This link is directed to Nvidia from last August. I can't find a recent video from Bloomberg providing similar current information regarding cost and sell pricing. Yowee !!!
Let this snippet sink in:

Nvidia is raking in nearly 1,000% (about 823%) in profit percentage for each H100 GPU accelerator it sells, according to estimates made in a recent social media post from Barron's senior writer Tae Kim. In dollar terms, that means that Nvidia's street-price of around $25,000 to $30,000 for each of these High Performance Computing (HPC) accelerators (for the least-expensive PCIe version) more than covers the estimated $3,320 cost per chip and peripheral (in-board) components. As surfers will tell you, there's nothing quite like riding a wave with zero other boards on sight.
Kim cites the $3,320 estimated cost for each H100 chip as coming from financial consulting firm Raymond James. It's unclear how deep that cost analysis goes, however: if it's a matter of pure manufacturing cost (averaging the price-per-wafer and other components while taking yields into account), then there's still a significant expense margin for Nvidia to cover with each of its sales.

Ted Oakley of Oxbow was recently interviewed, and when asked to address the energy sector, he cited EPD and Williams among his choices. I gathered these were not recent purchases of his, but long-held positions).
there are several gas-heavy producers. I guess it depends on what exactly you wish to bet on: do you want to be that NG will increase in price -- which would tend to favor most gassy producers, to the extent they do not engage in significant hedging activities. I've tended to avoid gas-heavy producers. Instead, I tend to favor mixed- or oil-heavy producers. I've always viewed EOG as a best-in-class producer, though at the moment, my only energy exposure is XOM and CVX. If you are agnostic on individual companies just consider XOP or XLE.
OTOH, if you want to bet that NG stays low, ask yourself: "who benefits from low NG prices?". At least one answer to that question is many of the chemical companies. Depending on their output, natural gas represents THE major input cost to create many of the chemicals which these companies produce/sell. Lower input costs mean fatter profit margins. The chemical industry is very cyclical/volatile. Probably the 'safe choice' here would be Dow Chemical which presently has divd yield just below5%. Value Line assesses Dow's financial strength as "A:".
I have no opinion, nor any direct holding in any chemical company at the present time.

This ad-hoc feature returns this week. LINK BarronsLINK
FUNDS. Use active funds to exploit the fire sale in HEALTHCARE stocks. MANY biotech stocks were selling below their cash on the balance sheets in 10/2023 and there has been a good rebound since with XBI +40% (still well below 2/2021 peak). Mentioned are BHCFX (37% SC/MC), JAGLX, PHSTX (value), PRHSX (all-caps with some risky bets), VGHCX (giant/biggest, so LC orientation). (By @LewisBraham at MFO)
ECONOMY. EVERYONE knows that BOGLE/ Vanguard started the first SP500 mutual fund. But who started the first US total market index? That was Wilshire 5000 (W5000) in 1974 by Dennis TITO/ Wilshire Associates (names after a CA blvd) and now several firms/indexers offer total stock market indexes. While a catchy “5000” has always been in the name, W5000 had 7,378 stocks in 1998, and only 3,392 in 01/2024. The number of US stocks has shrunk from M&A, LBOs, bankruptcies, and the new listings haven’t been enough. W5000 has gone through several hands and prefixes – FT-, DJ-, back to None-, and now again FT- (so, FT W5000). Vanguard was probably the 1st to offer a total stock market FUND in 1992 under a license from Wilshire Associates, but Vanguard has changed the underlying index several times – to MSCI, and now CRSP. Wilshire Associates also started the mutual fund WFIVX / WINDX in 02/1999 (current AUM $253.4 million only). Dennis Tito, 84, sold Wilshire Associates in 2021 to two private-equity firms (CEO a former FTSE executive Mark MAKEPEACE) and they spun off Wilshire Indexes to a group that includes themselves, Mark Makepeace, FT, Singapore Exchange. And obviously, Wilshire indexes have gone global. (By Allan SLOAN, an award-winning independent journalist)
Q&A/Interview. Suni HARFORD, President of Asset Management, UBS. She thrives on business challenges and financial crises. She thinks that the US stocks below the highflying mega-caps are fine. Russia-Ukraine war has been a huge setback for Europe. Asia has been dragged down by China that can turn on a dime, but Japan has been rallying. Many countries will have elections in 2024, so that should be a support for economies. Allocation 60-40 is making sense again, but she recommends carving out 20% for alternatives – real estate, private-equity, private-credit, etc. Interest rates are normalizing and aren’t high by historical standards. Customized direct indexing for separately managed accounts (SMAs) is in favor and is a big and growing business for UBS. The ESG is less popular in the US as there is lot of anti-ESG misinformation; even Texas has 30% from renewable energy now. But ESG is growing in Europe and Asia with new twists – nature-based solutions, blended investment-finance combo projects, etc. Women have come a long way in business and finance, but more are needed. This industry offers more flexible schedules but requires hard work and has good rewards. Her husband retired 12 years ago, and her UBS stint in 2017 was to be a short post-retirement job, but she may finally leave after the Credit Suisse integration.
RETIREMENT. Target-Date Funds (TDFs) were thought to be set-and-forget funds, but their short history has revealed some problems. The TDFs have adjusted by offering variations within each TDF 20XX as some wanted slightly more or less equity. So, instead of glide-path, we have glide-band. Many TDFs are passive, but several are active or with active-passive mix; some include both mutual funds and ETFs. Their bond sleeves have been stodgy, often with too much of TIPS, but some are now including HY, EMs, FR/BL, etc. (TDFs benefitted hugely from the laws that allow them to be the default options for 401k/403b/457 plan auto-signups and auto-escalations)

