Our local banks and credit unions does not offer rates competitive to those found in brokerages.
Fidelity and Vanguard offer the same 1 year CDs that yield 3.05%.

Why is this so? In years past my CU's CD rates equaled or exceeded those of major firms.
Now they are far behind.

Realistic, I think. But one of his points is that stocks will underperform---- because they have over-performed for many years. Action, then Reaction. Then reversion to the Mean. 1,2,3.
"Not many stocks yield more than 3.2%." Huh? Did I just not hear him correctly? I went back and re-played it. I heard correctly. Does he have small-caps in mind? I dunno, but that statement is just incorrect. Erroneous. Right now, I own just three (3) single stocks. All of them yield well over 3.2%. ...I do not think it would be hard to find a great many others. I can certainly see his macro case. (I studied Hegel back in school!)
"Income (vs. cap gains) will be more important, going forward," for some time to come.
IQDG..... Hmmmmm. I took a look. Where does he see an 8% yield? I find 4.7%.
https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/etf/IQDG
THANK YOU, @bee.

Making money by losing less is how legendary small-cap value manager Charlie Dreifus has succeeded for over 50 years of investing. It’s even more important now as he expects more economic and market pain ahead.

Most credit unions are insured by NCUA, a federal agency.

One of the NCUA’s responsibilities is managing the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund. It is the NCUSIF that guarantees money in credit union accounts is backed with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

https://www.bankrate.com/banking/credit-unions/ncua-how-your-savings-at-credit-unions-are-insured-by-the-government/
Some state-chartered credit unions like GASCU are not members of NCUA, but rather choose to buy private insurance. About 20 years ago, Patelco switched over to American Share Insurance, the same insurer that GASCU uses. It made the switch to get higher coverage limits. In 2009, it switched back, for reasons given in this piece:
https://www.depositaccounts.com/blog/2007/11/patelco-credit-union-is-scheduled-to-be.html

I have a small $ amount in the Rockefeller Climate Solutions Fund, which they set up from their LLP that has been running for several years. The Rockefeller foundation and family office have dumped XOM etc and are trying to make up for John D's creation of the global oil industry.
As the press release below indicates, the fund is run by the Asset Management company. I don't know what the role of "Trust for Professional Mangers" is although there are a lot of other funds, some pretty well known on that list
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210923005097/en/Rockefeller-Asset-Management-Launches-Climate-Solutions-Fund-Expanding-Audience-for-Strategy-with-9-Year-Track-Record
Rockefeller Asset Management Launches Climate Solutions Fund, Expanding Audience for Strategy with 9-Year Track Record
September 23, 2021 08:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Rockefeller Asset Management (RAM), a division of Rockefeller Capital Management, recently launched the Rockefeller Climate Solutions Fund (RKCIX), seeking long-term capital growth by investing in companies focused on climate change mitigation or adaptation solutions across the market capitalization spectrum. The Fund, which launched with nearly $100mn in assets and several underlying investors, was converted from a Limited Partnership structure with the same investment objective and a 9-year track record. In addition, the firm has partnered with Skypoint Capital Partners as the Fund’s third party wholesale marketing agent.
“Climate change is becoming a defining issue of our time. We believe investors can generate alpha and positive outcomes by investing in companies producing climate mitigation or adaption solutions with distinct competitive advantages, clear growth catalysts, strong management teams, and attractive earnings potential.”
RAM, in collaboration with The Ocean Foundation (TOF), established the Climate Solutions Strategy nine years ago based on the belief that climate change will transform economies and markets through changing regulation, shifting buying preferences from next-generation consumers, and technological advancements. This global equity strategy deploys a high conviction, bottom-up approach to investing in pure-play companies with meaningful revenue exposure to key environmental sectors such as renewable energy, energy efficiency, water, waste management, pollution control, food & sustainable agriculture, healthcare mitigation, and climate support services. The portfolio managers have long believed that there is significant investment opportunity in these public companies producing climate mitigation and adaptation solutions and that they have the potential to outperform broader equity markets over the long-term.
Rockefeller Climate Solutions Fund is co-managed by Casey Clark, CFA, and Rolando Morillo, who lead RAM's thematic equity strategies, leveraging the intellectual capital built from RAM's three decades of Environmental, Social & Governance (ESG) investing experience. Since the inception of the Climate Solutions Strategy, RAM has also benefited from the environmental and scientific expertise of The Ocean Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to conserving ocean environments around the world. Mark J. Spalding, the President of TOF, and his team serve as advisors and research collaborators to help bridge the gap between science and investing and contribute to the strategies, idea generation, research, and engagement process.
Rolando Morillo, Fund Portfolio Manager, says: "Climate change is becoming a defining issue of our time. We believe investors can generate alpha and positive outcomes by investing in companies producing climate mitigation or adaption solutions with distinct competitive advantages, clear growth catalysts, strong management teams, and attractive earnings potential."
“RAM has been committed to continuously reinvesting in its investment team and ESG-integrated platform to support significant demand for its strategies, including thematic offerings like Climate Solutions, globally. The original LP structure was designed for clients of our family office. After nearly a decade, we are excited to make the strategy accessible to an expanded audience through the launch of our 40 Act Fund,” said Laura Esposito, Head of Institutional and Intermediary Distribution.

