Many Thanks @catch. Everything was as expected, except real estate sector. Last go around XLE did not do that well but I did suspect the euphoria could lift those stocks today. But why no love for RE? Just the blowout in rates? I think Investors are underestimating the ability for financial engineering to prop up this Trump sector.
P.S.: I do not have any direct RE exposure except my primary residence.
My port is going to bigly underperform today because of overweight to my own HC sector bet and then HC overweight from PRWCX, MOAT, and whatever else I am not aware of.

I've used Fidelity's Rewards Visa for approximately 8 years.
I appreciate that it offers 2% cash back on all purchases so that the cardholder
doesn't have to contend with varying cash back rates in "revolving categories."

Hence my interest in looking at cards that give high flat rates when coupled with brokerages.
Flat rate cards cited above:
Fidelity: Fidelity Rewards (2%) - must redeem into Fidelity account for full val
BofA/Merrill: Unlimited Cash Rewards (1.5%, 2.625% w/$100K invested) but foreign xact fee
BofA/Merrill: Travel Rewards (1.5%, 2.625% w/$100K invested) - must redeem against travel charges
Robinhood: Robinhood Gold (3%) - $50-$60 annual fee, for full cash val must redeem w/app into RH acct
US Bank: Smartly Card (2%, 4% w/$100K invested) - $50 annual brokerage fee, foreign xact fee, for full val must redeem to bank acct
It's not hard to find cards paying 2%, but they are usually inferior in some way(s) to Fidelity. For example, Wells Fargo Active Cash (WFC, need I say more?) and Bread Financial Cash Back (Amex, not Visa/MC)
Cards paying more than 2% come with strings and/or costs, some slight some more consequential.

Financial institutions have used voice recognition technology to screen callers to varying degrees for decades. But ISTM that wasn’t always acknowledged publicly. Direct calls I make to Fido are routinely screened & cleared by voice alone (I’m confident there’s an opt-out somewhere.)
With the rapid advances in AI, this form of identity verification (along with all others) must leave “heads spinning” in the security departments. May partially help explain why more “hoops” are being thrown up. I realize this doesn’t pertain directly to @msf’s post - but thought worth adding.
Helpful discussion. I locked my Fido direct transfer option this morning. There’s a good page (if logged in) that explains what’s covered by a lock and what isn’t. For example, regularly scheduled automatic transfers are not included.
Technically, my cellular provider is called “Visible”. It’s actually a low cost subsidiary of Verizon. Very dependable. No issues. Can’t speak directly to getting an audible security code by voice call recently - though it’s worked successfully in the past. I do routinely receive robotically phoned security inquiries that require my confirming by pressing a number.

I have not had blocking issues on my cell carrier, Verizon when I do transaction with Fidelity. Unless I specify those specific phone numbers as “spam” on my phone. Lately I get phone calls from Fidelity financial consultants. Without verification of who they are, I politely decline to take their calls, and mark that number as spam. I ask them to leave a private message on Fidelity if they want to talk to me, but they fail to follow through. Oh, well…
There are times when the 2FA comes slow as text message, I ask Fidelity to call instead and it works as well. Another option is use your email address to authenticate yourself. But this is rare as mobile devices are more common today.
I think there are more security issues recently. I get the verification of not being. “bot” from my bank from my PC, as @hank pointed out. Using the bank’s App, this does not happen. Recently I was asked for my PIN # for buying gas at a new location using my credit card. Typically they ask for my zip code of my home address. I called the credit card later and was told there are more unauthorized uses are happening.

Does GMO offer any funds that incorporate Grantham’s pessimistic views? Not sure how you would do that. Maybe a long-short or equity hedged fund or something along that line.
PS - I’m not seeing a lot of Grantham in the financial press of late ….

Another possibility - multiple sources (with different sampled populations), multiple definitions.

You're killing me man. Simply murder.

I view this piece as financial porn, or more magnanimously financial popcorn - fun to munch on but ultimately just airy fluff. Enjoy it for what it's worth.

