The stock market is calmer than it has been in years. Some worry that a popular strategy is contributing to the tranquility.
Measures of market volatility have fallen to levels last seen in 2018 ...
Investors are seeking protection from potential losses by pour money into [covered-call ETFs] ... assets in such funds has topped $67 billion, up from $7 billion at the end of 2020."

the Adviser typically pursues a “growth style” of investing as it seeks to capture market inefficiencies which the Adviser believes are driven by investors’ propensity to be short-sighted and overly focused on quarter-to-quarter price movements rather than on a company’s fundamentals over a longer time horizon (5 years or more). The Adviser believes that this market inefficiency tends to lead investors to underappreciate (sic) the compounding potential of quality, growing companies. To identify this subset of companies, the Adviser generates investment ideas from a variety of sources, ranging from institutional knowledge and industry contacts, to the Adviser’s proprietary screening process that seeks to identify suitable companies based on several quality factors such as rates of return on equity and total capital, margin stability and profitability. Ideas are then subject to rigorous fundamental analysis as the Adviser seeks to identify and invest in companies that it believes reflect higher quality opportunities on a forward-looking basis. Specifically, the Adviser seeks to buy companies that it believes are reasonably priced and have strong fundamental business characteristics and sustainable and durable earnings growth. The Adviser seeks to outperform peers over a full market cycle by seeking to capture market upside while limiting downside risk. For these purposes, a full market cycle can be measured from a point in the market cycle (e.g., a peak or trough) to the corresponding point in the next market cycle

Finance Professor:
First, a piece of advice. Don’t believe much that you read (including what I write), especially about buybacks. The mythology on buybacks is staggering, including the claims that they are funded mostly with debt, that they come at the expense of value creating investments and that they are primarily to cover stock-based compensation. The truth is that stock-based compensation is not only a much smaller amount than the buybacks, but the companies that are the biggest buyback players are not the ones where stock compensation is a large percent of expenses. ... The truth is that the buybacks, for the most part, are cash infusions to investors, and much of that cash gets reinvested back into the market.

Despite declaring that [Texas County & District Retirement System] TCDRS “has never had an ESG policy,” and does not intend to have one, [Executive Director] Bishop said that the bill “would keep us from partnering with some of the best investment managers in the world.” Bishop added:
“If we had to adjust our asset allocation, we estimated it could cost us over $6 billion over the next 10 years. And this would cause our employers cost to more than double.”

The last thing Boeing needs is financial restructuring. They need to reinstitute the pre-McDonnell Douglas merger ethos where engineering trumps cost cutting.

+1

The McDonnell Douglas merger precipitated Boeing's descent.
McDonnell Douglas management increased outsourcing which led to declines
in both aircraft quality and employee morale. Various "accidents" (some preventable)
involving Boeing aircraft in recent years have tarnished this once fine company's reputation.

The last thing Boeing needs is financial restructuring. They need to reinstitute the pre-McDonnell Douglas merger ethos where engineering trumps cost cutting.

I’d like to give you an update on Wells Fargo and its unauthorized opening of accounts. While some of our shareholders have urged us to sell our shares, we believe that Wells Fargo is a far better bank than what is portrayed in the media, and that this is the most important time for an ESG investor to be involved. We met with CEO Tim Sloan in December and had a productive conversation about the bank’s remedies for its customers and employees, discriminatory banking practices towards minority and low-income customers, as well as its financing of the Dakota Access Pipeline. We would not have been able to have this dialogue had we sold our position. While we don’t disclose the results of our engagements, rest assured, we continue to engage with the highest levels of management on these issues.

Responsible Investing Notes
...
On a brighter note, I’m delighted to share with you a positive development with Wells Fargo, which has worked hard over the past year to repair its damaged reputation. From eliminating sales goals in its Community Banking division to replacing three board members, Wells Fargo has taken significant steps to improve its relationships with its customers, stakeholders and shareholders. ...
One issue we believed Wells Fargo needed to address was its involvement in the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) project. This controversial pipeline project caused an uproar across the nation, leading to closely watched protests and negative sentiment towards companies involved in its construction. A consortium of seventeen banks, including Wells Fargo, lent money to finance the DAPL.
We concluded from our discussions with Wells Fargo that they could not have predicted the consequences of financing the DAPL. More importantly, we became convinced Wells Fargo would not have financed the project had it known how much it would upset its customers, shareholders and stakeholders. We understood that Wells Fargo was contractually obligated to finance the project, but we believed the bank could take action to repair its relationship with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. In February, as part of our engagement with Wells Fargo about the DAPL, we asked the bank to donate its profits from financing the DAPL to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Wells Fargo indicated they would consider this donation.
Over the course of the year, we engaged in multiple calls and meetings with Wells Fargo, urging the bank to act. We had three calls with Wells Fargo’s Head of Corporate Responsibility and Community Relations, Jon Campbell. We met with Wells Fargo’s CEO Tim Sloan, and later in the year with incoming Board Chair Elizabeth Duke. During each conversation, we discussed our proposed DAPL donation. In October, Wells Fargo acknowledged to us that financing the DAPL had affected the bank’s relationship with the American Indian and Alaskan tribes that are customers of the bank. In December, Wells Fargo announced a five-year $50 million commitment to the American Indian and Alaskan tribes, which was significantly greater than our request. These monetary grants, to be issued starting in early 2018, will target environmental sustainability, economic empowerment, and diversity and social inclusion programs focusing on the impacted tribes.

