Following are excerpts from a current Associated Press report:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal trade court on Wednesday blocked President Donald Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an emergency-powers law, swiftly throwing into doubt Trump’s signature set of economic policies that have rattled global financial markets, frustrated trade partners and raised broader fears about inflation intensifying and the economy slumping.
The ruling from a three-judge panel at the New York-based Court of International Trade came after several lawsuits arguing Trump has exceeded his authority and left U.S. trade policy dependent on his whims. But for now, Trump might not have the threat of import taxes to exact his will on the world economy as he had intended, since doing so would require congressional approval. What remains unclear is whether the White House will respond to the ruling by pausing all of its emergency power tariffs in the interim.
The ruling amounted to a categorical rejection of the legal underpinnings of some of Trump’s signature and most controversial actions of his four-month-old second term. The ruling faces certain appeal — and the Supreme Court will almost certainly be called upon to lend a final answer — but it casts a sharp blow.
“The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,” the court wrote, referring to the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. While tariffs must typically be approved by Congress, Trump has said he has the power to act to address the trade deficits he calls a national emergency.
He is facing at least seven lawsuits challenging the levies. The plaintiffs argued that the emergency powers law does not authorize the use of tariffs, and even if it did, the trade deficit is not an emergency because the U.S. has run a trade deficit with the rest of the world for 49 consecutive years.
Trump imposed tariffs on most of the countries in the world in an effort to reverse America’s massive and long-standing trade deficits. He earlier plastered levies on imports from Canada, China and Mexico to combat the illegal flow of immigrants and the synthetic opioids across the U.S. border.
The lawsuit was filed by a group of small businesses, including a wine importer, V.O.S. Selections, whose owner has said the tariffs are having a major impact and his company may not survive. A dozen states also filed suit, led by Oregon. “This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can’t be made on the president’s whim,” Attorney General Dan Rayfield said.

@Derf - Your topic heading (”Talk About Privacy”) might be a little more focused? Or, are you trying to emulate Vanguard’s more generic approach? :)
I’d say that procedure is pretty normal @Derf. Most, but not all, of my financial institutions, including Fidelity, do that as an extra layer of security. And I have a hospital network / medical provider that does the same. Email: “We have a new clinical note for you. Log into your account to read it.”
With 14 CEFs in a basket at Fido, I log in a couple times a week (and pull up “recent activity”) to track the dividends as they stagger in. Basket case! So rarely bother to look at the “confirmation” (?) emails that arrive.
@Old_Joe, I think, noted a while back that he views logging into his brokerage account more often as a “plus” in terms of security. I see the point. Although I wonder if logging in more frequently might also expose one to more risk?
A good time to remind folks to consider an “authentication app” as an added security measure. Plenty of information online about those.

The TACO trade - as in ‘Trump always chickens out' is the talk of Wall Street
Per Marketwatch:
"Let’s hear it for the TACO trade.
Wall Street loves a catchy acronym, and the TACO trade, coined earlier this month by Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong, has captured the mood as investors and analysts attempt to make sense of the roller-coaster market action that has followed President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff threats and subsequent walk-backs."

Trying to simplify a previously rambling post -
I realize short-term Treasuries, FDIC / government insured deposits and money market funds lead the list of options in terms of safety and liquidity. That said, are there other options you are comfortable with within the context of a broadly diversified portfolio?
JAAA? I think many misunderstand CLOs, conflating them with CDOs which did play a big part in the 2007-09 financial crisis / market crash. That by no means says they’re even close to cash for safety. M* interestingly assesses JAAA bond quality at 100% AAA! That’s unfortunate. We all know AAA rated CLO pools of debt can include lower-rated bonds.
NEAR? Right now I have a significant position in NEAR. I’m thinking it should outdistance cash by a percent or two over 3-year periods (+ -), albeit with a slightly bumpier ride. The credit quality is very high. Might even gain during an equity “rout”, having some duration and very high credit quality.
I’m ambiguous re TBUX (a cousin of longer running TRBUX). Take a look at credit quality. It holds a significant amount of BBB rated credit (38+%) - just one step above junk status. However, duration is extremely short. I held a lot of TRBUX when I was with TRP and preferred it to cash. TRBUX took quite a hit in March ‘20 at the beginning of the Covid crisis due to global liquidity issues. Quickly, the Fed stepped in to back investment grade corporates and everything recovered nicely.
VNLA? Longer duration than TBUX. But shorter than NEAR. Investment grade corporate bonds mostly. I thought M* did a nice job dissecting the moving parts including a (well respected) new manager who’s from Australia and recently moved to California to run the fund. Very high credit quality, but lower than NEAR. Janus Henderson has a number of short to moderate duration fixed income offerings and all seem highly regarded.
** Not seeking specific investment advice or looking for 1 “right” answer. Would enjoy hearing different people’s takes on one or more ot the options laid out with the goal of arriving at a better understanding of risk / reward across the board.
Thanks to all who responded / may respond ….