Turns out I won't be here all week. Eat whatever you like. But the chef's specials are leftovers. :)

@msf
Good points!
I realize this is "financial popcorn" but I sometimes read these articles for entertainment.
Perhaps I should pursue a different hobby? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The average IRA balance could be skewed much higher if Peter Thiel's IRA was included.
Lord of the Roths

Another possibility - multiple sources (with different sampled populations), multiple definitions.
Americans believe they need to save an average of $1.8 million for retirement,
From Charles Schwab, presumably but not necessarily Schwab customer beliefs.
The average 401(k) balance in the second quarter of 2024 was $127,100
From Fidelity - probably just the accounts that Fidelity administers. How representative is that of the working (and retired) population? Also and importantly, this is an average per account, not per person, and people may have multiple 401(k) accounts, not to mention 403(b) accounts, 457 accounts, and other employer-sponsored accounts.
68% of American workers in 2024 feel somewhat or very confident in their ability to have enough money in retirement
From EBRI - a source I consider more reliable, but I'd still have to look at their methodology to know whom they were polling and how the question was phrased.
https://www.ebri.org/docs/default-source/by-the-numbers/ebri_rsrc_facts-and-figures_011923.pdf
I view this piece as financial porn, or more magnanimously financial popcorn - fun to munch on but ultimately just airy fluff. Enjoy it for what it's worth.
Bonus: The average IRA balance, as opposed to the median retirement account balance could be skewing high thanks to IRA accounts like Mitt Romney's, which was worth $1M over a decade ago.

You are correct. In the way that matters - what buttons you press. You do just place a single order to buy a Vanguard fund with outside money. Though the verbiage I'm reading seems to suggest that under the covers Vanguard is automatically "laundering" transferred money through the settlement account. Admittedly a distinction without a difference. Just confusing.
On the webpage describing the transition from legacy to brokerage platform are descriptions of how each works. Of legacy platform purchases, it says "Money coming in from a bank or other financial institution directly purchased shares of the mutual fund."
In contrast, for brokerage platform purchases it says:

Your brokerage account comes with a settlement fund that's used to pay for investments and hold assets from investment sales and other transactions. Money from bank transfers or redemptions remains in the settlement fund until you use it to purchase investments or transfer it out of your account.

Emphasis in original. The contrast between the two descriptions (legacy and brokerage platforms) seems to be saying that all money used for transactions comes out of the settlement account, even if it sits there for only an instant ("until you use it").
I tried a test purchase in a zeroed out Vanguard account. I was informed:
You don't have enough money in your settlement fund to cover this order. Transfer additional funds from your bank to proceed with this order.
But I could still place the fund purchase order:

If you wish to use your settlement fund to pay for this order, select the amount needed to cover funding option. If you’d like to maintain your settlement fund balance, select transfer full order amount, or select fund order later.

The first option is to pay for the purchase from the settlement account. The middle option is to "transfer [the] full order amount". This is where Vanguard may be moving money into the settlement account and automatically, instantaneously applying it from there to the fund purchase.
The last option, "fund order later", refers to the ability at Vanguard to purchase securities without having enough cash presently in the account. You do have to cover the purchase by the settlement date. See other MFO thread discussing such transactions.
I think the timing in the Vanguard message below discussing that last option is wrong as settlements are now T+1.

Important, please read
This purchase exceeds the funds available balance in your account’s settlement fund. You must transfer money into your settlement fund within 2 business days. Otherwise, securities in the account may be sold to pay for the purchase, and the account may be restricted from further trading.

that's what they were saying but i think they were just covering their asses and trying not to be wrong. all they had to say is that i was in the wrong and what else could i do? well, for one thing, move my money to schwab, not that fidelity would care. it does kinda irritate me, tho. plus, i placed a call to my local fidelity rep about it and he, of course, didn't bother to return my call, no matter that over the years he's hounded me left and right about his ability to offer solid financial advice and help. i understand, tho: i'm small potatoes, not even a fingerling ... but still ...

A lot to digest, but very interesting and worth understanding.

