@dt. I have been been overweight CD’s since early 22 as well. I have become very comfortable with a risk free 5% and find that it suits me well. I am torn between going out as far as I can and still be real close to 5% or slowly returning to a more diverse mixture of dividend stocks and income producers that might do well when the pivot arrives. It’s on my mind but meanwhile life is good at 5%.

Thanks larryb, your comments are very similar to what I am now evaluating. I am not committed to CDs for a long period of time, and am now questioning how much longer I actually want to continue investing in CDs, compared to other types of investments. I was quite content with bond oef investing, until the FEDs started raising rates, which was very negative for my bond oef portfolio. I chose to use CDs as a transitional choice, so I could re-evaluate, what I wanted to do with my retirement portfolio. I do not like the illiquid aspect of brokerage CDs, because selling them before they mature, is very costly. Now I am facing shorter term CDs maturing, and I am uncertain if I really want to lock in more longer term CDs for the future. I am content with 5% CDs, and there are still an ample supply for me to choose from 6 months to 2 years, but some categories of bond oefs are starting to look attractive again. Hence, I am now evaluating whether I want to continue a "laddering" approacch to renewing CDs, or whether I want to start developing a more diversified portfolio that reduces my CD holdings. I have not made a final decision, but continuing portfolio of longer term CD holdings was not part of plans in 2022.
I thought that possibly a few other posters might be experiencing the same investing decision, but was not sure. If so, I was interested in what others thought was attractive/acceptable to renew CDs, vs replacing them with other investing options. Hence my question in my initial post on the thread:
"For those continuing to have a desire to invest in CDs, I would be curious as to what you consider as attractive rates to maintain your investing interest."

Received an email from GP with an explanation.
update:
July 3, 2023
Dear Fellow Investors,
After a decade of diligent service at Grandeur Peak, Stuart Rigby has decided to leave the firm to pursue a new path in his career and launch a global technology hedge fund. Stuart has been a valuable contributor to our investment process over the years and a great colleague. We wish him the best of luck as he embarks on his new endeavor and look forward to continuing our friendship and sharing investment ideas with him for years to come.
Effective July 1st, Stuart will no longer co-manage the Grandeur Peak Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund. Blake Walker, Grandeur Peak's CEO, who has been a portfolio manager for the Fund since its inception in 2013, will continue to serve in that capacity. Tyler Glauser will also continue as lead analyst.
In addition, Stuart will no longer serve as one of the nine listed portfolio managers for the Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund, focusing on the technology sector. Phil Naylor, who has been a Grandeur Peak technology analyst since 2014 and has been co-managing the technology portfolio in Global Reach with Stuart since 2021, will continue in that role. Phil will also replace Stuart as guardian portfolio manager on the Grandeur Peak US Stalwarts Fund.
Please be assured that while we will miss working with Stuart and miss his contributions, the prudence employed in running our investment process will not be compromised as a result of his departure. One of Grandeur Peak's most distinguishing features and strengths is that our team structure enables us to utilize our entire research team to manage each of our portfolios. This allows us to fully leverage our "multiple minds" investment philosophy and mitigate key person risk.
If you have any questions related to this news, please reach out to me or a member of our Client Relations team.
Best Regards,
Eric
President

@BenWP,
Thanks for the compliment! Here is a news release from Tekla.
https://www.teklacap.com/news/tekla-capital-management-llc-announces-proposed-transaction.
Here is an excerpt from that article:
...Following the proposed transaction, the Funds will continue to be managed in accordance with their existing investment objectives and strategies, by the same team of Boston-based investment professionals pursuing the same investment philosophy and employing the same investment process that has served the Funds well through the years...
Not sure whether this helps, but it does state that it will continue to be managed by the same team of professionals.
Any changes may occur once the reorganization is complete.

Awesome. A month’s worth of reading. Reminds me of trying to digest one of Bogle’s comprehensive guides to investing years ago. Thanks to all who contribute.