Hi Ben- Yes, I'm going to hold on to ASML. One thing, though- they have such a full order book that they won't be able to increase production significantly for a number of years, barring some major change in the production situation. And as far as production expansion goes, I'd think that they have the same supply-chain limitations as anyone else, so that won't be easy.
So the upside would seem to be limited to that extent. We will just keep it and see what happens.

I completely agree that the focus on numbers is wrong. I didn't pick it. The thesis of the opinion piece was that from a financial perspective, fracking is a sham.
A piece that presents readers with dubious assertions creates impression that it can't make its case objectively. It is easy to attack, especially by those with an opposing perspective. Ultimately it is harmful as it doesn't persuade and leaves readers suspicious.
I don't appreciate hit pieces on any side of any issue. They're problematic regardless of whether they are more prevalent on one side or another.
Aside from all of that ISTM that it was worth the space saying a little bit about how one looks at cash flows, capital intensive investments, and tax subsidies. There are a number of people investing in MLPs getting "tax free" payments courtesy of the industry's tax breaks: K-1 line 1 ordinary income "May be negative in early years due to accelerated depreciation, but become positive over time."
https://tortoiseecofin.com/media/2581/the-abcs-of-mlps_053018.pdf
2020 - the year that oil futures turned negative. If there was any time in the past few years that the industry would go through a shake out, that was it. OTOH, the piece you cited states that between 2015 and 2020 the industry filed more than 500 bankruptcies. So while the 107 given for 2020 may have been the high for that time span, it doesn't seem that far out of line with the other years.
Again, a frame of reference would help. What is the size of the companies that failed? What percentage of the industry did that represent? The point of the original piece was that "fracking companies" were not profitable, yet aside from Chesapeake which was pretty much a pure play, what even constitutes a fracking company? Haliburton? Schumberger? Are oil companies the same as fracking companies or are we conflating things here? (That was another problem with the original piece.)
harmful emmissions should not only be measured but taxed significantly.
Maybe, or maybe cap and trade would work better. They're not quite the same, and sometimes one can be better than the other. (The former sets the price of emissions and lets the market decide the amount, while the latter sets the amount and lets the market set the price.) Of course in the end either is far superior to the status quo.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2014/08/12/pricing-carbon-a-carbon-tax-or-cap-and-trade/

For a variety of environmental reasons, I'd like to see the end of fracking. But that doesn't diminish the appearance of the cited NYTimes Op-Ed piece as a polemic, grounded in misleading, cherry picked data.
Start with the except quoted. Here's an alternative description of 2014, just as factually accurate and just as misleading: With oil prices plummeting over 50% in 2014, it's not surprising that the oil industry failed to make a profit that year.
Is it really true that the domestic industry cannot make a profit with oil at $100/bbl? A graphic by the Dallas (yes, I know) Fed asserts that oil companies can make a profit on drilling new wells at WTI prices ranging from $48 to $69 depending on the oil field (including fracking). See p. 35.
https://www.dallasfed.org/-/media/Documents/research/energy/energycharts.pdf/
The Op-Ed piece draws your attention to oil, while using Chesapeake as a poster child. What it doesn't say is that Chesapeake "was far slower than many of its peers to pivot to tapping shale formations for oil, which turned out to be much more lucrative than gas."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fracking-trailblazer-chesapeake-energy-files-for-bankruptcy-11593374287
What caught my eye in the Times Op-Ed was this part: "Previously, from 2002 to 2012, Chesapeake, the industry leader, didn’t report positive cash flow once, ending that period with total losses of some $30 billion"
Negative cash flows are to be expected in capital intensive industries when they first start out. They have to put a lot of cash into equipment and oil fields for payoffs down the road. It's a balancing act. Expand too slowly and you get killed by fixed costs. Expand too rapidly and you're crushed by debt. The WSJ I cited reports that Chesapeake failed the latter way: "Chesapeake’s breakneck growth left it highly leveraged." That's an indictment of Chesapeake management (ousted by Icahn in 2013), not of the industry.
Let's talk about that $30B in losses for 2014. While I'm not fond of non-GAAP figures, in some industries one should also look at EBITDA. The oil industry gets tremendous subsidies from the federal government in the form of accelerated depreciation and depletion allowances. It is curious how this taxpayer subsidy is not mentioned. Perhaps because it could call the dollar losses into question - are these real losses or just financial manipulations?
$30B is surely a ton of money, but it's presented for shock value without a frame of reference. Here's one (also misleading, but in the other direction): while the industry leader lost $30B in ten years (in a capital intensive industry where it invested for the future), Uber lost the same amount of money in just five years, spending that money not on capital but on capturing market share. They lost money on every ride but made it up in volume.
Limited cites to data, no links given (e.g. "the single best and most thorough account of the fracking boom", so the writer says); this stands in stark contrast to copious citations and links presented for environmental concerns. Not even a link to a Chesapeake financial statement? (Here's the 2014 10K, showing a $2B net profit, even after writing off $2.7B in depreciation, depletion, and amortization.)
The conclusion may be right or wrong. One can't tell because in the end, this is just a hit piece.