The Federal Reserve has continued to unwind the buildup in its balance sheet. It accumulated a lot of Treasury debt and mortgage backed securities (MBS) during 4 separate rounds of quantitative easing (QE), and since early 2022 it has been letting those mature and roll off. That action is referred to as “quantitative tightening”, or QT.
QT is a bearish force on the stock market, because it takes liquidity out of the banking system. But QT has been getting mitigated by something else the Fed is doing. Starting in 2021, the Fed began accepting a whole lot of “reverse repurchase agreements” or RRPs. An RRP involves a bank borrowing Treasuries from the Fed, to make its balance sheet look better. That bank pledges some of its loan book as collateral for the borrowed Treasuries. The effect of this on the stock market is that RRPs lock up money in the banking system so that this money is not available to do things like help lift stock prices. You can read the NY Fed's description of the process at https://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/rrp_faq

source:
McClellan Financial Publications
reverse_repos_mitigate_feds_qt_campaign

From @BaluBalu linked article:

The late season strike of Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton in Florida could have caused ILS prices to return again to HARD market pricing seen in the first quarter of 2023. But like Ian in 2022, the hurricane tracks turned at the last moment to make landfall away from the most property rich part of the coast (Tampa, Clearwater, and the Tampa Bay area),” the consultancy explained. “The two hurricanes caused significant, but manageable, losses for the reinsurance market and the ILS market. Prices are at neutral levels and absent any further natural catastrophes before year end, we expect them to stay neutral or soften further for January renewals.”
and,
“As of Oct 20 the implied ILS- estimate of loss caused by the two storms was $380 Mn. Allowing for modest losses earlier in the year – perhaps due to aggregate creep and loss development and rounding up for further loss development – say to $500 Mn. for the year – it is still is below expectations. Hence prices will stick in neutral, or soften, absent new Catastrophic events,” Lane Financial concludes.

It will be interesting to see how much FL/NC policy premiums drop as a result of this good news!

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1396092/000199937124013654/clifford-497_102124.htm
497 1 clifford-497_102124.htm SUPPLEMENT DATED OCTOBER 21, 2024
Clifford Capital Focused Small Cap Value Fund
Investor Class (FSVRX)
Institutional Class (FSVVX)
Super Institutional Class (FSVQX)
Supplement dated October 21, 2024
to the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information,
each dated January 31, 2024
The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of World Funds Trust (the “Trust”) has approved a Plan of Liquidation (the “Plan”) for the Clifford Capital Focused Small Value Fund (the “Fund”), which became effective on October 21, 2024. Clifford Capital Partners LLC (the “Adviser”) recommended that the Board approve the Plan due to a diminished asset base and correspondingly rising expenses of the Fund, which the Adviser has indicated that it is no longer willing to continue to subsidize. As a result, the Board concluded that it is in the best interest of the Fund’s shareholders to liquidate the Fund. The Fund is expected to liquidate on or about November 20, 2024 (the “Liquidation Date”).
Effective October 21, 2024, the Fund was closed to new and subsequent investments. Until the Liquidation Date, Fund shareholders may continue to reinvest dividends and distributions in the Fund or redeem their shares. Any remaining shareholders on the Liquidation Date will receive a distribution of their remaining investment value in the Fund based on the instructions listed on your account. The sale or liquidation of your shares will generally be a taxable event. You should consult your tax advisor about your tax situation.
As shareholders redeem shares of the Fund between October 21, 2024 and the Liquidation Date, the Fund may not be able to maintain its stated investment goal and other investment policies. Accordingly, the Fund may deviate from its stated investment goal and other investment policies during the period between October 21, 2024 and the Liquidation Date.
If you have questions or need assistance, please contact your financial advisor directly or the Fund toll-free at 1-800-673-0550.
This Supplement, the Fund’s Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. The Fund’s Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference, and can be obtained without charge by calling the Fund toll-free at 1-800-673-0550.