I found this section somewhat interesting and sparking deeper thoughts on the sector, reminding us (er, me) that proper due diligence and analysis always is required. Speaking of which, I wonder what Giroux' take on them would be since last I saw he remained bullish on utes....

Our second and even more severe earnings disappointment last year occurred at BHE. Most of its large electric-utility businesses, as well as its extensive gas pipelines, performed about as expected. But the regulatory climate in a few states has raised the specter of zero profitability or even bankruptcy (an actual outcome at California’s largest utility and a current threat in Hawaii). In such jurisdictions, it is difficult to project both earnings and asset values in what was once regarded as among the most stable industries in America.
For more than a century, electric utilities raised huge sums to finance their growth through a state-by-state promise of a fixed return on equity (sometimes with a small bonus for superior performance). With this approach, massive investments were made for capacity that would likely be required a few years down the road. That forward-looking regulation reflected the reality that utilities build generating and transmission assets that often take many years to construct. BHE’s extensive multi-state transmission project in the West was initiated in 2006 and remains some years from completion. Eventually, it will serve 10 states comprising 30% of the acreage in the continental United States.
With this model employed by both private and public-power systems, the lights stayed on, even if population growth or industrial demand exceeded expectations. The “margin of safety” approach seemed sensible to regulators, investors and the public. Now, the fixed-but-satisfactory- return pact has been broken in a few states, and investors are becoming apprehensive that such ruptures may spread. Climate change adds to their worries. Underground transmission may be required but who, a few decades ago, wanted to pay the staggering costs for such construction?
At Berkshire, we have made a best estimate for the amount of losses that have occurred. These costs arose from forest fires, whose frequency and intensity have increased – and will likely continue to increase – if convective storms become more frequent.
It will be many years until we know the final tally from BHE’s forest-fire losses and can intelligently make decisions about the desirability of future investments in vulnerable western states. It remains to be seen whether the regulatory environment will change elsewhere.
Other electric utilities may face survival problems resembling those of Pacific Gas and Electric and Hawaiian Electric. A confiscatory resolution of our present problems would obviously be a negative for BHE, but both that company and Berkshire itself are structured to survive negative surprises. We regularly get these in our insurance business, where our basic product is risk assumption, and they will occur elsewhere. Berkshire can sustain financial surprises but we will not knowingly throw good money after bad.
Whatever the case at Berkshire, the final result for the utility industry may be ominous: Certain utilities might no longer attract the savings of American citizens and will be forced to adopt the public-power model. Nebraska made this choice in the 1930s and there are many public-power operations throughout the country. Eventually, voters, taxpayers and users will decide which model they prefer.
When the dust settles, America’s power needs and the consequent capital expenditure will be staggering. I did not anticipate or even consider the adverse developments in regulatory returns and, along with Berkshire’s two partners at BHE, I made a costly mistake in not doing so.

