Clearly the terrorist atack is the primary reason for the drop. Many economists stated that event could push the US into recession. To try and take credit for that is ridiculous. Further, the principal is hardly "evaporating".
azxl may be an a**h*le. Don't know about that. But, one look at his previous msg and others, including mine should convince you there is more to ACG's weakness than last week's attack. In fact, if its portfolio were strong--which it is not--ACG should have gone up significantly in a flight to "safety."
Unfortunately, its portfolio has 16% in weak foreign economies and a less than stellar line-up of US securities (includes strips). It doesn't earn enough to cover its "dividend"--more appropriately its "distribution" from earnings. Also, unfortunately I still own a bundle of ACG for the "dividend".
I'll repeat my line from my previous message, "If it looks too good to be true, it is."
NotToSmart your reasoning is, well, not too smart. You wrote: there is more to ACG's weakness than last week's attack. In fact, if its portfolio were strong--which it is not--ACG should have gone up significantly in a flight to "safety." Just in case you didn't notice, the Feds suprised the markets on Monday with a 50 point reduction in rates. You would think that with a 50 point suprise reduction in rates, bonds would soar? Instead bonds got hammered. Treasuries continued there losses on Tuesday and Thursday. There was a "flight to safety", but that flight was cash - not bonds. The last I checked, ACG is a bond fund. Should a sel-off in bonds not result in a sell-off in ACG? I should think so.