And here's more on what was thought to be priced in from The Barron's Daily (BOLD added)
Trump Tariffs Cause Stock Market Chaos. Why Wall Street Didn’t Act on Warnings and 5 Other Things to Know Today.

President Donald Trump looks set to deliver on his promise and impose hefty tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, with Europe next in his sights. Amid all the turbulence that’s causing in financial markets, one question is obvious—why is this such a surprise?
After all, this is what Trump promised to do since he started his campaign to retake the White House. He reiterated it after he was elected in November. He even gave specific numbers and dates for a start last week.
But traders were still skeptical that anything material would come of it. Stocks rose markedly in January, extending impressive gains since Trump’s victory in November on optimism that deregulation and tax cuts would bolster corporate earnings.
The reason investors dismissed the rather obvious signs was because the tariffs don’t seem to make sense. Maybe they would work as a negotiating technique to extract concessions on other things, but from an economic perspective it’s hard to see what tariffs accomplish—other than rapidly increasing prices for fuel and other goods that will hamper economic growth.
Furthermore, the actual announcement was on the extreme end of the spectrum of what was possible. George Saravelos, a strategist at Deutsche Bank, noted that the tariffs are three times larger than had been priced into the market—and five times as big as the cumulative action Trump took in his first term.
To be sure, Trump may yet de-escalate and walk back the levies—or be forced to do so by the courts or Congress. Given the market’s early losses Monday, it would still be a huge surprise if the tariffs lasted a long time—it certainly seems unlikely they will be in place for four years.
One thing is clear. Chaos and confusion will remain a feature of Trump’s policies.

I believe I posted something similar to @rforno’s Bloomberg data back on January 27 under @Mark’s ”Howard Marks” thread. Here it is (scroll up a bit).
Re: the ongoing discussion (as much about sources as NVDA), I’d agree cable “financial” television is pretty worthless, often inaccurate, slanted or misleading. Most days a parade of clowns talking their book sums it up nicely. Subscribers to Bloomberg’s online resources and print stories, however, fare much better. There are troves of data on virtually every global market and continuous updates 24/7. Bloomberg has the same in depth research tools (stocks, funds, etc) you’ll find at the WSJ and elsewhere. It’s a bit pricy at $329 yearly. Wonder how many here read it?
I read Bloomberg, the WSJ and Barron’s. Also subscribe to a daily financial blog and a monthly financial newsletter. I read The Observer every month. Taken together these sources more than meet my investment appetite & needs. However, our financial situation, education level, amount of wealth managed and available time all influence where we look for financial information.
I think Bloomberg’s paid subscription website does deserve a place somewhere in the hierarchy of financial news sources for average investors. Please do not conflate it with the on-air circus. If folks here have favorite sources to recommend perhaps they will provide links.
Regarding NVDIA. The data @rforno (and I earlier) posted was designed to catch eyeballs. Not the only way to view it of course. @BaluBalu is spot-on that the percentage moves were greater when the stock had a much lower market cap.

Businesses, shoppers brace for higher prices if tariffs on Mexico and Canada imports start Saturday
Following are edited excerpts from a current NPR report:

Businesses and shoppers in the U.S. are bracing for higher prices on everything from gasoline to guacamole, as President Trump renews his threat to impose steep tariffs this weekend on imports from two of the country's biggest trading partners.
Trump told reporters at the White House Thursday that he intends to follow through with his threat to slap a 25% tax on imports from Canada and Mexico starting Saturday, in response to what he called a flow of immigrants and drugs across the country's northern and southern borders.
General Motors told financial analysts on Tuesday that it could shift some pickup truck production out of Mexico and Canada if tariffs are imposed. But the automaker is reluctant to act while the trade landscape is still uncertain.
"We are prepared to mitigate near-term impacts," said CEO Mary Barra. "What we won't do is spend [a] large amount of capital without clarity." The auto industry in North America is highly integrated, relying on manufacturing in all three countries.
Mexico is a leading producer of flat-screen TVs.
Canada is also a major supplier of crude oil to U.S. refineries, especially in the Midwest. "Increasing expenses by 25% is going to lead to higher costs at the pump for U.S. consumers and higher input costs for businesses around the country," said Matthew Martdin of Oxford Economics.
Mexico and Canada would likely respond to any tariffs by imposing taxes of their own on U.S. exports.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1593547/000139834425001451/fp0092095-2_497.htm
497 1 fp0092095-2_497.htm
THE ADVISORS’ INNER CIRCLE FUND III
(the “Trust”)
Mesirow Enhanced Core Plus Fund
(the “Fund”)
Supplement dated January 30, 2025 to the Fund’s Prospectus (the “Prospectus”) and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), each dated January 28, 2025
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Prospectus and SAI, and should be read in conjunction with the Prospectus and SAI.
The Board of Trustees of the Trust, at the recommendation of Mesirow Financial Investment Management, Inc. (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser of the Fund, has approved a plan of liquidation providing for the liquidation of the Fund’s assets and the distribution of the net proceeds pro rata to the Fund’s shareholders. In connection therewith, the Fund is closed to investments from new and existing shareholders effective immediately. The Fund is expected to cease operations and liquidate on or about March 3, 2025 (the “Liquidation Date”). The Liquidation Date may be changed without notice at the discretion of the Trust’s officers.
Prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may redeem (sell) their shares in the manner described in the “Purchasing, Selling and Exchanging Fund Shares – How to Sell Your Fund Shares” section of the Prospectus. For those Fund shareholders that do not redeem (sell) their shares prior to the Liquidation Date, the Fund will distribute to each such shareholder, on or promptly after the Liquidation Date, a liquidating cash distribution equal in value to the shareholder’s interest in the net assets of the Fund as of the Liquidation Date.
In anticipation of the liquidation of the Fund, the Adviser may manage the Fund in a manner intended to facilitate the Fund’s orderly liquidation, such as by holding cash or making investments in other highly liquid assets. As a result, during this time, all or a portion of the Fund may not be invested in a manner consistent with its stated investment strategies, which may prevent the Fund from achieving its investment objective.
The liquidation distribution amount will include any accrued income and capital gains, will be treated as a payment in exchange for shares and will generally be a taxable event for shareholders investing through taxable accounts. You should consult your personal tax advisor concerning your particular tax situation. Shareholders remaining in the Fund on the Liquidation Date will not be charged any transaction fees by the Fund. However, the net asset value of the Fund on the Liquidation Date will reflect costs of liquidating the Fund. Shareholders will receive liquidation proceeds as soon as practicable after the Liquidation Date.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
MES-SK-007-0200

YBB Notes After the Press Conference
Rates: Fed funds held at 4.25-4.50%, bank reserves rate at 4.40%, discount rate at 4.50%. Treasury QT continues at -$25 billion/mo, MBS QT at -$35 billion/mo.
Financial conditions are restrictive considering that the longer term rates have risen. Fed fund rates are well above the neutral rate (that’s known in hindsight only), so the trend for fed fund rates is flat or down.
Fed has a dual mandate for inflation & jobs. It will stick to the +2% average inflation target (trailing 12 months) as most global central banks do. It’s a bad idea to talk about changing the goals while not meeting them. The 5-yr Fed review will not include the +2% average inflation target.
There are uncertainties with any new administration. So, the Fed will be watching how the details evolve for fiscal, tariff & immigration policies.
Fed will evaluation President’s Executive Orders & the applicable laws (Dodd-Frank, etc) as they relate to DEI (diversity, equity & inclusion) & other matters. The Fed operates with its own resources & not with annual federal budget allocations. The importance of central bank independence has been proven over time.
Fed models consider a wide range of parameters & outcomes, but it waits for specific scenarios to develop before acting.
The Fed has withdrawn from the NGFS (Network for Greening the Financial System) because NGFS goals have become too broad globally, while the Fed has narrower mandate & focus.
The Fed isn’t concerned about the stock market levels or the popularity of cryptos, but it evaluates them from the perspectives of financial stability. Regulation of banks under Fed supervision is to ensure that asset risks are appropriately accounted for.
Housing OERs are coming down from high levels. Higher mortgage rates are negatively impacting housing.
Consumers will benefit from lower inflation, but that doesn’t mean lower prices & that is causing some unhappiness.
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1861/thread

slower moving, but possible larger GFC trigger, is making crypto part of mainstream financial institutions (many willing participants as toll takers, not liability holders).
signs :
- moving crypto oversight away from SEC (to commodities board w/no enforcement powers).
- opening up entirely to non-accredited investors.
u.s. never had a potus, and team, where somesuch has become major\primary store of wealth, and has already placed appointees with unfettered views on such a financial instrument. a bailout via drawing value from other assets would be a foregone conclusion.