I do wonder privately often, whether I'm shooting myself in the foot with my own system, plan, approach. My funds own the Mag7. Can't do much about that. I've seen SMCI run-up, too, LATELY. @MikeM. I deliberately avoid crowded trades. I like to wander away from the beaten path. Don't like to invest in companies which do stuff I don't like, ethically. THAT is a near-impossible job, though. They all own each other, fer crissakes. How long have I been waiting for BHB to move? Too long. It's dead money. For now. All promises are that it will rise with other financial institutions, when rates come down. But The Fed "is in no hurry." Dooky, Scum, pus and stinky poopies.
Giant party in the Markets today. I got no invitation. Apart from TS. And it did manage to drop from the opening bell, rather than rise. More dog feces. But only in a back-handed way, sure. Anyhow, with the rest of my single-stocks, I'm not at the party, but sitting home with house-brand coffee and fried eggs and toast, rather than Filet Mignon and caviar.
My funds are still the vast majority of the money. They will cheer me up today. ORK!

I just published "My Investment Picks For Retirees In 2024" on Seeking Alpha. An account is required, but it is free. The main point is about where assets should be located based on spending needs and tax characteristics. Funds with good long term performance are identified for Buckets/accounts.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4671471-my-investment-picks-for-retirees-in-2024
The topics covered are:
Regrets and Life in Retirement
2024 Investment Environment
Financial Advisors
Tax Characteristics of Accounts
Bond Performance Following Rate Cuts
Yield Curve
Lipper Category Rotation
Investment Picks

Here’s an “interesting” take an interest rates and credit worthiness:

The simple truth is that with or without a personal fortune which is said to exceed $1 billion, Swift is credit personified. Getting more specific, her greatest source of collateral wouldn’t be physical possessions, but the future value of the immense talent that she would bring into any financial institution. It’s just a reminder that credit or interest rates can’t be decreed, rather credit is what we bring to financiers.

Should we think of the US economy in the same manner?
can-the-fed-increase-the-rate-of-interest-charged-to-taylor-swift/?

I was assigned a Schwab rep. The guy is a pro with vast knowledge, has Series 7, 63, 66 Securities Licenses
From Schwab: "Dedicated Financial Consultants are generally made available to clients with $500,000 or more in assets at Schwab and more complex investing needs."
https://www.schwab.com/invest-with-us/professional-advice
From FINRA: "The Series 7 exam ... assesses the competency of an entry-level registered representative to perform their job as a general securities representative."
https://www.finra.org/registration-exams-ce/qualification-exams/series7
Regarding Series 63, "The Series 66 is a combination of Series 63 and Series 65 and allows securities industry professionals seeking to transact securities business as a broker-dealer agent and provide investment advice for a fee as an investment adviser representative."
https://mastercompliance.com/2022/11/understanding-the-difference-series-63-series-65-or-series-66/
Much as an AA degree can be just a stepping stone to a BA, it sounds like a series 63 license can be a stepping stone to a series 6 license.
In any case, most assigned reps at Fidelity and Schwab have Series 7 and 66.
https://digital.fidelity.com/prgw/digital/faa/0/connect-with-an-advisor
https://client.schwab.com/public/consultant/find
As to free services, it really depends on what you want and how you use the services. For example:
- Schwab charges at least $15 for an international wire; at Fidelity they're free. I typically send a small number of international wires a year. Most people don't.
- Fidelity gave me free Turbotax (this year it's $5 to download). Its value more than compensates me for the few $5 auto-purchase fees I pay. Other people trade more frequently and have said they cut deals with Schwab.
- OTC trades are free at Fidelity; at Schwab they cost $6.95. But I trade stocks infrequently and never trade penny stocks. This may matter to others.
Medallion stamps - Schwab would send my paperwork over to the next county to stamp; Fidelity stamps my papers while I wait. This is another infrequent need.
Schwab and Fidelity are both fine organizations. IMHO these differences are just noise around the edges. If Schwab works for you, that's great. If you're happier with Fidelity, more power to you. If you want to split the difference and have accounts at both places, go for it.
Trekkie vs. trekker, more than you ever wanted to know:
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Trekkie
And get a life (Shatner, SNL):
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xmagzq