TruthFi
"....meme coin blending humor, politics...."
"...fun financial ecosystem."
"Whether you'r here for the memes, the movement, or the moonshot,...."
I just puked in my mouth a bit.

@rforno You made me look and what I found de-bagged my eyes, de-crepyed my skin, de-greyed my hair, and financed my eternity while making me want to live forever. I want to go to TruthFiDJT-ven when I die and dance in the tulips and memes.

About TruthFi (TruthFiDJT)
TruthFi ($TRUTHFI): "Where Truth Meets Finance in the Crypto Revolution!" Inspired by the bold vision of Trump Media & Technology Group, TruthFi is a groundbreaking meme coin blending humor, politics, and innovation. With a mission to empower decentralized payments and redefine digital asset trading, $TRUTHFI is your gateway to a transparent and fun financial ecosystem. Whether you're here for the memes, the movement, or the moonshot, TruthFi unites the spirit of freedom with the cutting-edge potential of blockchain. Join the revolution, and let's make finance great again!

Outstanding socially responsible article from a leading financial publication. Couldn’t agree more with their conclusions and deep concerns. It occurs to me, however, that the same addictive personalities probably gamble in other ways like day-trading stocks or taking on excessive debt. Delinquencies on auto loans increasing.
A few excerpts:
”Addiction experts say a public-health time bomb is ticking.”
- After four years of back and forth, Kentucky in 2023 passed a bill to legalize sports betting beyond thoroughbred racing. To win over a group of holdouts in the state Senate, lawmakers added a problem gambling assistance account to the legislation. It earmarked 2.5% of the state's new gambling tax revenue to fund workforce training, treatment, and research. The remainder goes to the state's pension fund for public employees.
- DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM were among the gambling firms that advocated for the bill. In total, the industry spent $443,000 lobbying the Kentucky legislature in 2023, state records show. DraftKings was enthusiastic about the bill's passage. In August 2023, the company boosted its revenue outlook for the year, calling out $20 million in new revenue expected from Kentucky in the final three months of the year. Soon after, DraftKings told investors it had signed up more than 5% of Kentucky's adult population within five weeks of going live in the state.
- The betting trend has played out much the same way across the U.S. Americans now wager roughly $150 billion a year on sports, and 48% of American men under 50 have an account on a digital sportsbook at sites like DraftKings, FanDuel, ESPNBet, and BetMGM, according to a Siena College survey.
- The challenge for policymakers trying to regulate gambling is its almost magical benefits to state coffers.
Gambling is "a very effective way to get more state budget without having to raise taxes," says Heather Wardle, a professor of gambling research and policy at the University of Glasgow. Once gambling revenue is supporting pension funds, infrastructure, and other state priorities, Wardle says, "it's very hard to then roll back from that."
- An 11-year study ending in 2016 & found that one in five people with a gambling disorder had attempted suicide. The National Council on Problem Gambling estimates 1% of American adults, or 2.5 million people, meet the criteria. The federal government, which collected roughly $370 million in federal excise tax on sports gambling last year, has no programs in place for that group. The U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, by contrast, has an annual budget of $7 billion.
- "When you think of the Derby, you think of beautiful hats, stately horses, mint juleps, pageantry, pomp and circumstance, and the fun that's involved," Clark says. "You don't think of somebody out back getting ready to shoot themselves because they bet $10,000 on a horse and they're not going to be able to make their house payment."
Personal note: As a long time DraftKings customer my sports bets are limited to less than $1 on average per day and only while actively viewing a game. (Minimum wager is 50-cents.) I am appalled that the site relentlessly and flagrantly “pushes” those who log in to play games of chance like ”Roulette” & ”Black Jack” and to deposit additional sums (usually via debit card). Lord help those who take the bait. Certainly, the article has summoned up reservations about my continued participation on moral grounds.
* Excerpts in italics from: ”America’s Sports Betting Boom Is About to Backfire” - by Nick Devor (Print Ed.) Barron’s - dated May 26, 2025

too subtle i guess.