Part 2 with Christine Benz:

When selling or exchanging shares, you should be aware of the following fund policies:
For accounts held through a financial intermediary, each fund typically expects to pay sale proceeds to the financial intermediary for payment to redeeming shareholders within two business days following receipt of a shareholder redemption order; however, each fund may take up to seven days to pay sale proceeds."
Bizarre wording given that you can buy them only through intermediaries and not directly through the fund.
In any case, the above general settlement time language is similar as in many mutual funds' prospectus. Below is the link to the prospectus (strange that I pulled it in my Schwab account and I get a morningstar.com link.)
https://doc.morningstar.com/docdetail.aspx?clientid=schwab&key=84b36f1bf3830e07&cusip=808515605

It is not all that unusual for fund families, especially boutique firms, to sell funds only through third party distributors.
At one time Janus closed off its direct sales channel to new investors. It allowed only existing investors with class D shares to continue investing directly. Everyone else had to buy T shares through third parties.
Schwab originated as a brokerage and likely leaned on that distribution channel when it started running funds.
With respect to M*, as I recall it used to make prospectuses available to users of its websites. As with much of M*'s content, M* seems to have monetized its fund documents:

The Clients We Serve
The Morningstar Document Library is ideal for brokerage firms or retirement plan service providers that want to outsource costly document collection and maintenance. In addition to this web interface, the Document Library can also be private-labeled or provided through APIs. Advisors and plan providers can grant investors direct access to the library via their own websites, ensuring investors receive immediate access to key documents. Fund companies and compliance officers find it a valuable resource for current and archived proprietary and competitor filings.

https://doc.morningstar.com/home.aspx
Note the "clientid=schwab" argument in the URL.
M* is providing all of the fund documentation for Schwab, not just for Schwab funds. For example, here's Schwab's page for FCNTX and the link to the fund's prospectus.
https://www.schwab.com/research/mutual-funds/quotes/summary/fcntx
https://doc.morningstar.com/docdetail.aspx?clientid=schwab&key=84b36f1bf3830e07&cusip=316071109
M* is not the only third party provider of Schwab fund prospectuses. Here's your same SWVXX prospectus hosted by righprospectus.com
https://connect.rightprospectus.com/Schwab/TVT/808515605/SP?site=FundDocs
And links to all the Schwab fund docs hosted there:
https://connect.rightprospectus.com/Schwab/

Providing the right document solutions at the right time, every time
Donnelley Financial Solutions′s RightProspectus is the next generation in compliance communications for mutual fund, variable annuity, and retirement product providers, as well as broker/dealers and clearing firms. With RightProspectus, documents in our repository are automatically tracked and updated as changes are filed with the SEC, ensuring constant access to the most current and accurate prospectuses. RightProspectus represents a quantum leap forward featuring a new, state-of-the-art online platform.

https://rightprospectus.com/

I was trying to follow up on the irritating Schwab MM settlement of T+1 Schwab implements and checked their prospectus which says,
"To purchase, redeem, exchange or convert shares held in your Schwab account or in your account at another intermediary, you must place your orders with the intermediary that holds your shares. You may not purchase, redeem, exchange or convert shares held in your intermediary account directly with a fund.
When selling or exchanging shares, you should be aware of the following fund policies:
For accounts held through a financial intermediary, each fund typically expects to pay sale proceeds to the financial intermediary for payment to redeeming shareholders within two business days following receipt of a shareholder redemption order; however, each fund may take up to seven days to pay sale proceeds."
Bizarre wording given that you can buy them only through intermediaries and not directly through the fund.
In any case, the above general settlement time language is similar as in many mutual funds' prospectus. Below is the link to the prospectus (strange that I pulled it in my Schwab account and I get a morningstar.com link.)
https://doc.morningstar.com/docdetail.aspx?clientid=schwab&key=84b36f1bf3830e07&cusip=808515605

