Drill baby drill will definitely be a theme for the incoming administration. Any suggestions on how best to capitalize on that?

Fill up the tank and go for a drive?
Gas is under 3 bucks for the first time since we moved to the Phoenix metro eight years ago. Under the circumstances, why would they want to drill?

Exactly the point. Why don't the Saudis pump more? Why do they host summits to set limiting output figures? They're trying to keep prices up on the commodity. If the price drops, a lot of production becomes financially imprudent. Add to that, there is only so much refining capacity available; oil is of little use without refining. People have naive notions of what is helpful and what is not, and often overlook financial restraints.

Since when have mutual funds in their prospectuses felt a need to caution investors that domestic political events might result in loss of money?
”Some political leaders around the world (including in the U.S. and certain European nations) have been and may be elected on protectionist platforms, raising questions about the future of global free trade. Global trade disruption, significant introductions of trade barriers and bilateral trade frictions, together with any future downturns in the global economy resulting therefrom, could adversely affect the financial performance of the Fund and its investments.”
Principal Risks of Investing in the Fund / Geopolitical Risk
@bee / The concern noted would seem to be right down your pipe. Obviously Cohen & Steers felt a need to caution investors that politics might indeef “interfere with your investing.”
(Duly warned, I went ahead and initiated an investment in this fund today.)
@Baseball_Fan - You have in the past invested with John Hussman. Has he had any comments lately re the election outcome and how it may affect the investment landscape? Just curious if you happen to know. I don’t know if you still read Bill Fleckenstein. I continue to, despite being miles apart politically. I do learn a lot about investing from him. I mention this, because some of your wild assertions like ”you have yellen issuing multiplies of standard deviation of short term tbills to keep bond volatility and rates suppressed to allegedly get her gal elected” appear to be right out of Bill’s playbook.
(Generally, we capitalize the first letter of a proper noun. So your “yellen” is an unusual departure from standard English - whether intentional or by oversight.)

I also uncovered the fact that PIAMX is CLOSED---- though wonderful M* asserts it is open.
M* also asserts that DFA OEF funds are open. And they are. Though you need to go through a DFA-approved financial advisor. At a cost, of course.
Similarly, you can buy the PIA MACS funds through wrap accounts that are subadvised by PIA. "PIA currently participates in approximately 30 Retail Wrap-Fee Programs as a sub-adviser or under a dual contract arrangement."
https://www.morganstanley.com/content/dam/msdotcom/en/wealth/investmentsolutions/pdfs/adv/pacificincomeadv.pdf
M* doesn't say that buying shares is easy or cheap. Just that new positions can be opened.

@Crash If you were intrigued by PIAMX, you might want to investigate PHYSX. According to MFO Premium, the two funds have the same managers and very similar portfolios, although PIAMX has an expense ratio of .20% versus .86% for PHYSX.

Glad for all the inputs. I'll check out PHYSX. :)
...Surprised Institutional shares cab be had with $1k minimum.
...But Schwab lists minimum entry at $2.5k.
And there is the transaction fee. The yield is about a half percent higher than my largest junk holding. Not worth it. But "keep those cards and letters coming." ---Dean Martin.

Portfolio Visualizer shows the two funds very much in sync, though there is a distinct drop in correlation (still at the 99%+ level) in the first half of 2023. It's as if one fund dropped a particular holding or swapped one out for another.
PV also shows that the two funds' returns over the lifetime of PIAMX (the shorter-lived fund) differ by 0.66%, exactly the difference in the funds' ERs. Though PHYSX is slightly more volatile and has a worse max drawdown.
PHYSX is available NTF with a $100 min at Firstrade. At least that's what it says on my trade entry page (I've a closed account so I can't enter a test trade).