Yeah. That’s one word for it.
It might make me feel better to fling mud at the other side and enumerate all their shortcomings. But it doesn’t do a damn bit of good for my financial bottom line. Investing is about growing wealth or, minimally, maintaining the purchasing power of your liquid assets. My dollar bills all look the same. All green. Not red colored or blue shaded to indicate under which party’s Administration they were acquired.
Why distract yourself here from focusing on the ways to make money? The words of the old AA prayer, “Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I can. And the wisdom to know the difference” may well apply.
Funds that some here may own …
DODFX +17.78% YTD
GLFOX +13.90% YTD
CPZ +10.27% YTD
PRPFX +10.12% YTD
DODWX +9.9% YTD
FXF +9.82% YTD
LVHI +8.55% YTD
RAAX +8.41% YTD
FLJP +8.32% YTD
VPU +8.17% YTD
RAPAX +6.71% YTD
ASIA +6.43% YTD
CPLSX +5.71% YTD
QAMNX +5.30% YTD
One Stock
BRK-B +12.26% YTD

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1120543/000110465925051606/tm2515610d1_497.htm
497 1 tm2515610d1_497.htm 497
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
Registration File No.: 333-200831
BAILLIE GIFFORD FUNDS
Baillie Gifford International Smaller Companies Fund (the “Fund”)
Supplement dated May 21, 2025, to the Fund’s Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated April 30, 2025, as amended
This Supplement updates and supersedes any contrary information contained in the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information.
The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Baillie Gifford Funds (the “Trust”) has approved and adopted a Plan of Liquidation and Termination (the “Plan”) for the Fund. The Fund has ceased selling shares to new investors. The Board has determined to close the Fund and redeem all outstanding shares no later than July 21, 2025 (the “Liquidation Date”). Prior to the Liquidation Date, Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited, the Fund’s investment adviser (“BGOL”), will begin liquidation of the Fund’s investments, and shareholders who have not redeemed their shares prior to the commencement of such liquidation are expected to indirectly bear a portion of transaction costs associated with such liquidation.
Pursuant to the Plan, the Fund will liquidate its investments and thereafter redeem all of its outstanding shares by distribution of its assets to shareholders in amounts equal to the net asset value of each shareholder’s Fund investment after the Fund has paid or provided for all of its charges, taxes, expenses, and liabilities. BGOL anticipates that the Fund’s assets will be fully liquidated, and all outstanding shares will be redeemed on or about the Fund’s Liquidation Date.
The liquidation of the Fund will be a taxable event for shareholders holding shares through taxable accounts. A shareholder in a taxable account who receives an amount in liquidation that is in excess of the shareholder’s tax basis will realize a capital gain, and if such amount is less than the shareholder’s tax basis, a capital loss. In addition to the liquidating distribution, a separate distribution to shareholders may be required prior to the Liquidation Date to the extent the Fund has undistributed net taxable income and capital gains (including as a result of the Fund’s conversion of portfolio securities to cash in connection with the liquidation), which distribution will generally be taxable to shareholders in the same manner as an ordinary course distribution. Please refer to the sections in the Prospectus entitled “Tax” for general information. The foregoing discussion is intended for Fund shareholders who acquired their shares through the Fund’s public offering. You may wish to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation.
Until the Liquidation Date, the Fund will be closed to all purchases except by dividend reinvestment or other automatic investment plan programs. At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may redeem their shares of the Fund, at net asset value, as described in the section in the Prospectus entitled “Shares—How to Sell Shares.” Class K or Institutional Class shareholders invested via a financial intermediary may be permitted to exchange their Fund shares for either Class K or Institutional Class shares, as the case may be, in another series of the Trust, as described in and subject to any restrictions set forth in the section in the Prospectus entitled “Restrictions on Buying or Exchanging Shares.”
As a result of the intent to liquidate the Fund, the Fund is expected to deviate from its stated investment strategy and policy and will no longer pursue its stated investment objective. The Fund will begin liquidating its investment portfolio on or after the date of this Supplement and will hold cash and cash equivalents, such as money market funds, until all investments have been converted to cash and all shares have been redeemed. During this period, your investment in the Fund will not experience the gains (or losses) that would be typical if the Fund was still pursuing its investment objective.
If you are invested in the Fund through a financial intermediary, please contact that financial intermediary if you have any questions.
ANY LIQUIDATING DISTRIBUTION, WHICH MAY BE IN CASH OR CASH EQUIVALENTS EQUAL TO EACH RECORD SHAREHOLDER’S PROPORTIONATE INTEREST OF THE NET ASSETS OF THE FUND, DUE TO THE FUND’S SHAREHOLDERS WILL BE SENT TO THE FUND SHAREHOLDER’S ADDRESS OF RECORD. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR DIRECTLY OR THE FUND AT 1-844-394-6127.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO THE LIQUIDATION DATE WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THAT DATE, AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OF RECORD.
For additional information regarding the liquidation, shareholders of the Fund may call 1-844-394-6127.
***
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information and should be read in conjunction with those documents.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