Following are edited excerpts from a current Washington Post report:

A government-wide hiring freeze has led the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to yank job offers to more than 200 new examiners, the front-line employees who closely monitor banks to ensure they operate safely and adhere to an extensive rule book.
The FDIC is already facing a staffing challenge, particularly with a lack of examiners, undermining its ability to reduce the risk of bank failures. A chronic shortage of examiners contributed to the failure of Signature Bank, one of three large banks to collapse in 2023, the agency has said.
Examiners are essentially charged with making sure a bank doesn’t fail, a critical function at the roughly 6,000-employee FDIC, of which roughly 2,300 are examiners. The agency oversees about 4,500 banks around the country, most of them small. It also insures trillions of bank deposits and winds down failing banks. Its work is funded through industry assessments.
Perhaps more significantly, the agency is already in need of additional examiners, with frequent turnover and staffing shortages contributing to major setbacks in recent years. Current and former regulators said they feared the situation could snowball if hiring cuts combine with an uptick in the departures of retirement-eligible employees.
A review of the March 2023 failure of Signature Bank found the supervisory group overseeing large financial institutions in the FDIC’s New York office had average vacancies of about 40 percent. For the six years before Signature’s collapse, the FDIC couldn’t adequately staff the team dedicated to the bank.

aren't these 'pools' what keep costs down, e.g., one fidelity client sells shares and another fidelity client picks up that lot?
(this is NOT saying some part of the financial industry will not exploit dark pools, that is to be fully expected given the american worship of capitalism. it even seems unpatriotic these days not to participate in outright grift.)

+1 Good luck. Hope it works for you.
I wasn’t trying to persuade anyone not to invest in these funds. It’s the overall trend across fund managers and the financial services industry that concerns me.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/186599/#Comment_186599

Thanks @FD. A lot of that is true. Note that @Observant1 actually put quotation marks around “Expert” in the thread’s title - intending perhaps that the term be taken with a large grain of salt. When I worked as a kid at a filling station / garage the owner was occasionally harassed by Standard Oil to maintain the business according to their codes. He dreaded the guys from the company stopping by unannounced to inspect the joint. And he taught me that the definition of expert is: “some SOB from out of town.”
I also think it’s unwise to completely disregard cogent commentary from the likes of Howard Marks or David Giroux. Just maybe …. maybe …. these guys know a little more about investing than you or I. And if you posted all your trades in advance instead of after you’ve made a reported small fortune on them maybe more here would believe you.
PS - I enjoy Bloomberg. But you are spot-on. It’s entertainment. “Woe Is He” who buys and sells financial securities or products based on what the latest talking head recommended.

Hmmm …
I once encountered similar issues with an Elan credit card. That, it turned out, was traced to my incorrectly imputing the 3-digit security code on a purchase which thereby caused an automatic account lock. But I didn’t realize the account was locked until several purchases were declined.
Surprised you were unable to resolve this Monday, MLK Day notwithstanding. According to VG , “In the event a holiday falls on a weekday or weekend, Vanguard is open for business.”
My guess is you inadvertently caused the account to lock as a VG pre-programmed security measure thru a keyboard error. But, who knows? The lock may have “timed-out” after a number of days. But usually it takes several (3) failed login efforts to prompt a lock (based on experiences with various financial institutions). However, with the threats posed by AI, everybody is (or should be) tightening up security.
Another possibility is this outfit (VG) is even more messed up than I’ve imagined from numerous board posts. It’s amazing to me they don’t have some weekend hours (maybe Saturday mornings?) - with “work at home” being pretty prevalent today. As far as I know, Fidelity has 7-Day 24 hour service (or darned close). And (”Knock on wood”) I’ve never been locked out there.
-
Aside: Folks - When you provide those answers to “security questions” (ie: Where were you born? Grandmother’s maiden name?, etc.) avoid giving real answers. Somebody could possibly research that and use it to scam you. I use various scotch whisky brands as answers. (Best friend = Glen Fiddich.) There’s so many different brands it’s easy to come up with half a dozen favorites to answer different queries. :)

@hank Try this:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/american-stock-ownership-by-share-of-financial-assets/

@Observant1 What drives you to purchase addition share of this fund? A quick look on yahoo fin. shows it to be running "way behind" in the category over 1 & 3 years!

If I may opine here, when I look to buy a new car, computer, piece of furniture I don’t just focus on the ones that have risen the most in price over the last 3 years. I sometimes apply the same logic to buying financial products, But perhaps I have it all backwards,