Sorry! Try TRTY
Link to this fund
This is a unique fund from what M* would call a small ”niche” etf provider. Not for everyone or for growth oriented investors. At a bit over $1 Mil $100 Mil AUM, it is one of Cambrea’s larger funds. And please read my earlier cautionary notes.
Since I raised the stewardship issue prior, it seems fitting here to quote the essence of Morningstar’s primary criticism in that regard directly from Morningstar:
”Cambria added Toroso Investments as a subadvisor to its suite of ETFs in September 2023. Toroso quickly morphed into Tidal Investments, a subsidiary of Tidal Financial Group, following a private equity deal in November 2023. Toroso and Tidal's co-founder and CIO Michael Venuto had been an independent trustee on Cambria's three-person ETF board since 2019. Venuto abstained from voting on the Toroso hire and resigned from the board. Although Cambria's choice of subadvisor is reasonable, the decision nonetheless raises questions.”

I view prospectuses as notorious for obfuscation, aiming at ambiguity and saying as little as possible. Are there really five co-managers here? If so, then how many co-managers are there on PRWCX? Its prospectus has nearly identical wording aside from the names of the putative co-managers:

T. Rowe Price has established an Investment Advisory Committee with respect to the fund. The committee chair is ultimately responsible for the day-to-day management of the fund’s portfolio and works with the committee in developing and executing the fund’s investment program. The members of the committee are as follows: David R. Giroux, chair, Paul Cho, Donald J. Easley, Matthew Frustaci, Steven D. Krichbaum, Kevin Patrick Loome, Simon Paterson, Sal Rais, Vivek Rajeswaran, Farris G. Shuggi, Mike Signore, Brian Solomon, Matthew Stevenson, Chen Tian, Jon Davis Wood, and Ashley R. Woodruff.

https://prospectus-express.broadridge.com/summary.asp?doctype=pros&clientid=trowepll&fundid=77954M105
In contrast, Giroux and Shuggi are listed as equal co-managers of PRCFX in the Management section of the prospectus. Later, in the "More About the Fund" section, one finds the committee verbiage:

T. Rowe Price has established an Investment Advisory Committee with respect to the fund. The committee cochairs are ultimately responsible for the day-to-day management of the fund’s portfolio and work with the committee in developing and executing the fund’s investment program. The members of the committee are as follows: David R. Giroux and Farris G. Shuggi, cochairs, Paul Cho, Gregg Gola, Kevin Klassen, Steven D. Krichbaum, Chase Lancaster, Amanda Ludwitzke, Jordan M. McKinnie, Justin Eric Olsen, Vivek Rajeswaran, Nikhil Shah, Mike Signore, Latika Signorelli, Brian Solomon, Matthew Stevenson, Chen Tian, Tamara P. Wiggs, and Jon Davis Wood.

https://prospectus-express.broadridge.com/summary.asp?doctype=pros&clientid=trowepll&fundid=77954M402
If PRCFX has but two day-to-day managers, and if Giroux is the manager of PRWCX, then Giroux is also the sole manager of this new ETF. Conversely, if this ETF has five managers, then PRWCX has 16 and PRCFX has 19 (if I've counted correctly).
As to AUM, M* reports Giroux manages ten funds, including variable annuity portfolios. PRCFX is the only one where there is a co-chair listed. He is sole manager (depending on how one defines "manager") of the other nine funds. Total AUM is just under $100B, per M* and Financial Times current data.
Capital Appreciation Premium Income ETF is different from the existing funds, at least if one can glean anything from prospectus tea leaves. Its objective is "to provide regular distributions while aiming for capital preservation with potential for capital appreciation." Most of Giroux' funds' objectives are capital appreciation (or capital growth) only.
Arguably Penn Mutual's Flexibly Managed Fund comes closer to this ETF with its objective "to seek to maximize total return (capital appreciation and income)." But investing for total return is not the same as investing for income.
Further, only Capital Appreciation Premium Income explicitly calls out stock dividends as a component of its investment strategy. "Specifically, the fund seeks to provide regular distributions that may consist of dividends and cash from the covered call option premiums." This sounds more like an equity-income fund with a covered call overlay than a typical Giroux fund.
Still, Flexibly Managed Fund is permitted "to a limited extent" to write covered calls "primarily in an effort to protect against downside risk or to generate additional income"
Then again, it's all tea leaves and slideware at this point.

