Strategic Petroleum Reserve
From: Fossil Energy and Carbon Management
Excerpts from that site:

SPR Quick Facts
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a U.S. Government complex of four sites with deep underground storage caverns created in salt domes along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coasts.
Highest inventory - The SPR was filled to its then 727 million barrel authorized storage capacity on December 27, 2009; the inventory of 726.6 million barrels was the highest ever held in the SPR.
Previous Inventory Milestones
2008. Prior to Hurricane Gustav coming ashore on September 1, 2008, the SPR had reached 707.21 million barrels, the highest level ever held up until that date. A series of emergency exchanges conducted after Hurricane Gustav, followed shortly thereafter by Hurricane Ike, reduced the level by 5.4 million barrels.
2005. Prior to the 2008 hurricane releases, the former record had been reached in late August 2005, just days before Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. Hurricane Katrina emergency releases of both crude oil sales and exchanges (loans) totaled 20.8 million barrels.
1977. First oil was delivered to the newly constructed SPR, 412,000 barrels of light sweet crude.
Current authorized storage capacity - 714 million barrels
Fill status - The SPR completed fill on December 27, 2009 with a cargo that arrived and began to unload on Christmas Day. The cargo was 493,000 barrels of Saharan Blend, a light sweet crude that was delivered to the Bryan Mound site. A sale and drawdown in 2011 reduced the inventory to 695.9 million barrels.
Current days of import protection in SPR - At the end of CY 2021 (as of December 31, 2021), the SPR’s crude oil inventory was 594.7 MMbbl. This is equivalent to approximately 1,206 days of supply of total U.S. petroleum net imports.
International Energy Agency requirement - 90 days of import protection (both public and private stocks). In past years, the United States has met its commitment with a combination of SPR stocks and industry stocks. The days of import protection may vary based on actual net U.S. petroleum imports and the inventory level of the SPR.
Average price paid for oil in the Reserve - $29.70 per barrel

Drawdown Capability
Maximum nominal drawdown capability - 4.4 million barrels per day
Time for oil to enter U.S. market - 13 days from Presidential decision
Investment to date - About $25.7 billion ($5 billion for facilities; $20.7 billion for crude oil).

With respect to sweet corn, the prices are indeed much higher than in previous years. The market we use for meat and a few other products is noted for good quality but very high prices: sweet corn the other day was $1.29 PER EAR!!!
For contrast, the sweet corn from the Safeway chain is locally grown, consistently excellent quality, and typically 50¢ per ear, with frequent sales of 3/$1.00. Over the July 4th weekend they really had a special: 10¢ per ear- limit of 6 ears.
It pays to shop around, which is very easy using InstaCart. Yes, InstaCart's prices are a little high, but since we're both over 80, avoiding Covid and not carrying heavy grocery bags it's worth it. We typically source groceries from 3 or 4 different stores, including Costco.

I'm not too worried about THIS one. Famous last words, eh?
All those years ago, it was an excessively, superfluously, ridiculously STOOPID idea to make the US Post Office a semi-private company. If the P.O. OWNED its buildings, how much less would the taxpayer be responsible for? Not only with the price of postage stamps, but salaries and pensions and everything else???????? However, since the Postal Service LEASES properties from other owners, I suppose that makes ME a part-owner, too. Congratulate me. Or curse at me. You choose.
https://postalrealtytrust.com/
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnys/pstl/quote
https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/PSTL
https://www.wallstreetzen.com/stocks/us/nyse/pstl/stock-forecast
https://www.barrons.com/market-data/stocks/pstl/research-ratings?mod=quotes#subnav
https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/PSTL/financials