It's not just the big banks that play these games. Many institutions do. One can counter by being ever vigilant and moving money around from bank to bank. I did this for a time when I was between homes and had cash proceeds from the sale of my old home. Now I find it more practical to stick with an institution that consistently pays moderately high rates even if not the very top rates. (And to use MMFs, T-bills, etc.)
Whatever you do, keep your hand on your wallet at all times.
Speaking of wallets and not trusting Big Banksters with a penny of your money, what's in your wallet? If you have Fidelity's card, that's issued by Elan Financial Services, a subsidiary of US Bank, the fifth largest US Bank. Though you wouldn't know that by asking Google what it thinks are the largest banks; it omits US bank from its list.
Elan is behind CCs issued by 1300 different banks and credit unions. As CFSB writes, "The name that you are looking for [may not be] the actual issuer's name (for example, "ABC Card" is issued by XYZ Bank)."
Here's CFPB's page that has the institutions actually issuing cards.
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/credit-cards/agreements/issuer/us-bank-national-association/
250 largest banks and 250 largest credit unions by assets held (Dec 2023):
https://personetics.com/resource-center/largest-banks-and-credit-unions-in-the-united-states/
Bank holding companies with the 20 largest credit card loan portfolios (March 2024):
https://www.americanbanker.com/list/20-bank-holding-companies-with-the-largest-credit-card-loan-portfolios-at-the-end-of-q4

An annuity-like distribution is certainly possible. I'm using a combination of funds such as SCHD, DIVO, NEAR, JPIE and a handful of dividend paying stocks and CEFs ...
Color me skeptical. Money managers like Vanguard and Fidelity tried to do this and failed.

Payout funds got their start during the 2007-2008 financial crisis when Vanguard and Fidelity both launched the products. The idea was appealing: Convert a retirement savings pool into a reliable income stream and offer investors peace of mind that they’d get a monthly paycheck, regardless of the market’s ups and downs.
...
Vanguard initially had three payout funds but merged them into one fund in January 2014. Fidelity developed a series of Income Replacement funds, paired with an optional monthly payout feature, but Fidelity rebranded the funds in 2017 as “Managed Retirement Income” with more of a high-income focus rather than managed payouts.
One hurdle: Managed payout funds have long had trouble hitting their income targets without dipping into capital—simply giving investors part of their money back. Annuities work similarly, though they have an insurance component that can keep the income flowing if the portfolio runs out of money.

Barron's, Vanguard Throws in the Towel on Its Managed Payout Fund, Feb 28, 2020
The insurance component is what is missing in DIY (or professionally managed) alternatives. In order to guarantee (self insure) that you won't run out of money in your lifetime, you have to overfund. That may be okay if you're planning on leaving a legacy and are willing to dip heavily into that legacy if things don't work out. But it reduces the income stream that you could otherwise have.
A similar point about underspending is made in the originally cited paper:

[U]sing a relatively simple model we estimate consumption could increase by approximately 80% for retirees if assets were converted to lifetime income streams, where the improvement rates are significantly higher for joint households

What annuities do is pool risk. Some people die early, others later. Instead of each individual self insuring (collectively overinsuring), individuals pool their risk through an insurance company. This provides larger income streams safely.
The risk is in outliving your money. A traditional immediate annuity is not the only way to protect against this tail risk. A longevity annuity (a form of immediate annuity where payouts are deferred) will also do the job.
T. Rowe Price recognized this and recently came out with a product for employer-sponsored plans (401(k)s, etc.). Its Managed Lifetime Income product provides a managed payout investment for 15 years followed by a QLAC (qualified lifetime annuity contract).
I don't see any reason why one cannot do this oneself, self-managing a portfolio (as @PRESSmUP described) and adding a longevity annuity (either QLAC or nonqualified).
Alternatively, one can annuitize a variable annuity.

Variable payout annuities provide protection against longevity risk and allow for some participation in the higher (but more volatile) returns of corporate equities and other real assets. They also avoid the annuitization risk because their benefit payments vary with investment performance and are not fully determined by the prevailing conditions at the time of retirement. But VPAs are exposed to investment and inflation risks ...

The Mechanics and Regulation of Variable Payout Annuities (50 pages. TL;DR)

Regarding Reverse Mortgages -
Wouldn’t it be smarter to do a traditional refinance of your existing home for whatever you can pull out? Then invest the money and draw it down as you need it? The bank or other institution would of course hold a lien against the property. I’ll add that at 7% (+-) interest rates this would be a last resort. However, it sounds better than a reverse mortgage. Guess I don’t understand RMs very well.
Oops - I should have read @msf’s above link first:
”A reverse mortgage loan, like a traditional mortgage, allows homeowners to borrow money using their home as security for the loan. Also like a traditional mortgage, when you take out a reverse mortgage loan, the title to your home remains in your name. However, unlike a traditional mortgage, with a reverse mortgage loan, borrowers don’t make monthly mortgage payments. The loan is repaid when the borrower no longer lives in the home.”
Psychologically, I’d find that difficult to adjust to. It defies everything I’ve been taught about sound financial management - an open-ended lien. Alas, the concept does have some logic behind it.
@bee - I think @PRESSmUP’s above response / suggestion is spot-on. If you can cope with an occasional down year or two it should be possible to construct a portfolio that at least keeps pace with inflation and allows relatively small annual drawdowns. Let’s assume that pulling out 5% (maybe a bit more) a year isn’t going to kill the goose even if the portfolio sustains 2 or 3 back-to-back negative years, His suggested investments are excellent. Obviously, the more additional risk you can afford comfortably to take the better you’ll do over longer (3-5 year) periods.