From somebody who follows CD rates very closely and has a sizeable CD ladder:
Correction to what you stated in the OP:
2- and 3-yr CD rates have recently been inching UP, NOT DOWN.
I've replied to you a few times over the years about this topic and once in the past few months. You don't seem to appreciate my input on this topic, but I'll try it one more time, especially for those who might.
It's all pretty simple if you paint by numbers, so to speak. Translation, create a very basic EXCEL spreadsheet and drop in the variable numbers.
Here are the BEST current CD rates for Fido, non-callable CDs.
1-yr: 5.25%
2-yr: 4.95%
3-yr: 4.80%
Example:
You want to invest in non-callable, interest bearing instruments for 3 years.
You BUY a $10,000, 1-yr, non-callable CD at 5.25%
At maturity in ONE year in July 2024, you earned $525.
You could have instead BOUGHT a 3-yr, non-callable CD at 4.80%
At maturity in THREE years in July 2026, you would have earned ($480 x 3 or) $1,440.
In order to break even with the currently available 3-yr CD rate, at maturity of the 1-yr CD in July 2024, you will need to BUY a 2-yr CD paying 4.58%.
($525+$458+$458 = $1,441)
(NOTE: You could also BUY a 1-yr in July 2024, and another 1-yr in July 2025, but I'll leave that scenario and math up to you.)
So, in this example,
(1) If you THINK a 2-yr, non-callable 4.58% or greater CD will be available in July 2024, BUY the 1-yr now.
(2) If you DON'T THINK a 2-yr, non-callable 4.58% or greater CD will be available in July 2024, BUY the 3-yr now.
For my money, the decision is easy. BUY the 3-yr NOW as IMO it is unlikely a 2-yr, 4.58% non-callable CD will be available in July 2024. And even if it is, IMO it won't be sufficiently greater than 4.58% to cause me to let the current 3-yr rate of 4.80% get away from me.
Disclaimer: This ain't idle chat. It's what I'm actually doing, and have been doing, for the past six months.

I have invested heavily in CDs since March of 2022. Many of those CDs are now maturing, and I have decisions to make about investing in new CDs. Rates seem to be flattening recently, and rates for CDs longer than 2 years seem to be dropping. The best rates are shorter term, 3 months to 1 year, paying a little over 5%. CDs from 18 months to 2 year are around 5%, and anything longer is less than 5%. When I look at the future, there does not seem to be a strong appetite for any major rate increases, with most projections thinking we may get 2 more .25% rate increases in the second half of 2023. I am now thinking about going out to about 18 months to 2 years for a CD paying 5% or more, but continuing to renew CDs for 6 months to a year, when they are at 5.25% or more. I currently am hesitant to invest in longer term CDs that are paying below 5%.
For those continuing to have a desire to invest in CDs, I would be curious as to what you consider as attractive rates to maintain your investing interest.

podcast...also stated 90%+ of those under 45 years old who have a 401k account, auto invest into index funds... can that be true?? If so, that could drive markets higher,
@Baseball_Fan -
d
That sounds a lot like a theory I’ve heard on other forum(s) to explain why equities have risen this year. Can’t blame folks who missed the 6+ month rally to try and rationalize how they got left behind. And the theory (that passive inflows are driving the market) might in the end prove correct. Darned if I know. But let’s look at that statement you cite ….
Re: ”90%+ of those under 45 years old who have a 401k account, auto invest into index funds…”
That could well be true if it means a portion of their automatic investment goes into index funds. That relates to target date funds being the default option where they work plus the fact that nearly all target date funds do invest a portion of their assets in the S&P. It does not mean that 90%+ of those under 45 invest exclusively in the S&P. I and a number of others have cited figures as to the % those target date funds allocate to large cap U.S. stocks. Nowhere near 90%.
There’s another flaw in the quote you cite. Even were it accurate (as you interpret it), it still would not mean that 90% of all 401K contributions go into index funds. That would depend on who that 90% were and how much they were able to contribute.
-
PS: Not my role to assess market valuations or recommend what people should own. I will submit however, that if a bubble existed the S&P, NASDAQ, or other major major U.S. index, opportunities could still exist in smaller or mid cap equities as well in some foreign markets. And, an index is not a market. It merely seeks to replicate one.

podcast...also stated 90%+ of those under 45 years old who have a 401k account, auto invest into index funds... can that be true?? If so, that could drive markets higher, no?
As a side note, I thought this was relevant in today's world, Mr Green was asked about Gold, the value of it, his answer Gold = 1/n where n is the confidence in central banks globally...and the topper...."I want something that I can throw at the Zombies when they come after me..."

More buyers than sellers always drive prices higher. Other reasons are not always true.
Over the years many analysts were wrong in trying to predict FUTURE performance based on earnings, valuation, fundamentals, the economy, inverted yield, inflation, etc.
As a trader, I always kept it simple. I started with 5 funds in 2000 and now just 2-3 funds. I invest in leading wide-range funds based on the markets. If both stocks+bonds don't make sense and especially when I can't find good options I like I stay in MM.
It doesn't matter how many experts predicted that 2023 would be a great year for Value, Energy, Healthcare....and Tech is overvalued. YTD, QQQ made over 30%.
Just several years ago many claimed that Apple is another blue chip company. A 3 chart proved it's not. Apple made more than twice than SPY https://schrts.co/VgvjgSqg

I agree with @yogibearbull.
I briefly used a financial account aggregator as a test several years ago.
It was nice to consolidate all my accounts in a "single pane of glass."
While I liked this feature, the increased risk wasn't worth it.
All my account passwords were changed after the aggregator trial...