FOMC Statement, 11/7/24
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20241107a.htm
Video - Powell's presser starts at 59:00

Notes by YBB
Rates were cut 25 bps - fed funds 4.50-4.75%, bank reserves rate 4.65%, discount rate 4.75%. Treasury QT continues at the reduced level of -$25 billion/mo, but MBS QT remains at -$35 billion/mo.
Rates are on a declining path to a lower but unknown "neutral" rate, but rate cuts cannot be projected beyond that, nor could rate increases be ruled out. The current rates are restrictive - the labor market has cooled down, but inflation remains problematic when looking at 3m, 6m, 12m PCE changes (i.e. don't just focus on 12m changes). There are catchups in prices in housing services, insurance premiums, some wages, etc, so those are affecting some inflation readings. The Fed wants to avoid stagflation (slow growth, high inflation, high unemployment); it will also not persistently undershoot its +2% average inflation target.
Higher bond and mortgage yields after the last Fed rate cut may be due to strong economy and/or investors' concerns about high annual deficits and total debt. He said that those may be manageable now, but their rising trend is unsustainable.
The US economy is in a good shape now. But many people are not happy with their financial situations. It may take some time to adjust to higher prices and to realize that lower inflation doesn't mean lower prices.
Powell didn't want to comment on elections. But he said that elections don't affect the Fed policy in the near-term. The administration and congressional policies may affect Fed's actions in the long-term. The Fed has a large economic model and many inputs go into it including fiscal and tax policies. He said that he won't resign if asked and said further that any such efforts would not be permitted under the law. He also declined to address the issue of Fed independence.
Geopolitical risks remain although those haven't impacted the US economy so far.
Note - Due to a prior commitment, these notes were prepared by watching the tape of Powell's presser after the event, so they weren't posted as timely as is typical.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1683471/000089418924006631/roundhillluxxlngg497eliqui.htm
497 1 roundhillluxxlngg497eliqui.htm 497 ROUNDHILL LUXX & LNGG SUPPLEMENT
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
Registration Nos. 333-215588; 811-23226
Supplement dated November 6, 2024
to the
Roundhill S&P Global Luxury ETF (LUXX)
Roundhill Alerian LNG ETF (LNGG)
Summary Prospectus, Prospectus, and Statement of Additional Information,
each dated April 30, 2024, as supplemented
each, a series of Listed Funds Trust
After careful consideration, and at the recommendation of Roundhill Financial Inc., the investment adviser to the Roundhill S&P Global Luxury ETF and the Roundhill Alerian LNG ETF (each, a “Fund,” and collectively, the “Funds”), the Board of Trustees of Listed Funds Trust approved the closing and subsequent liquidation of the Funds pursuant to the terms of a Plan of Liquidation. Accordingly, the Funds are expected to cease operations, liquidate their assets, and distribute the liquidation proceeds to shareholders of record on or about November 29, 2024 (the “Liquidation Date”). Shares of the Funds are listed on the NYSE Arca, Inc.
Beginning on or about November 6, 2024 and continuing through the Liquidation Date, the Funds will liquidate their portfolio assets. As a result, during this period, the Funds will increase their cash holdings and deviate from their investment objectives, investment strategies, and investment policies as stated in the Funds’ Prospectuses and SAI.
The Funds will no longer accept orders for new creation units after the close of business on the business day prior to the Liquidation Date (November 27, 2024), and trading in shares of the Funds will be halted prior to market open on the Liquidation Date. Prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may only be able to sell their shares to certain broker-dealers, and there is no assurance that there will be a market for the Funds’ shares during that time period. Customary brokerage charges may apply to such transactions.
If no action is taken by a Fund shareholder prior to the Liquidation Date, each Fund will distribute to such shareholder, on or promptly after the Liquidation Date, a liquidating cash distribution equal to the net asset value of the shareholder’s applicable Fund shares as of the close of business on the Liquidation Date. This amount will include any accrued capital gains and dividends. Shareholders remaining in the Funds on the Liquidation Date will not be charged any transaction fees by the Funds. The liquidating cash distribution to shareholders will be treated as payment in exchange for their shares. The liquidation of your shares may be treated as a taxable event. Shareholders should contact their tax adviser to discuss the income tax consequences of the liquidation.
Shareholders can call (800) 617-0004 for additional information.
Please retain this supplement with your Summary Prospectus, Prospectus, and
Statement of Additional Information for future reference.