Every fund/ETF company is jumping on the "Climate Change " bandwagon, but I think there is a good case to make for active management here, as the technology is rapidly changing and sophisticated engineers and mangers can add a lot of value by knowing what may work and may not. Most ETFs are based on "indexes" that in some cases, the companies create themselves, hardly active management. GM and Ford may well be the ultimate winners of the electric vehicle race, but neither are in most "Green" ETFs based on these indices, only TSLA.
I ( or my kids IRAs) have had positions in TAN LIT PBD PHO ( water) and FCX ( Copper) for years. My son wanted only clean energy and "green" investments so even with the recent "swoon" some of his ETFs are up 250% in the last eight years since we started his accounts.
I recently spent a fair amount of time looking for actively managed funds in "climate change" and found several interesting ideas. It is hard to search for "climate Change" as it is not a fund category that I am aware of, but M* classifies most funds as " natural resources" and you can skim their names pretty quickly. Another way is to look for concentrated positions in some of the usual companies, or other funds that hold significant positions in common with some of the bigger inaccessible funds like GCCHX.
Most funds are only recently organized, but NALFX has a long track record. GMOs Climate Change Fund GCCHX has been in business since 2017 and provides a good comparison, although it has a $5,000,000 minimum. ( Interestingly NALFX beats it with a bit more volatility).
Most are less than a year old.
I nibbled also at RKCIX ( Rockefeller management trying to make up for JD's sins), and GCEBX ( has a bit of an income focus so is less volatile) and NETZ (an ETF run by "Engine no 1, the group that forced XOM to the climate change table).
Other things to think about are materials that will go up in price as demand increases like rare earths (REMX) and "Green minerals" ( GMET). Huge quantities of Cobalt, etc will be needed to transition to carbon neutral. Carbon credits are another idea (KRBN), as is timberland ( hard to find for individuals)
I was thinking of putting this together in a Commentary piece, but my skills are limited to typing so I dumped a lot of these ideas into just a word document.

Hello @Catch22 - like you I’ve been curious about the clean/renewable energy sector and have watched it for some time. On Monday, purchased less than a toe hold in -TAN, ICLN, QCLN, and PBW. Yes, there’s quite a bit of overlap. Still there’s a small cap, mid cap, and one with a larger percentage to international exposure (been watching Vestas for years) and of course the solar focus.

Hi catch,
This may or may not be of help but I have traded in and out of both ICLN and TAN over the past two years depending on the appeal of of 'clean energy' within the energy sector. I currently hold 3 individual equities in the solar realm and have held them well over 2 years. I hope that you enjoy rollercoasters.

Yes, a thoughtful opine by LB. I’m under the impression fees have been falling for individual investors, however, for years. (Doesn’t negate Lewis’ point.) I recall at work in the early 70s the original 2 options in our 403-B were either to invest in an expensive annuity or buy from a sole rep (advisor) selling Templeton products. He promised a great deal at a group discount having a “low” 4.17% front load. (Actually they began charging me a 7% load until I did the math and called them on it.) But in general, the front load was much more prevalent during the earlier days.
I’m for low fees if it doesn’t impact the provider’s quality of research and management - or service. Brings up a related question: Is the notable deterioration in TRP’s customer service (and some others as well) at least partially a consequence of progressive fee cutting over the past 3 or 4 decades? I suspect not since their AUM has also multiplied by several factors. Yet, one is left with only a shred of the service we’d come to expect from years past.
Yes, I understand LB’s point that there has been one fee structure for the monied class and a different one for individuals. I’m not grieving for the providers either. Like Twain, however, rumors of their death may prove premature.

Figures. They do not want to alienate anyone. My exit from Matthews was after a dreadful experience with one of the fund managers or team members on the phone, after an expected dividend simply did not happen. (MAPIX.) That was a handful of years ago, now. In answer to my question, he READ a PREPARED statement. I'm sure I was not the first one to call and inquire about WTF happened.... I thought (and I SAID to him:) "Why would you READ to me from a script? It sounds like you're reading to me from a script." And he answered: "Yes, I AM reading to you from a script." And I said: "why don't you just talk to me like a human being?" THAT'S when he got angry, and told me I could sell my shares if I wanted to do it. I did.

***Ding!
Years ago, I was a shareholder. I got out long before the whole operation, as it were, went so far south, so fast.

Yes, I did the same. Have you read the Morningstar report by William Samuel Rocco on Cooper's hire? It's terribly un-insightful for a supposed experienced fund analyst. He misses everything we've discussed in this thread, the really important stuff between the lines.