FMILX - one manager, 1.3 yrs tenure, $100-500K invested
From M*: "The strategy underwent an entire portfolio management team change about a year ago".
Not quite your classic LCV fund!
The portfolio was LCV through 2021 and LC Blend in 2022. It's just the recent strategy change that overhauled the portfolio. M* generally uses a three year lookback in classifying funds, to ensure that a fund's classification isn't whipsawed because of momentary changes in portfolio style. Arguably M* should make an exception when there's a complete change of strategy and management.

Fund categories are much more stable, designed to avoid such noise by putting each fund into a peer group that best represents what its portfolio has looked like over the long term and is likely to look like in the future.
...
There are no hard-and-fast rules, but generally if a fund's style box has consistently differed from its category for three years or more, we'll consider moving it to a new category that's more in sync with its portfolio.

https://www.morningstar.com/articles/306244/why-is-my-funds-style-box-different-from-its-category
Who remembers what this fund was originally supposed to be? It was started in 1992 as a fund focused on new trends and a promise to close before it became another hulking Fidelity fund.
From the 1996 prospectus:

The fund's management style focuses on identifying future beneficiaries of social and economic change. FMR examines social attitudes, legislative actions, economic plans, product innovation, demographics, and other factors to learn what underlying trends are shaping the marketplace. Based on its interpretation of these trends, FMR tries to identify the industries and companies that will benefit, and then analyzes the fundamental values of each potential investment. ... The fund's strategy can lead to investments in small and medium sized companies, which carry more risk than larger ones. Generally, these companies, especially small sized ones, rely on limited product lines and markets, financial resources, or other factors. This may make them more susceptible to setbacks or downturns.

That hardly describes a fund holding the largest companies in the country.
And it did close as promised, while it was still small. I don't know of any other fund that Fidelity closed like that. "Effective the close of business on May 15, 1996, the fund was closed to new accounts."

Today I received a UPS package with about 5 pounds of forms - EVERY MONTHLY AND QUARTERLY STATEMENT SINCE 2013 - BUT NOT A SINGLE 1099-DIV!
When they say "Invest with Confidence" they must mean with someone else!

+1 / Somewhat similar to the issue I struggled with for about 3 months before parting company. Secure, pre-announced, accurate and confirmed delivery of financial documents to a pre-authorized destination (either online or thru paper mailings) would seem a rather basic service. Not rocket science.
And think of the trees cut needlessly for all that unwanted paper. :(

BRUFX pulls up a quote at Schwab, but it's not available for purchase. So, it exists on Schwab platform, and should be transferrable in-kind. WBALX is no-load/NTF at Schwab.

"So it exists on Schwab platform" is a leap. Some brokerages provide quotes for funds that they cannot or will not hold. Vanguard is especially good in saying what it will or won't hold. Here's the quote for BRUFX I pulled up at Vanguard:

This fund is not available for purchase or transfer
This fund is not available for purchase and cannot be transferred to your Vanguard Brokerage Services® account from another financial institution.