Many Thanks @catch. Everything was as expected, except real estate sector. Last go around XLE did not do that well but I did suspect the euphoria could lift those stocks today. But why no love for RE? Just the blowout in rates? I think Investors are underestimating the ability for financial engineering to prop up this Trump sector.
P.S.: I do not have any direct RE exposure except my primary residence.
My port is going to bigly underperform today because of overweight to my own HC sector bet and then HC overweight from PRWCX, MOAT, and whatever else I am not aware of.

I've used Fidelity's Rewards Visa for approximately 8 years.
I appreciate that it offers 2% cash back on all purchases so that the cardholder
doesn't have to contend with varying cash back rates in "revolving categories."

Hence my interest in looking at cards that give high flat rates when coupled with brokerages.
Flat rate cards cited above:
Fidelity: Fidelity Rewards (2%) - must redeem into Fidelity account for full val
BofA/Merrill: Unlimited Cash Rewards (1.5%, 2.625% w/$100K invested) but foreign xact fee
BofA/Merrill: Travel Rewards (1.5%, 2.625% w/$100K invested) - must redeem against travel charges
Robinhood: Robinhood Gold (3%) - $50-$60 annual fee, for full cash val must redeem w/app into RH acct
US Bank: Smartly Card (2%, 4% w/$100K invested) - $50 annual brokerage fee, foreign xact fee, for full val must redeem to bank acct
It's not hard to find cards paying 2%, but they are usually inferior in some way(s) to Fidelity. For example, Wells Fargo Active Cash (WFC, need I say more?) and Bread Financial Cash Back (Amex, not Visa/MC)
Cards paying more than 2% come with strings and/or costs, some slight some more consequential.

Financial institutions have used voice recognition technology to screen callers to varying degrees for decades. But ISTM that wasn’t always acknowledged publicly. Direct calls I make to Fido are routinely screened & cleared by voice alone (I’m confident there’s an opt-out somewhere.)
With the rapid advances in AI, this form of identity verification (along with all others) must leave “heads spinning” in the security departments. May partially help explain why more “hoops” are being thrown up. I realize this doesn’t pertain directly to @msf’s post - but thought worth adding.
Helpful discussion. I locked my Fido direct transfer option this morning. There’s a good page (if logged in) that explains what’s covered by a lock and what isn’t. For example, regularly scheduled automatic transfers are not included.
Technically, my cellular provider is called “Visible”. It’s actually a low cost subsidiary of Verizon. Very dependable. No issues. Can’t speak directly to getting an audible security code by voice call recently - though it’s worked successfully in the past. I do routinely receive robotically phoned security inquiries that require my confirming by pressing a number.

I have not had blocking issues on my cell carrier, Verizon when I do transaction with Fidelity. Unless I specify those specific phone numbers as “spam” on my phone. Lately I get phone calls from Fidelity financial consultants. Without verification of who they are, I politely decline to take their calls, and mark that number as spam. I ask them to leave a private message on Fidelity if they want to talk to me, but they fail to follow through. Oh, well…
There are times when the 2FA comes slow as text message, I ask Fidelity to call instead and it works as well. Another option is use your email address to authenticate yourself. But this is rare as mobile devices are more common today.
I think there are more security issues recently. I get the verification of not being. “bot” from my bank from my PC, as @hank pointed out. Using the bank’s App, this does not happen. Recently I was asked for my PIN # for buying gas at a new location using my credit card. Typically they ask for my zip code of my home address. I called the credit card later and was told there are more unauthorized uses are happening.

Does GMO offer any funds that incorporate Grantham’s pessimistic views? Not sure how you would do that. Maybe a long-short or equity hedged fund or something along that line.
PS - I’m not seeing a lot of Grantham in the financial press of late ….

Another possibility - multiple sources (with different sampled populations), multiple definitions.

You're killing me man. Simply murder.

I view this piece as financial porn, or more magnanimously financial popcorn - fun to munch on but ultimately just airy fluff. Enjoy it for what it's worth.