@hank- You well know that I respect your opinions almost across the board. But I have to note that if a proposed federal budget results in a financial downgrade that "may affect mutual funds I might own or be thinking of buying", the situation, including the complete range of causes and effects, is surely worthy of discussion here.

It's pretty easy to observe that much of the benefit of Trump's $3.8 trillion tax cut goes to those who are certainly not struggling to get by. @FD1000 blithely dismisses that with the comment that "The rich get richer is old news."
It certainly is, and it's also pretty obvious that @FD1000 has no problem at all with that. After all, he's on the "getting richer" side, isn't he?
If it comes at the expense of government agencies specifically designed to protect the health, safety or financial interests of the average US citizen that's just fine with ol' FD.
Add: @Crash has just posted a report over in the OT section: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that "The current Bill would redistribute wealth upward, toward those who are already well-heeled."

They'll likely adapt as they have in the past, by changing their charters and adding notes about taking on greater risk. Some may have a more flexible rule that their paper must be rated AAA by any NRSRO.
Still, what will the CLO AAA funds do? The AAA promise is built into their names!
CLOX, TRPA, QLTA, CLOA, JAAA, PAAA, ACLO, PCLO
A couple of other CLO funds with a AAA mandate, just not in their names include AAA (sort of obvious), and CAAA.
I expect that the CLO AAA tranches will remain AAA rated because the AAA rating comes from the financial engineering not from the ratings of the underlying securities.
Here is some writing that CNN/Money published right after S&P announced it was downgrading Treasury debt in 2011:

Some investment funds that require AAA will likely just change their requirements to the next-highest rating, AA+.
...
Technically, if S&P were to follow its own rules, all four remaining "AAA" companies would be downgraded on Monday. That's because all credit raters follow what's known as a "sovereign ceiling," in which no company can borrow on better terms than its own country.
But that rule has been broken repeatedly. S&P has made 107 exceptions in 21 countries across the globe.

https://money.cnn.com/2011/08/08/news/companies/aaa_companies/index.htm

Here's another theory. Lipper data is stale.
I went back and checked old docs. While the May 1, 2025 prospectus (and Schwab and Fidelity) report ERs of 1.61 (gross) and 1.30 (net), the May 1, 2024 prospectus reports ERs of 4.24% (gross) and 3.78% (net). It looks like this old prospectus is where Lipper got its 3.78% figure.
Regarding M*, in addition to reporting an adjusted ER of 1.26% as you described (i.e. excluding leverage/shorting costs), M* reports an "unadulterated" ER of 3.55%.
According to M*, that figure comes straight from the 2024 annual report.

Morningstar does not calculate fund expense ratios. The figure is culled directly from the financial section of the most recent annual shareholder report."

https://awgmain.morningstar.com/webhelp/glossary_definitions/va_vl/Fund_Expense_Ratio.html
There are multiple errors here. The first is mine - I misread the Dec 2024 annual report., quoting the ER for open (retail) shares, not institutional shares (LEOIX). The other errors are Lazard's.
According to this excerpt of the annual report for LEOIX, the 2024 annual costs were 3.52%. But in the more detailed financial tables, on p. 48, Lazard reports the net expense ratio as 3.55%. So that's where M* got this figure.
Lazard also misreported the NAV of LEOIX for several days in 1Q25.
https://www.lazardassetmanagement.com/content/dam/lazard-asset-management/lmap-documents/257770/LazardEnhancedOpportunitiesPortfolioReprocessingLetter.pdf

And the knowledge gained in all things financial over the years has allowed us to award our own degrees in 'economics' to ourselves. :) We've been able to share and pass along the knowledge. Compound, compound, compound !!!