Thanks @msf for all the enlightenment. An eye-opener … Don’t really know what to think about the firm’s motives here. Questionable. That said, Cambria has a history of launching some really unorthodox products.
FWIW - Morningstar gives Cambria a “Below Average” parenting grade. It writes:
“Cambria added Toroso Investments as a subadvisor to its suite of ETFs in September 2023. Toroso quickly morphed into Tidal Investments, a subsidiary of Tidal Financial Group, following a private equity deal in November 2023. Toroso and Tidal's co-founder and CIO Michael Venuto had been an independent trustee on Cambria's three-person ETF board since 2019. Venuto abstained from voting on the Toroso hire and resigned from the board. Although Cambria's choice of subadvisor is reasonable, the decision nonetheless raises questions.” *
* Excerpted from: Morningstar Analysis of the Cambria Global Allocation etf.

@bee I'm not sure I like the wording, "government transfers." I take it as a gift from the gov., which most of it isn't. VA Benny's all earned as is my SS monthly check.

It's a very interesting topic and can appear convoluted. Couldn't an argument be made that we (the public) transfer more of our money to the government than we did years ago?
Take the lottery for example. I see this as both public/government transfer. Wish I was on the winning end of the these transfers.
Taxes are public transfers to the government that hopefully become government transfers to build bridges and roads, fund public safety and education, arm the military. Let's not forget the government transfers that pay for a growing number of government salaries.
Others:
SS= runs partially on (earned income) public transfer - it needs to balance out with future public transfers = or > government transfer to SS recipients.
Medicare = Pooled Public transfers "in" by way of premium payments...shared payment out by way of government payments and public co-payments for medical services.
Medicaid = Appears a one way Government Transfer out, but there must be a public funding source for medicaid, right?

How does Medicaid financing work?
Medicaid financing is shared by states and the federal government with a guarantee to states for federal matching payments with no pre-set limit. The percentage of costs paid by the federal government varies for specific services and types of enrollees and depending on whether the costs are for medical care or program administration.
The federal share of spending for services used by people eligible through traditional Medicaid, which includes individuals who are eligible as children, low-income parents, because of disability, or because of age (65+), is determined by a formula set in statute. The formula is designed so that the federal government pays a larger share of program costs in states with lower average per capita income. The resulting “federal medical assistance percentage” or “FMAP” varies by state and ranged from 50 percent to 78 percent for FFY 2023 (Figure 5).
States can use provider taxes and IGTs (intergovernmental transfers) to help finance the state share of Medicaid. States have some flexibility to use funding from local governments or revenue collected from provider taxes and fees to help finance the state share of Medicaid within certain limits and rules. Provider taxes are an integral source of Medicaid financing, comprising approximately 17% of the nonfederal share of total Medicaid payments in SFY 2018 according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). All states (except Alaska) have at least one provider tax in place and many states have more than three (Figure 8). The most common provider taxes are on nursing facilities (46 states) and hospitals (44 states). As of July 1, 2022, 32 states including DC also reported at least one provider tax that is above 5.5% of net patient revenues, which is close to the maximum federal safe harbor or allowable threshold of 6%. Federal action to lower that threshold or eliminate provider taxes, as has been proposed in the past, would therefore have financial implications for many states.
The most common Medicaid provider taxes in place in FY 2022 were taxes on nursing facilities (46 states), followed by taxes on hospitals (44 states), intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities (33 states), and MCOs7 (18 states).
https://kff.org/report-section/medicaid-budget-survey-for-state-fiscal-years-2022-and-2023-provider-rates-and-taxes/

Bottom line, we pay more today in public transfers to local, county, state, and federal governments so they can orchestrate these transfers out.
I might imagine that years ago a larger proportion of these transfers and services happened between the public and private organizations - churches, non-profits and philanthropy.
IMHO we have grown governments along with the growth of these government transfers.
Maybe its time to review the role of government regarding both sides of these transfers.

Benz's new book appears to examine retirement holistically.
Non-financial considerations which may lead to improved retirement outcomes
are covered in addition to the financial aspects of retirement.
I haven't yet read Benz's book, but have a library hold on
"How to Retire: 20 Lessons for a Happy, Successful, and Wealthy Retirement."