@Sven.
@yogibearbull.
@Junkster.
Finally had chance to review the "longest bear market since the 1940s" statement in NYT and Barron's. Had several of us questioning.
I believe this declaration works if what's being measured is the time between the minimum level of bear market (trough ... greatest drawdown from previous peak) to time it takes to grow 20% from that minimum.
Using month ending (not daily) returns, it took 9 months ... from October 2022 to June 2023 to accomplish. With the Tech Bubble, it took slightly less at 8 months. With Post WWII cycle in 1940's, it took 23 months.
So, interesting, but not really indicative of pain we all feel during a bear market. For example, in 1930's it only took 2 months for S&P to gain 20% over its abyss of -83% in May 1932 ... but the bear market, measured from last peak to tough took 33 months ... and then another 151 months or 12.5 years to get back above water.
Certainly not how we measure length of bear market, which is time from previous peak to trough.
Perhaps a better definition would be time enters bear territory (down 20% from previous peak) to time in climbs 20% above trough.
In any case, the bull and bear cycle declarations are only known in retrospect, ex post.
I also think they become more credible historical markers if each cycle results in a new all-time high. We need another June-like gain for that to happen with the current cycle ... The Great Normalization.
Fingers-crossed!
Plan to include updated cycles' table in David's July Commentary.

Vanguard TDF US-foreign mix is 60-40. Fido is also similar. It may have been 80-20 years ago.

Some have mentioned Dodge and Cox. I’m a fan, having owned both DODLX and DODIX in the past. Both carry moderate fees (.41% & .45% respectively). However, neither is without risk if short term volatility bothers you. DODLX has had two years since inception a decade ago where it lost more than 6%. And DODIX lost nearly 11% last year. That was a one-time exception to an otherwise stellar record. However, that longer term record was due in part to the decades long bond bull market. Most bond funds enjoyed a strong tail-wind during those years. There’s no assurance it will do as well in a period of rising rates.
So much about bonds / bond funds relates to the macro winds. Get some heavy inflation and sharply rising rates over a multi-year span and they’ll stagnate or tank. To the contrary, in the event of a deep recession - or depression - they should excel as interest rates plummet. (“Ya pays your money and ya takes your chances.”)
Yogi’s above mention of Oppenheimer funds is a good reminder of what can happen to a “high returning” bond fund (reaching for yield) when managers over-reach and make bad macro calls as well. That’s why simply comparing performance for 1, 3, 5 years isn’t enough. How did they achieve those numbers? What risks were undertaken?

BenWP, while M* and Harris are within walking distance (and Nuveen too), M* once suspended its rating for OAKBX when Harris refused to provide some data required by M*. I also don't see many favors for Nuveen.
But M* home bias for IL is genuine. It's mostly OK with IL and Chicago bonds. M* also didn't lift a finger a few years ago when IL 529 was being mismanaged by OppenheimerFunds. I actually asked several M* authors to comment on that fiasco, but not a word out of M* on that. I suspect that M* Founder and Exec Chairman Joe Mansueto is well connected locally and likes his good local billionaire reputation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Mansueto

Comments above about Oakmark and the M* preliminary assessment of OAKCX reminded me of what I have found to be “home-town bias” in the rating firm. Over my years of following mutual funds, for a time as an owner of Oakmark funds, I believe M* is far too indulgent in rating the Chicago-based Harris offerings. They have excused Nygren’s bad bets and given wide latitude to Herro’s misadventures, in my opinion. I would take the OAKCX write-up with a grain of salt.

I'm actually a "contributor" to Wikipedia-I've fixed numerous misspellings and grammatical errors over the years. Wikipedia is still a work in process-one of its main benefits is the vast number of articles. You can find an article on any baseball player you want-from Hank Aaron to George Zeber !