Emphasis in original.
https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/mutual-funds/profile/brufx

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318342/000139834424003216/fp0087200-1_497.htm
497 1 fp0087200-1_497.htm
KL Allocation Fund
Institutional Class Ticker: GAVIX
A series of Investment Managers Series Trust (the “Trust”)
Supplement dated February 14, 2024, to the Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), each dated January 1, 2024
*** IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING PROPOSED FUND REORGANIZATION ***
Based on the recommendation of the Advisor, the Board has approved the reorganization of the Fund into the AXS Astoria Inflation Sensitive ETF (the “Acquiring Fund”), an existing series of Investment Managers Series Trust II (the “Reorganization”). The Reorganization will occur pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”). The Plan provides for the Fund to transfer all of its assets to the Acquiring Fund in return for shares of the Acquiring Fund and cash in lieu of fractional Acquiring Fund shares (if any) and the Acquiring Fund’s assumption of the Fund’s liabilities. Each shareholder of the Fund will receive shares of the Acquiring Fund and cash in lieu of fractional Acquiring Fund shares (if any) equal to the value of the shares of the Fund owned by the shareholder prior to the Reorganization. The Reorganization is not generally expected to result in the recognition of gain or loss by the Fund or its shareholders for U.S. federal income tax purposes (except with respect to cash received by shareholders in lieu of fractional shares, if any). AXS Investments LLC will bear the costs related to the Reorganization.
The Acquiring Fund and Fund each seek long-term capital appreciation; the Acquiring Fund and Fund have different principal investment strategies and principal risks. The Acquiring Fund invests principally in securities which have the potential to benefit, either directly or indirectly, from increases in the rate of rising costs of goods and services (i.e., inflation). The Fund employs an allocation strategy by investing, in three asset classes: equity, fixed income and cash or cash equivalents. AXS Investments LLC and Astoria Portfolio Advisors LLC are the investment advisor and sub-advisor, respectively, of the Acquiring Fund. The Advisor will not be involved in the management of the Acquiring Fund. The Acquired Fund’s portfolio manager, Steven Vannelli, CFA, will become a portfolio manager at AXS Investments LLC and will participate in the Acquired Fund’s investment committee. The Acquiring Fund is expected to have a lower management fee and total annual fund operating expenses as the Fund.
The Fund operates as a mutual fund and the Acquiring Fund operates as an actively managed exchange-traded fund (“ETF”). ETFs may provide benefits to shareholders compared to mutual funds, including additional trading flexibility, increased transparency, and the potential for lower transaction costs and enhanced tax efficiency. Additional information regarding the differences between mutual funds and ETFs and potential impact to shareholders will be included in the combined prospectus/proxy statement noted below. In order to receive shares of the Acquiring Fund as part of the Reorganization, Fund shareholders must hold their shares of the Fund through a brokerage account eligible to hold and trade shares of an ETF. If you are unsure about the ability of your account to accept Acquiring Fund shares, please call 1-888-998-9890 or contact your financial advisor or other financial intermediary.
The Board will call a meeting of the shareholders of the Fund to vote on the Plan. Management of the Trust expects the shareholder meeting to be held on or about April 11, 2024, at the offices of Mutual Fund Administration, LLC, 2220 E. Route 66, Suite 226, Glendora, California 91740. If the Reorganization is approved by Fund shareholders, the Reorganization is expected to take effect at close of business on May 3, 2024.
Shareholders of the Fund will receive a combined prospectus/proxy statement with additional information about the shareholder meeting, the proposed Reorganization, and the Acquiring Fund, including information about the Acquiring Fund’s investment strategies, risks, fees and expenses. Please read the proxy materials carefully, as they will contain a more detailed description of the proposed Reorganization.
Please file this Supplement with your records.