I thought I knew a lot about investing until opening a brokerage account at Fido 4-5 years ago. Much wider landscape to work with than just having investments at a few different houses. So am still learning. But I do know my 2022 (bear market) return was better by 2 or 3 points then it would have been if stuck in the previous fund houses. From my (broad) family experience of 70+ years the real issue is convincing someone to save during their working years, Without having something to invest, all the coaching in the world can’t help you in retirement.
I’ll vote for better financial education: ”Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.”
Great discussion. Thanks @stillers for the lengthy comment.

According to the Morningstar definition of "other":
"Other"
"The proportion of the fund invested in other securities such as property or other financial instruments"
When I use to do a lot of bond oef investing, and you broke down the funds holdings, "other" often linked back to Derivatives.

Barron’s Funds Quarterly+ (2024/Q4–January 13, 2025)
https://www.barrons.com/topics/mutual-funds-quarterly
(Performance data quoted in this Supplement are for 2024/Q4 and YTD to 12/31/24)
(No Supplement – it’s all within the main issue)
Pg 12:2024 was tough for stockpickers. So, look at the holdings of the top funds – LC-PAGDX, LC-BRAGX, MC-RCMFX, SC-HFCGX. Those included Magnificent 7, big tech, financials, energy. What may work for 2025? AI, energy, materials, infrastructure, travel.
Pg 14: In this Trump market, just follow the leaders. Watch cryptos, the best M* category (Digital Assets) of 2024, followed far behind by the MLPs. Trump and sons have a crypto venture called World Liberty Financial. Bonds and rate sensitive plays (utilities, real estate, etc) were laggards with the exception of financials that should benefit from coming deregulations. Funds related to Trump’s circle of friends did very well – PTIR (2x PLTR), TSLL (2x TSLA), MLXIX (9.6% in ET).
SP500 has 33% in tech and 13% in financials and did quite well in 2024 with +25% despite softness in stocks in 2024/Q4. The total ETF AUM was over $10 trillion with 4 ETFs among the top 10 being the SP500 ETFs. Inflows into ETFs, including the active ETFs, were strong. Mutual funds had outflows. Foreign funds didn’t do well (the US investor returns were also hurt by a strong dollar). (By @LewisBraham at MFO)
More on Funds & Retirement
RETIREMENT. Super Catchup for 401k/403b from 2025. Another Secure 2.0 provision for catchups for 401k, 403b, government 457 and federal TSP kicks in 2025.
For 55+ $7,500 (regular)
For 60-63 $11,250 (higher of $10,000 and 150% of regular catchup)
SIMPLE retirement plan catchups are also adjusted: 55+ $3,500, 60-63 $5,250.
Priority order – 401k to employer match, Roth IRA, HSA, top off 401k.
Barron’s weekend issue has CASH TRACK charts showing 4-wMA of flows.
https://i.ibb.co/dDw0rm1/Barrons-Cash-Track-011125.png
Q4 Top 5 Fund Categories (MFOP)
https://i.ibb.co/5x4xYCK/MFOP-Quarterly-Top5-010925.png
Q4 Bottom 5 Fund Categories (MFOP)
https://i.ibb.co/R69M4pz/MFOP-Quarterly-Bottom5-010925.png
LINK

My parents have an advisor who is about to retire. he said he'll take care of them for as long as he's alive (my father is clergy and helped him through some losses) so thats nice but he's 5 years older than my parents!
I know what they are invested in and nothing is too out of bounds. I'd do it differently in all likelihood but nonetheless I don't want the hassle.
My dad wants me involved in all the meetings which is fine. I assume advisors roll their eyes at the idea of a novice stickign their nose in.
That said, I know one of the guys at his firm and he knows I know my stuff and has tried to get me to turn to a life of financial advice (blech) so its fine.
He asked me one day if I had any ideas I'd like to discuss. I was like I know you agreed to handle this for my parents and I appreciate that, but would it be better to move these 8 funds into a singular balanced fund that spits out a distribution that they can w/d or not w/d for their expenses? It seems like it woudl be easier for everyone involved. He's like thats a great idea but I'm not dead yet lets look at that later on.
I manage my fathers stock account (largely vtsax and john deere) that we use for charitable giving.