Never even heard of this company. Not a single fund has turned up in all the screens I've run theses last 15-20 years.

The current strength in tech, despite the Fed actions, may be due to the Senate actually passing a $280 B bill to promote science and chip production in the US, mostly as a response to China's increasingly hostile agenda. While (if typical) a fair amount of that will be siphoned off into the pockets of the top 1%, I still believe that it's necessary insurance so that the US will have a reasonable chip production capability given the probability that China will, sooner or later, invade Taiwan.
It's no secret, but perhaps not common knowledge, that there is only one company in the world presently capable of supplying the most advanced chip-manufacturing equipment. For years that company, located in the Netherlands, has been subjected to enormous political pressure to restrain them from supplying that equipment to China.
Because of that, China cannot produce the most advanced types of chips, which are highly prized for military and high-end scientific and industrial applications. However TSMC, a major chip-making company, does have a fair amount of this equipment on Taiwan, which I believe increases the odds of China attempting to obtain this equipment by military force.

Wow, @LewisBraham. That is deeply, thoroughly thought-out. Thank you very much. "Past results do not guaranty future returns." Indeed. So many variables. Are we at an inflection point? It does seem to me, and it has seemed to me for a number of years already--- that the USA is in decline. Some of that is the result of inevitable factors, like the recovery of economies, post-WW 2. We have more competition. Even in my teen years, I'd heard that "The USA is going to have to get accustomed to paying more, for less." THAT certainly has been going on for decades. The dollar is worth less and less. Even when there's no stimulus, governments like to have inflation, albeit low inflation--- approx. 2%. Just something I learned along the way. ..... Then, add the money-printing stimulus in response to the various shocks to the economy (and PEOPLE!) and you get money that's worth even less. MUCH less. I think the recent stimulus was a good thing, but was WAY overdone. ......Now, add to the recipe: ridiculous amounts of money simply WASTED, and gummint money spent on defense contracts which are nothing short of overkill, "beyond the beyond." ..... "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon yer talking real money." Was that Proxmire? Now, the reference has become trillions.
Gov't is good and necessary. I'm not with the boneheads who are against gov't by definition. I see government's purpose as serving the needs of the people. To serve the WILL of the people is not quite the same thing, though. Often, I find the will of gov't is one screwed-up cluster fuck. That goes for both Parties, though I have more sympathy for one than the other. And that "other" Party has morphed into an Insurgency, anyhow. THAT'S what we're facing today, and it's part of the Grand, Slow, Gradual Decline of the USA on the world stage.

Recently purchased numerous short term investment grade bonds. Duration 1.88 years with a yield of 3.8%.

Thank you @LewisBraham! What can one say? Most impressive.
Here’s the quote from @Bobpa’s post for which I expressed platitudes and which I think many others took away as his fuller intent and meaning:
"Instead of focusing on finding the next Tesla — not an easy task — the approach that, in my opinion, works best for most people, most of the time, is to construct a sensible, diversified portfolio, and then to give it time to compound."
I view that quote in totality as wise advice. I’d put the emphasis here on the “construct a sensible, diversified portfolio …” part. What I see is a lot of individual investors today buying things after they have already outperformed on the upside for an extended period (months, years); than becoming disappointed / disillusioned when that asset (predictably) trends downward; than eventually selling at a loss - only to move on to another hot fund or stock. That’s not using the advantage time allows. I don’t know how money can compound if investments are bought “high” and later sold “low”. Can’t cite any particular source, but believe it’s been shown through historical data that most fund investors fail to achieve the average returns of the funds they own over time due to frequent switching in and out.
To me the cardinal sin of my lifetime came in watching many corporate pensions disappear. Workers, some clueless about money and investing, were told they’d be better off “owning” said pension through a 401K or other defined contribution account. Put in that position time becomes much less of a friend due to the uncertainty of one’s lifetime as Larry noted. The best time frame is an “infinite” one. A well run defined benefit plan comes much closer to that definition. Managers have time on their side to a much greater degree than does a sole individual.