Sorry. Getting very far afield, here. The early years were a muddled mess for the infant new country. Lots of veterans just plain got SCREWED:
"...In 1797, Knox's claim was upheld. Martin's 100-acre farm was valued by three commissioners: one appointed by the settlers, one by the Proprietors and the third by the first two. Martin's was appraised for the sum of $170, payable over six years in three installments either in cash or in farm products. He could not raise the money and begged Knox to allow him to keep the land. There is no evidence that Knox even acknowledged his plaintive letters and appeared to let him remain on the land. Plumb Martin farmed only eight(8) acres of the original 100 he opted for. Knox died in 1806, never demanding payment from Plumb Martin. By 1811, his farmland was cut by half, and by 1818, when he appeared in the Massachusetts General Court with other Revolutionary War veterans to claim a war pension, he owned nothing.[7]
In 1818, Martin's war pension was approved and he received $96 a year for the rest of his life.[6] Still, other war veterans were fighting for what they were properly owed and, in an effort to further the cause of the veterans, Martin published his memoirs anonymously in 1830. It was not considered a success and mainly fell to the wayside, apparently lost to history.
In 1836, a platoon of United States Light Infantry was marching through Prospect and discovered that Plumb Martin resided there. The platoon stopped outside of his house and fired a salute in honor of the Revolutionary War Hero.
*** So, not only did he fight and win, but afterwards, the Sec. of War first attempted to evict him, but then tacitly relented. "Thanks a lot, that's awfully white of you!"
After all he had been through, JP Martin's gravestone simply states: "A Solder of the Revolution." (Stockton Springs, Maine.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Plumb_Martin

Hmmmmmm...... Through thick and thicker for all these years, Robert Horrocks remains. Is something he's doing driving everyone away?

Where there's smoke, there's usually fire. It is odd, especially since performance of nearly all their funds has really deteriorated.
It does smell a bit of entrenched management.

***Ding!
Years ago, I was a shareholder. I got out long before the whole operation, as it were, went so far south, so fast.

@mcq, I have the SEC Form N-1A link bookmarked and the same link has been working for YEARS. The Form just keeps getting revised and updated. I didn't bother to save paper copies of the older versions. May be the SEC can provide older versions on request.
There are Laws/Acts and then the regulatory agencies are charged with preparing the implementation materials. I think that this Form falls in that category. There is lots of stuff in there now that didn't even exist at the time of the ICA 1940 but funds just follow whatever the Form requires now.

That was very helpful, yogibearbull (gives new meaning to the phrase "regulatory burden"). It makes clear that at present, a comparison of fund performance to a broad-based index is an SEC requirement. I wasn't sure.
But this version of the form mentions exchange traded funds, hence, can't be too old. Do you happen to know whether an agency like the SEC would keep a trailing history of the text of prior versions of a key form like N-1A? Or would those be buried in some paper archive, like pre-1994 EDGAR submissions, and only apparent by unearthing an old 1950 filing for some fund?

Funds follow the current SEC Form N-1A that has been revised over the years. This Form includes what the SEC thinks should be included by the funds now and probably doesn't include anything that would violate/contradict the letter or spirit of the ICA 1940.
https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formn-1a.pdf

Hmmmmmm...... Through thick and thicker for all these years, Robert Horrocks remains. Is something he's doing driving everyone away?

Where there's smoke, there's usually fire. It is odd, especially since performance of nearly all their funds has really deteriorated.
It does smell a bit of entrenched management.

Funds follow the current SEC Form N-1A that has been revised over the years. This Form includes what the SEC thinks should be included by the funds now and probably doesn't include anything that would violate/contradict the letter or spirit of the ICA 1940.
https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formn-1a.pdf

He left out the 5th, or first one, which occurred toward the end of the War of 1812. Lenders in New England were issued short term bills toward the end of the war. It was not possible to redeem them at the time the war ended, and for some years thereafter; there was nothing in the till (the notes had to be paid in gold and there wasn't any).
IIRC, the notes weren't paid until 1820 or so, and by awarding shares in the newly formed 2nd Bank of the US, not gold.
History buffs can read the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury for those years; look on FRASER or hathitrust.org

Given the fact that money managers have long invested in and celebrated companies that increased their profit margins by replacing human workers with machines, should we feel sorry for the same managers who are now being replaced? Or should we see it as poetic justice? I have long called the index fund a profit extraction machine.
Also, it is not simply the machines’ doing that is causing the problems here. I would say I learned about 20 years ago that the typical non-hedge fund manager charged institutional retirement plans about 0.40% to run private institutional accounts. The institutions had negotiating leverage regarding fees, yet managers could still be profitable at 0.40%. Yet they still charge routinely double that today for retail investors. Much as these same managers often complain about unionized labor having wages that are too high and say that’s why jobs are being outsourced overseas, retail investors are sick of paying 0.80% or more for what should really cost 0.40%. So they’re outsourcing the overpaid managers’ jobs to machines. Again, poetic justice.
If managers want to beat the machines in a highly competitive somewhat efficient market, they either need to charge less so the hurdle to win is lower or take large risks and charge the same exorbitant fees they always have and hope for the best. Either way, it’s still other people’s money they’re putting at risk.