@Crash said ”Can't find apples to apples anywhere. Crud”
That’s because bond funds are nearly impossible to compare. Too many moving parts: Credit quality, average duration, average maturity, countries & regions included, dollar hedged or non-hedged (if outside the U.S.) Throw into that sauce the manger’s philosophy, his / her appetite for risk, prior experience and their overall view of the domestic or global macro picture. One big attribute you do have control over is the ER. That’s a bigger factor with fixed income funds than with stock funds generally because the expected return is lower and that ER takes a bigger bite out of the expected return. That .74% doesn’t look cheap on the surface, but I don’t know enough about how the fund invests to say it’s out of line. hedging / short selling / use of leverage / investing in lower quality bonds all cost more (if it so engages). International investing, if included, also increases cost.
Look for a website that shows things like average duration and the dispersion among credit qualities ranging from AAA (government backed) all the way down to C (in default). Tells you a lot about the risk (and is one good way to compare different funds). I think M* will display that if you click the “holdings” tab. And I’m pretty sure Fido’s website will as well.
Past performance? Was that during the 30+ year bond bull market dating back to Paul Volker? Or are we talking about the bear market of the past 2 years when when rates stabilized and than spiked sharply? Or maybe we’re looking at some “combo” performance figure including portions of both the bull and bear markets … :)
-
@Crash said, ”And HARRIS is involved, somehow. Sub-advisors?”
Harris Associates, Chicago, operates the Oakmark Funds. I believe Harris was independent at one time. For many years now it has been owned by the giant NATIXIS of France. Nothing wrong with Natixis. Well regarded, but a bit pricey. Many of their funds are front-loaded. I’ve owned some funds under the Natixis umbrella over the years - most recently GATEX, which I sold more than a year ago.
”Harris Associates L.P. is a Chicago-based investment company that manages $86 billion[1] in assets as of September 30, 2022. Harris manages long-only U.S. equity, international equity, and global equity strategies which are offered through its mutual fund company, the Oakmark Funds, and other types of vehicles. Harris is wholly owned by Natixis Investment Managers, an American-French financial services firm that is principally owned by BPCE. Harris Associates retains full control of investment decisions, investment philosophy, and day-to-day operations.”
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_Associates

"The list of "closed"/member-only sites is long and growing."
So, that forces one to sign up with each site, even if one wants to just read. Most sites these days say one can sign in with "Google" / "Apple" or go through a multi step process and give the site all sorts of personal information to create an account with them, and site specific user name and password.
From a consumer privacy and getting hacked (i.e., collateral damage) perspective what is safer: creating accounts with each site or signing in with "Google" / "Apple"?

Just set up one 'dummy' account you use for news sites / forums - or use things like HideMyEmail or Apple's email-guard service. That way if it gets compromised at one site, it won't impact anything more sensitive in your life. The new login/authentication technology called 'passkeys' will probably make this situation much better in the coming years, too.
FWIW saying I'm more concerned about credit cards, which are more of a PITA to change than an email address. I use Privacy.Com to generate a limited- or one-time use Visa card for every magazine, subscription, or one-off site I might use. That way, not only is is keeping my 'real' bank/credit card accounts safe, but if I forget to cancel a service (eg, a streaming site I wanted to catch 1 series on) I'm only out up to the (fairly low) limit I set on the card. In fact just yesterday, I got notification from Privacy.Com that a # I used once 2 years ago (and had been auto-cancelled after use) was declined for a charge at a store I never heard of in Georgia ... so that only reinforces the notion that credit card # compartmentalization is a good thing.

I don’t know why M* coughed-up its premium analyst rating when I pulled up OAKCX this morning. Not a subscriber. But I coped a piece of it (excerpt from a portion of full report):
”Oakmark Bond Fund earns an Average Process Pillar rating. The investment strategy as stated in the fund's prospectus is as follows: The investment seeks to maximize both current income and total return, consistent with prudent investment and principal protection management. The fund invests primarily in a diversified portfolio of bonds and other fixed-income securities. Under normal market conditions, and it invests at least 25% of its assets in investment-grade fixed-income securities and may invest up to 35% of its assets in below investment-grade fixed-income securities (commonly known as "high-yield" or "junk bonds").
“The main contributor to the rating is the firm's five-year retention rate of 82% over the period. Management team experience, which averages 16 years at this fund, also supports the rating. Lastly, the process is limited by the parent firm's five-year risk-adjusted success ratio of 47%. The measure indicates the percentage of a firm's funds that survived and outperformed their respective category's median Morningstar Risk-Adjusted Return for the period. The parent's subpar success ratio suggests that the firm could do better across its fund lineup.
“This strategy has a 3.7% 12-month yield, higher than its average peer's 3.4%. Typically, higher yields come at the cost of higher credit risk. Rated on Jun 23, 2023 Published on Jun 23, 2023”

* AUM rarely bothers me unless below 50 M putting a fund at risk of closure. All else being equal I prefer smaller AUMs.

Harris is a value boutique in Chicago. It runs Oakmark funds. It isn't known for deep bond bench. In fact, OAKBX for years had mostly Treasuries for the bond portion and that worked for a good deal of times; some years ago, OAKBX added more bond analysts.
Why chase new bond funds from Harris?
OAKCX, Inception 1/28/22
M* shows 1/28/22-6/29/23 -7.99%
Yahoo Finance Adjusted-Prices 1/31/22-6/29/23 -9.02% (It doesn't accept prior dates)
StockCharts - OAKCX not recognized