I have no idea how to make geographical sector bets so personally I wouldn't use any non-diversified EM fund myself, especially as a buy and hold fund.

Yeah, That’s a tough nut to crack. I have a little diversified EM at Dodge & Cox. Blind faith I guess in their stewardship. And a very small hold in ENOR (Norway) which is actually in my Real Assets sleeve due to its economy’s heavy dependence on energy exports. Neither of the aforementioned funds, however, is “shooting the lights out.” In fact I’d liken it more to shooting myself in the foot.
As far as going “off the reservation” is concerned with non diversified EMs, I always think back to hearing Sir John Templeton remark that it’s very rare for any country’s market to fall more than 50% and stay down that far for long. (In specific he was addressing a rout in the Asian EMs back than.) In that day Sir John would have found an economy down that far a lucrative investment target. However, a lot has changed in the 25-35 years since he made that remark. May not hold water today.
Kudos to @Crash for sticking to his guns.
Great insights from @LewisBraham. Much appreciated.

@Crash SFGIX has done really well lately, beating 92% of its peers in the last three years. Still, that is a relative game. Emerging markets in general can be a stressful game for investors who can’t stomach volatility. I feel similarly about these Vulcan funds. They are concentrated and that courts volatility and idiosyncratic stock selection risk, so when the manager makes a mistake, it’s painful. But acknowledging that mistake and seeking to avoid a similar one in the future is essential. It’s a stark comparison to me between this response and others I’ve seen where the manager refuses to acknowledge any problems or change anything. The ARK ETF comes to mind. Still, those who can’t take volatility should generally steer clear of concentrated funds. This is especially so in the small-cap arena where idiosyncratic stock risk is the greatest. The long-term returns may prove great, but when the fund is down 40% one year and the markets are down 20%, psychologically many investors can’t handle it and will sell at the bottom.

EFCU Financial, out of Baton Rouge. 3.75% for 5 years. (Scroll down the page.) For a "jumbo," you can get 3.85%. That's a $100,000.00 minimum.
https://www.investopedia.com/best-5-year-cd-rates-4801473
https://www.efcufinancial.org/media/201852/august-2022-rate-sheet.pdf
I did not look to see about membership eligibility.

@Baseball_Fan : I checked average 5 year cd's issued .from January 2019. 1.4 -1.5 %
Your total sum seems somewhat suspicious for holding it that long, 3.5 years .
If you google , average cd rate 2019, you should find a chart.
I'll also admit it seems to me I bought a cd @ 3 % around 1/st qter 2018.
One other thought. Maybe that's the value going forth, if you sell, after your interest payment to you?
Have a good one, Derf

Good afternoon All,
Serious question here as I feel I should but do not know the answer.
CDs.
When I buy them thru a bank, let's say for example sake, $100k, 3% APY, I see $103000 a year later in my account.
How does that work for CDs that you buy thru Schwab. When I look at the value, it makes no sense to me what the value and gain/loss is. For instance I opened a 3.55% brokered CD thru Schwab 3.5 years ago with $90k and it states the value is ~$90,492. No way that can be correct right? I called and their rep could not explain it. Does it all "true up" at the end of the CD term?
I hope this question makes sense.
Best,
Baseball Fan

At the time, interest rates were near zero, tech companies were expanding, and Americans had extra cash thanks to stimulus checks from the federal government.

Two years later it is quite the opposite now with rising interest rate and that put considerable pressure on tech stocks.
Traditional brokerages such as Fidelity and Schwab provide 99% of my financial needs. Don’t see much value in Robinhood.

@davidrmoran, thanks, I missed that. Kitces' tweet was on 7/31/22. I also checked Kitces' Twitter feed and the tweet dated 7/31/22 is there too. Unclear why he recycled 5 yr old stuff.
https://twitter.com/MichaelKitces/status/1553821828153577475
In building the OP, I captured the link to the "image" and also to the more detailed referenced "article" that I thought would be more useful. I didn't provide the link to tweet itself (above). But I see now that the article and chart are from 5 years ago. I also see that you have posted a comment on that article's feed (below) TODAY and let us see if there is a response,
https://www.kitces.com/blog/safe-withdrawal-rate-calculator-software-big-picture-timeline-app-reviews/#comment-5935337942
May be you can engage him on Twitter if you are there.

As one digs a little, it just keeps getting better.
It seems that the 10% performance fee used to be 11%:
https://prdistribution.com/news/tbo-capital-announces-reduction-of-performance-fees-for-all-balances-2.html
The application form lets you send in money and lets you make daily withdrawals. That's an open end fund. But the Terms and Conditions page says that this is a "closed ended [sic] mutual fund".
How many decades of industry experience does it take to differentiate between an open end fund and a closed "ended" fund?
The page goes on to say that "It offers monthly dividends to investors instead of growth option i.e. increase in NAV (share) price."
This begs the question: is it selling shares of its underlying holdings every month and distributing proceeds to keep its NAV from growing?
I think I'll stop now. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. I'll leave with a couple of questions based on this excerpt:

Outperformed 95% of peers over the last six years with less risk.
...
Long-tenured advisors of three PhDs and one MD in internal medicine

What are the 5% of health care fund peers who have made more than 50% annualized over the last six years? Or is this "outperforming 95% of peers" just a made up figure to make it seems that the 50% returns reported are not equally fictitious?
M* premium screener returns no funds of any type with 50% returns over the past five years.
Stringing together the best performing health care fund in each of the last six calendar years, e.g. FSMEX (8.68% in 2016), ETIHX (45.83% in 2017) and so on, one achieves only a 36% annualized return. All actual health care funds returned less than my cherry-picked combo.
Who are the PhDs and MD? TBO Capital names only four principals, and none of them hold any sort of doctorate degree according to their Linked In profiles.

Unexpected large mutual fund year end distribution is where it get sticky.
True enough. Though Uncle Sam doesn't require you to pay taxes on money earned faster than you make it. If you have large YE distributions, Uncle Sam is fine with your paying more in the fourth quarter. You "just" have to document your uneven income in Schedule AI of Form 2210.
Over the past several years with cash paying nothing it hasn't been worth it to hold onto that extra money for a quarter or two, and sending it in with the fourth quarter estimate. But now with MMFs paying real interest, it may be worth a second look at paying in estimates as necessary rather than evenly.

Re the Fed statement and policy …
Fascinating interview in this week’s Barron’s with veteran money manager Richard Bernstein. Didn’t care much for him when he made a few appearances on the old Wall Street Week with Rukeyser show near the end of Lou’s long run. But seems sharper / more introspective now.
“The Fed is so far behind inflation that I believe that maybe we just don't land. Maybe we'll slow the real economy, but not the nominal economy.”
Bernstein feels the Fed’s target rate is 5 or 6% behind what’s needed to curb inflation. By “not landing”, he means the economy slows for a while, dampening inflation temporarily, but not halting the upward spiral in the years ahead. Dunno. But ISTM Bernstein’s take is right in line with numerous other Wall Street veteran observers including Larry Summers (This week’s Bloomberg Wall Street Week) and Randal Forsyth’s sources (voiced in his Up & Down Wall Street column in the same issue of Barron’s) A pattern of thought emerging on this point whether correct or incorrect.

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.