Yes. I’ve learned so much from the highly capable informed investors here over the years.
And a plug for The Humble Investor by Daniel Rasmussen which @Observant1 shared here recently. I listen to the audio book most nights. His take isn’t mainstream. His idea of smart investing is to avoid whatever’s been hot and seek out underappreciated areas. And he admits that it hasn’t worked that well in recent years. But an interesting conversation nonetheless.
I infer from Rasmussen that he perceives a lot of bubbles, especially in the private equity area - but late night listening isn’t always accurate and he’s pretty subtle.

Hi @Mark Thank you.
Total Return link is interesting and useful.
We've always performed simple math for inflation and eventual taxation of our investments and what the 'real return' will become.
In the pre-internet days with access to data via the WSJ and Baron's, I used 5% for annual inflation impact to be ahead of the curve (hopefully). The was during the period of some very serious inflation for many of we 'older' investors.
However, equity/bond investing has provided more than the bank/cu accounts so many folks have used for many years. And the knowledge gained in all things financial over the years has allowed us to award our own degrees in 'economics' to ourselves. :) We've been able to share and pass along the knowledge.
Compound, compound, compound !!!
Remain curious,
Catch

The sovereign ceiling rule (that corporate lenders should not have a higher credit rating than the sovereign debt) is applied by many credit rating agencies. This is a rule of thumb, not an ironclad rule, though agencies tend to apply it strictly especially to financial institution lenders.

Credit rating agencies are inclined to apply a de-facto sovereign ceiling rule, wherein the domestic bank ratings are bounded by their sovereign credit rating (Adelino and Ferreira, 2016), even when they maintain higher creditworthiness. ... The rationale for applying the rule is based on economic reasoning, particularly in relation to the need to account for capital controls and the economic stress caused by a sovereign downgrade.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1544612320316287

Moody's and Standard & Poor's historically have applied the sovereign ceiling concept in practice fairly strictly

https://www.financeasia.com/article/the-sovereign-ceiling-now-a-broad-consensus-on-its-permeability/32286 (2001)

Keep in mind another rule that only S&P applies - US financials cannot have better credit rating than the US government. So, when US was downgraded to AA+ in 2011, top US financials were also downgraded to AA+ regardless of their own financial situation.

Yikes! I did *not* know that ... wow.

Keep in mind another rule that only S&P applies - US financials cannot have better credit rating than the US government. So, when US was downgraded to AA+ in 2011, top US financials were also downgraded to AA+ regardless of their own financial situation.

"I wonder how much is due to funds reducing fees and how much is due to changes in investor behavior."
Good observations.
I think it's a combination of both factors noted above.
Following info is from M* 2024 US Fund Fee Study Executive Summary (link in OP).
In 2024, the average expense ratio paid by fund investors was less than half of what it was two decades ago.
Between 2005 and 2024, the asset-weighted average fee fell to 0.34% from 0.83%.
Investors have saved billions in fund fees as a result.
Three factors played a role in lowering fees:
• Investors are increasingly aware of the importance of minimizing investment costs,
which has led them to favor lower-cost funds.
• Competition among asset managers has led many to cut fees.
• Evolution in the economics of advice has also played a central role.
The move toward fee-based models of charging for financial advice has been a key driver
of the shift toward lower-cost funds, share classes, and fund types—most notably exchange-traded funds.
Fund fees are not falling as fast as they used to, though.
Two factors are behind this slowing rate of change:
• Fees of prominent index mutual funds and ETFs are approaching a floor,
with many already charging less than 0.05%.
• The emergence of active and alternative ETFs contributed to higher-priced fund launches
than previously observed.

Thanks @yogibearbull. Nuveen’s “CEF Connect” site does display not only the chart view but also the actual gain / loss for NAV and price in table form. 20 years appears to be the max allowed. I just needed to dig deeper. . M*’s chart wouldn’t work when I tried it. Refused to lock in both start and end dates selected.
We are fortunate to have participated in the 07-09 financial disaster - in the sense a lot can be learned from the experience. 17-18 consecutive “down” months doesn’t sound like a long time until you’re experiencing it.