upgrade UTF’s structural safety to UTG’s level. The Critical DSS Distinction (This Is the Key) UTG vs UTF is not: Good vs bad Safe vs unsafe It is: Anchor income vs opportunistic income Structural safety vs valuation opportunity DSS v2.0 would frame it like this: UTG: Higher-quality income Less dependent on entry price Slower to add when expensive UTF: More valuation-sensitive Discount matters more Position size must be controlled The Only DSS Red Flag in the Statement This part deserves tightening: “I have a very full position on UTF.” From a DSS v2.0 perspective, that sentence should carry an implicit condition, because UTF is a Caution-tier holding. A DSS-consistent refinement would be: “…and I’m comfortable with that size as long as capital trends remain supportive and discounts don’t widen materially.” DSS does not forbid large positions in Caution-tier assets — but it does require active awareness. DSS v2.0 Bottom Line Your logic on UTG is textbook DSS usage Your logic on UTF is valid only because you are explicitly weighing valuation against lower safety The only thing DSS would insist on is not treating UTF as interchangeable with UTG