In trying to look for clear & concise explanation of "Y" and "F" shares, I found this:
"If the ticker ends with the letter "Y", this means that it is not an F share, but a Y share."
OK, cannot argue with that at all (-:). But seriously, from the same link (from a legal outfit),
"Y shares designate American Depositary Receipts (ADR) that are being traded in the US market. Banks or other depositary institutions will hold foreign shares and issue receipts for them. This is called an ADR. The ADR will be denominated in a ratio of one ADR to X-number of foreign shares."
"While (F share) trades are executed in US dollars by US broker-dealers, the shares are settled, cleared and custodised in your local market.
An F share is created in the US when a broker-dealer files a Form 211 with FINRA (the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) to create a US ticker symbol in order to report trades in the US in your company’s shares. This is not a new share. It is a reference to your existing shares via a newly created ticker symbol in the United States for reporting and trading purposes."
My story: from YEARS ago, I had a Canadian "F" share fund. Commission/fee was high - I don't remember if it was $50, but was much higher than $6.95. It had almost 3-day turnaround for trade confirmations (not for settlement!). When I complained, I was told that those don't really trade in the US. Some US aggregator/dealer trades them in Canada when he felt like it, and my broker could confirm only when he reported back. From that time on, I have avoided tickers ending in "F". Tickers ending in "Y" do trade within the US.
https://www.carstedrosenberg.com/post/what-are-f-shares

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1217286/000119312524033066/d778126d497.htm
497 1 d778126d497.htm JPMORGAN TRUST I
J.P. MORGAN U.S. EQUITY FUNDS
JPMorgan Small Cap Sustainable Leaders Fund
(the “Fund”)
(All Share Classes)
(a series of JPMorgan Trust I)
Supplement dated February 13, 2024
to the current Summary Prospectuses, Prospectuses
and Statement of Additional Information, as supplemented
NOTICE OF LIQUIDATION OF THE JPMORGAN SMALL CAP SUSTAINABLE LEADERS FUND. The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of JPMorgan Trust I has approved the liquidation and dissolution of the Fund on or about May 21, 2024 (the “Liquidation Date”). Effective immediately, the Fund may depart from its stated investment objective and strategies as it increases its cash holdings in preparation for its liquidation. On the Liquidation Date (for settlement the day after the Liquidation Date), the Fund shall distribute pro rata to its shareholders of record all of the assets of the Fund in complete cancellation and redemption of all of the outstanding shares of beneficial interest, except for any proceeds from any securities that cannot be liquidated on the Liquidation Date, cash, bank deposits or cash equivalents in an estimated amount necessary to (i) discharge any unpaid liabilities and obligations of the Fund on the Fund’s books on the Liquidation Date, including, but not limited to, income dividends and capital gains distributions, if any, payable through the Liquidation Date, and (ii) pay such contingent liabilities as the officers of the Fund deem appropriate subject to ratification by the Board. Income dividends and capital gain distributions, if any, may be paid on or prior to the Liquidation Date.
If you have a Fund direct IRA account, your shares will be exchanged for Morgan Shares of the JPMorgan U.S. Government Money Market Fund unless you provide alternative direction prior to the Liquidation Date. For all other IRA accounts, the proceeds will be invested based upon guidelines of the applicable Plan administrator. Upon liquidation, shareholders may purchase any class of another J.P. Morgan Fund for which they are eligible with the proceeds of the liquidating distribution. Shareholders will be permitted to use their proceeds from the liquidation to purchase Class A Shares of another J.P. Morgan Fund at net asset value within 90 days of the liquidating distribution, provided that they remain eligible to purchase Class A Shares. If shareholders of Class C Shares purchase Class C Shares of another J.P. Morgan Fund within 90 days of the liquidating distribution, no contingent deferred sales charge will be imposed on those new Class C Shares. At the time of the purchase, you must inform your Financial Intermediary or the J.P. Morgan Funds that the proceeds are from the Fund.
PURCHASES OF FUND SHARES BY NEW SHAREHOLDERS WILL NO LONGER BE ACCEPTED ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 19, 2024.
PURCHASES OF ADDITIONAL SHARES BY EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS WILL NO LONGER BE ACCEPTED ON OR AFTER MAY 15, 2024.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT WITH THE
SUMMARY PROSPECTUSES, PROSPECTUSES AND STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
SUP-SCSL-LIQ-224

Schwab will sometimes waive or refund the transaction fee if you ask. YMMV, my local office wouldn’t do it but the Texas-based financial consultant assigned to my account got it done.

”Individual stock returns listed on M* and other sites(YTD, various average annual time periods) would be less annual dividends, correct?”