ISTM Alternative funds occupy a bizarro corner of the investing universe. For lack of a better source, U.S. News does offer up a mixed platter of such funds. For those interested in return, checking the 5 year + return of some of these might give a clue as to what to expect over the next several years. (Better to look after a prolonged downdraft than when equity / bond markets are sky high)
I don’t dwell on what any pocket of my allocation model will return. Total return over 3-5 years is the goal. At any specific time some assets giveth and others taketh away.
One way to look at it … If inflation over the next 5 years averages 3% than a total (annual) return of 5% over that time might be good enough. But if inflation averages 10% over those 5 years, a 5% annual return would leave you standing in the dust. What will inflation be? Only The Shadow knows!

- “I’m not against alternative funds perse … But when do these winning alternative funds get mentioned? When do they come into MFO attention? - when they have already made their money. That's my point.”
- “I'm sure there are some here that are good at adding value to their returns with their buys and sells. I dare say, I've looked at past data and I am not one of them. But I keep trying.”

@MikeM - Be careful with the term “alternative fund”. Almost by definition it’s not classifiable. That’s because the word “alternative” essentially means “not something else”. However, as commonly referenced in investing “alternatives” are investments other than conventional stocks, cash or bonds. For instance, precious metals are sometimes cited as an alternative investment. So are things like art, comic books, stamps, real estate. The fund industry has jumped on the “alternative” bandwagon and concocted hundreds of variations to stock or bond funds under the banner of “alternative.” I have no problem with them applying the name alternative to whatever exotic high cost product they wish to market. I’m just saying - be careful with that term. To your point … we both lived through the madness here 10-15 years ago with MFLDX, an early alternative fund that soared as its fame and popularity rose and than nose-dived as investors fled overnight it seemed.
I like the concept of alternatives as part of a portfolio - but apply the term loosely to fit my needs. In my 45% alternative sleeve, I have: a conservative allocation fund that overweights commodities a bit (ABRZX); a style permea fund that spreads risk around among stocks, precious, metals, natural resources, bonds (PRPFX); a multi-strategy fund (BAMBX); and a long-short fund (NLSAX). The other components consist of 3 individual stocks representing distinctly different market sectors. As stocks carry no fees, their inclusion helps offset the higher fees of the alternative funds. As you can see, I define the term “alternative” very loosely to fit my own needs.
As far as ‘high” expenses go, I hold virtually none of the most expensive asset of all - cash. With inflation at 8-10% annually, cash is a guaranteed looser. Total allocation to all types of income oriented investments is 20% at present. Most is in DODLX and PRIHX. A smaller sum in GNMA etf. Only a trace resides in money market funds or bank accounts. So my use of alternatives is a way of maintaining some level of portfolio stability as needed at my age without carrying much cash.
-
I dunno about why folks buy and sell a lot. But I’d guess the results vary depending on what gets bought or sold and when. Markets have been ugly. If you can grab off a quick 1K or so playing Cathie’s musical chairs or taking some other gambit and than reinvest that $$ back into your regular portfolio, why not so indulge? :) Especially beneficial if the winnings are inside a Roth.
With me the spec money ranges between 5-10% … play money really. Right now it’s committed to a couple inverse funds as a hedge against some really nasty rainy day - an insurance policy. And there’s a bit in GLTR - for mostly the same reason. Than, there’s my predilection to lay more money on the table when stocks appear cheaper and than pull it back off after they rebound. Might be what you’re seeing in other individuals as well.
Glad you like your Schwab Robo Advisor Mike! Has to be far better than many of the “low risk” conservative funds nowadays. (Check out AOK)

Hmmmmmm...... Through thick and thicker for all these years, Robert Horrocks remains. Is something he's doing driving everyone away?

Good question. He is still the CIO.