Don't like to jump around, but losing my confidence in Int'l fund managers. Hold VWILX and MGGPX. Thinking of reducing positions and adding to VTSAX, a smoother ride. These guys did weather 2020 pretty well, but are getting beat up now. Stay the course? Thoughts needed!! Thanks!

I've owned VWILX for several years.
The fund has experienced significant losses YTD (-31.11%) and over the trailing 12 months (-34.31%).
I don't have any plans to sell VWILX in the short-term.
Guess I'm a glutton for punishment!

Thanks for everyone's input! I haven't made any changes yet to my portfolio yet. Kind of wait and see for now.

I'm of the mind, the day after I sell, will be the upswing!

ya, story of my life. Or, after I buy, the thing falls hard. I'm sticking with my bets, anyhow. This is an INTERNATIONAL thread.... I'm still holding TRAMX. And giving QAT a look-see, recently. And there's a garment maker with facilities in Jordan and New Jersey: Jerash. JRSH. A penny stock, making clothing for other companies, who then attach their OWN brand names to the items.
https://www.barrons.com/market-data/stocks/jrsh?mod=searchresults_companyquotes&mod=searchbar
I've been to Jerash. Very cool, historical. (2004.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerash
"the region of the Gerasenes" (Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26).
https://jerashholdings.com/

"The power of compounding is huge."
Yes, it surely is was, and that's one of the big reasons that my wife and I are retired with no real monetary concerns.
Where, in the last ten years or so, was a young investor supposed to do the same things that we were able to do?

TOTALLY!

"The power of compounding is huge."
Yes, it surely is was, and that's one of the big reasons that my wife and I are retired with no real monetary concerns.
Where, in the last ten years or so, was a young investor supposed to do the same things that we were able to do?

Why, despite a lack of uncertainty last year, did you fail to anticipate the worst bond market in centuries? How did you not see the worst opening 6-months in the stock market in 40 years? The worst inflation since 1981?

I don't know. On the other hand, I was very happy with the returns I had experienced with a short-term investment in bond funds that I bought because everyone said they are nearly as good for you as flossing.
Not being a fan of bonds generally, and disappointed with the yields, I sold. I'm no Bernard Baruch, but sometimes there is something to be said for selling "too soon."
As for inflation, if you were raised with the idea that it is the result of too much money chasing too few goods, it wasn't rocket science to wonder where we might be headed with massive tax cuts, supply chain issues, and air drop money.
And, well, a lot of people had been commenting on the stratospheric valuations of the stock market. When hasn't that ended in tears?
So what's the point of Barry abusing his capital letters and wearing out the italic fonts?
If you're crossing the street against the light, and you hear horns honking, you might want to look around.

Don't like to jump around, but losing my confidence in Int'l fund managers. Hold VWILX and MGGPX. Thinking of reducing positions and adding to VTSAX, a smoother ride. These guys did weather 2020 pretty well, but are getting beat up now. Stay the course? Thoughts needed!! Thanks!

I've owned VWILX for several years.
The fund has experienced significant losses YTD (-31.11%) and over the trailing 12 months (-34.31%).
I don't have any plans to sell VWILX in the short-term.
Guess I'm a glutton for punishment!

Thanks for everyone's input! I haven't made any changes yet to my portfolio yet. Kind of wait and see for now. I'm of the mind, the day after I sell, will be the upswing!

Yogi,
I wonder whether there is any real advantage in buying TIPS on auction as compared to secondary market? On auction, the shortest period is 5 years. There is a chance that in one or two years inflation will be much lower, and then the advantage of TIPS for the rest of the 5 years will disappear. Meanwhile on secondary market one can buy them for about 6 months or a year, or two years. Do I understand correctly that inflation adjustment will be the same as for I-bonds? If so, why would one hesitate if one can get about 9% for a year and then invest again if inflation is still high instead of buying 5 year TIPS which will be most rewarding only at the beginning of these 5 years?
I invested to I-bonds to the max, but I have zero experience with TIPS, so most probably I am missing something trivial.
I really appreciate your efforts to educate us in this respect.

The power of compounding is huge. Let's assume 10% return per year. Investor X started investing at age 25 $1000 monthly and stopped after 10 years. Investor Y started investing 10 years later, at age 35, investing $1000 monthly for 30 years to age 65.
Who will have more at age 65?
Investor X will have a lot more money, investing just 10 years VS 30 years.