You may be aware that several Parnassus funds initiated positions in Wells Fargo stock well over a year ago. Initially, the firm had positive fundamental and ESG profiles. At the time, Wells Fargo was widely considered to be one of the top banks in America, with a strong focus on workplace, diversity and inclusion, and philanthropy.
As the bank’s community sales scandal and Dakota Access pipeline controversy became headline news, Parnassus immediately began using its substantial holding in the firm to engage top executives. We met with Wells Fargo management—including the CEO and key independent Directors—multiple times to share our perspective on events and suggest potential remedies. We also voted our proxy shares according to our responsible investment policies, including voting against the candidates for the Wells Board of Directors that had served on the Risk Committee for many years.
While our discussions led to positive changes within the company, troubling new issues continue to emerge. Significantly, the Federal Reserve has decided that the problems at the bank are serious enough to warrant their active involvement in Wells Fargo’s business decisions for an indefinite period of time.
As events continue to reveal further deterioration in both the fundamental and ESG profiles of the bank, we do not believe that further engagement from Parnassus will be effective. In short, Wells Fargo is not a suitable holding for our portfolios at this time.

@rforno
I seem to remember PRBLX being criticised for this and responding in some way, but it would be hard to locate now.
As far as financial shenanigans are concerned there are several funds that claim to look for it so as to avoid it. The one I remember from years ago was Robert Olstein who made a big deal out of being able "look behind the numbers" focusing on cash flow with a "forensic analysis"
OFAFX has not exactly blown out the lights.

Many states have default laws ... including the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act ... Generally speaking, these laws establish a rule that when two individuals die within 120 hours of each other, each individual will be treated as having predeceased the other. Thus, if a husband and wife die at the same time or within 120 hours of each other, and the husband’s will distributes 100 percent of his property to his wife at his death, the wife is treated as having predeceased her husband,

>Estate beneficiary: If the original depositor of an IRA names their estate as the beneficiary of their account, or did not leave beneficiaries on their IRA, the IRA funds may go to their estate.

Death on or after 1/1/20, [and asset recipient is an] estate entity, non-see-through trust beneficiary of the original depositor's IRA. [elsewhere this is called a nonperson beneficiary]:
[Death before RMDs begin] Move inherited assets into an inherited IRA in the name of the estate or non-see through trust and withdraw the balance by December 31st of the year containing the 5th anniversary of the original depositor's death
[Death after RMDs begin] Move inherited assets into an Inherited IRA in the name of the estate or non-see through trust and begin taking RMDs the year following the year of the original depositor death using their age in the year they passed away.

A “nonperson beneficiary” is an estate, trust or charitable organization. This type of beneficiary has the following options:

• Account owner dies before the required beginning date.... In that case, the account must be depleted by December 31 of the year that includes the 5th anniversary of the account owner’s death.
  
• Account owner dies on or after required beginning date then the entity may use a life expectancy calculation based on the remaining life expectancy of the decedent.

The SECURE Act identifies three groups of beneficiaries: eligible designated beneficiaries, noneligible designated beneficiaries, and nonperson beneficiaries.
...
The third group of beneficiaries consists of nonperson beneficiaries (i.e., entities, such as trusts, estates, or charities). Nonperson beneficiaries of account owners who died before their required beginning date (RBD), which is the deadline to begin RMDs, remain subject to the 5-year rule and—with the exception of certain see-through trusts—must distribute the inherited assets within five years.

N.J.S.A. 3B:10-23 holds that an executor “is under a duty to settle and distribute the estate of the decedent in accordance with the terms of [the will] and applicable law, and as expeditiously and efficiently as is consistent with the best interests of the estate.…”