@Roy - I think you are incorrect. Pretty sure those M* annual return numbers (and those from similar sources) reflect average returns with dividends reinvested. Also, the numbers reflect the effect of compounding - especially important in the multi-year numbers. I’m less certain when it comes to graphs at Google & elsewhere. ISTM those are raw NAV numbers w/o dividends factored in. Fund prospectuses also provide a similar presentation of a fund’s return out to 10 years. ISTM they are required to provide that data. (Woe is Hussman)
Here’s what Chat GPT answered when I asked using Bing’s website:
”Published mutual fund returns typically do include the effect of reinvested dividends and compounding. Let me explain further:
1. Reinvested Dividends:
When you invest in a mutual fund, some of the companies held within that fund may pay out dividends to their shareholders. If you choose to reinvest these dividends, they are used to purchase additional shares of the mutual fund. The reinvested dividends contribute to the overall growth of your investment over time. Therefore, the published returns of a mutual fund usually account for the reinvestment of dividends.
2. Compounding:
Compounding refers to the process where your investment earns returns, and those returns themselves generate additional returns. In the context of mutual funds, compounding occurs when both the capital appreciation (increase in the fund's value) and reinvested dividends work together to boost your overall return. Published returns typically reflect this compounding effect.
3. Total Return:
The total return of a mutual fund includes both capital gains (price appreciation) and any income generated (such as dividends). It considers the reinvestment of dividends and the compounding effect. This total return is what you'll find in published reports or when researching mutual funds.
In summary: When you see published mutual fund returns, they already incorporate the impact of reinvested dividends and the power of compounding. Keep in mind that fees and expenses may also affect the actual returns you receive. Always review the fund's prospectus and consult with a financial advisor for personalized advice.”

@davfor- being in our 80's we are now at the consolidation/protection stage, so most of the financial info that I post on MFO is hopefully of some interest to younger MFO-ers still playing the game.
That's a long way of admitting that because of the unusual length of that particular email newsletter I didn't really read it all the way through. Like you, I started to try and edit it down as I frequently do with these things, but gave up because it was just too damned much work.
Like you, I get his email version, which seems to be identical to the on-line Bloomberg version, and most of the time read it or at least skim it. It's always fun when he's detailing the foibles of humanity, which is actually most of the time. There was an absolutely hilarious column a week or so ago: "Pastor Got His Crypto Scam Audited" (God told me to do it).
Actually I'm not sure how I get Levine's email- I don't remember signing up at Bloomberg, but it was a long time ago, and my brainpan has developed substantial corrosion and leakage.
OJ

Range bound indeed. Tech, and particularly the Mag7, seems to be the only trade investors are interested in (chasing). I'm personally not interested because I believe valuations are stretched although they could certainly go higher. The current level(s) of interest rates and or distributions from my positions leave me comfortable with my holdings while I wait out the markets direction.
I do own a significant amount of tech but these days it seems hard not to. Tech is everywhere and it's hard to avoid it whether it's in the financial sector, agriculture, industrials & manufacturing and so on and so forth. Nearly everyone and everything wants chips, semiconductors, software, automation. Interesting times.

It depends on what one is paying for? If I am ok with PRWCX is because I must believe the fund manager has "some edge" which is greater than participating in Passive Vanguard fund. Does every one of the 6700 Mutual funds and ETFs have edge. Most certainly not. Maybe 50 do. If its not one of those 50, most likely the adage, "Financial products are sold, not bought" applies.

Bigger question...is investing by fundamentals archaic? Isn't it all about sentiment and flow from cap weighted index funds driven by 401ks and thus driven by white collar professional class investing every paycheck?
Or is this financial system which is twice as large as the economy too big to fail? No politician will allow a large draw down on their watch because we'd have an epic depression...think of the pension funds that would collapse etc. That and now I'm being serious is the difference now vs back in the sun micro hey days....
So are we all just fools not to slide all the chips in?
By that meaning invest in NVDA, CRWD, MDB. And some cash to buy some smokes and booze...
Who knows??