Turns out I won't be here all week. Eat whatever you like. But the chef's specials are leftovers. :)

@msf
Good points!
I realize this is "financial popcorn" but I sometimes read these articles for entertainment.
Perhaps I should pursue a different hobby? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The average IRA balance could be skewed much higher if Peter Thiel's IRA was included.
Lord of the Roths

Another possibility - multiple sources (with different sampled populations), multiple definitions.
Americans believe they need to save an average of $1.8 million for retirement,
From Charles Schwab, presumably but not necessarily Schwab customer beliefs.
The average 401(k) balance in the second quarter of 2024 was $127,100
From Fidelity - probably just the accounts that Fidelity administers. How representative is that of the working (and retired) population? Also and importantly, this is an average per account, not per person, and people may have multiple 401(k) accounts, not to mention 403(b) accounts, 457 accounts, and other employer-sponsored accounts.
68% of American workers in 2024 feel somewhat or very confident in their ability to have enough money in retirement
From EBRI - a source I consider more reliable, but I'd still have to look at their methodology to know whom they were polling and how the question was phrased.
https://www.ebri.org/docs/default-source/by-the-numbers/ebri_rsrc_facts-and-figures_011923.pdf
I view this piece as financial porn, or more magnanimously financial popcorn - fun to munch on but ultimately just airy fluff. Enjoy it for what it's worth.
Bonus: The average IRA balance, as opposed to the median retirement account balance could be skewing high thanks to IRA accounts like Mitt Romney's, which was worth $1M over a decade ago.

You are correct. In the way that matters - what buttons you press. You do just place a single order to buy a Vanguard fund with outside money. Though the verbiage I'm reading seems to suggest that under the covers Vanguard is automatically "laundering" transferred money through the settlement account. Admittedly a distinction without a difference. Just confusing.
On the webpage describing the transition from legacy to brokerage platform are descriptions of how each works. Of legacy platform purchases, it says "Money coming in from a bank or other financial institution directly purchased shares of the mutual fund."
In contrast, for brokerage platform purchases it says:

Your brokerage account comes with a settlement fund that's used to pay for investments and hold assets from investment sales and other transactions. Money from bank transfers or redemptions remains in the settlement fund until you use it to purchase investments or transfer it out of your account.

Emphasis in original. The contrast between the two descriptions (legacy and brokerage platforms) seems to be saying that all money used for transactions comes out of the settlement account, even if it sits there for only an instant ("until you use it").
I tried a test purchase in a zeroed out Vanguard account. I was informed:
You don't have enough money in your settlement fund to cover this order. Transfer additional funds from your bank to proceed with this order.
But I could still place the fund purchase order:

If you wish to use your settlement fund to pay for this order, select the amount needed to cover funding option. If you’d like to maintain your settlement fund balance, select transfer full order amount, or select fund order later.

The first option is to pay for the purchase from the settlement account. The middle option is to "transfer [the] full order amount". This is where Vanguard may be moving money into the settlement account and automatically, instantaneously applying it from there to the fund purchase.
The last option, "fund order later", refers to the ability at Vanguard to purchase securities without having enough cash presently in the account. You do have to cover the purchase by the settlement date. See other MFO thread discussing such transactions.
I think the timing in the Vanguard message below discussing that last option is wrong as settlements are now T+1.

Important, please read
This purchase exceeds the funds available balance in your account’s settlement fund. You must transfer money into your settlement fund within 2 business days. Otherwise, securities in the account may be sold to pay for the purchase, and the account may be restricted from further trading.

that's what they were saying but i think they were just covering their asses and trying not to be wrong. all they had to say is that i was in the wrong and what else could i do? well, for one thing, move my money to schwab, not that fidelity would care. it does kinda irritate me, tho. plus, i placed a call to my local fidelity rep about it and he, of course, didn't bother to return my call, no matter that over the years he's hounded me left and right about his ability to offer solid financial advice and help. i understand, tho: i'm small potatoes, not even a fingerling ... but still ...

A lot to digest, but very interesting and worth understanding.

The Federal Reserve has continued to unwind the buildup in its balance sheet. It accumulated a lot of Treasury debt and mortgage backed securities (MBS) during 4 separate rounds of quantitative easing (QE), and since early 2022 it has been letting those mature and roll off. That action is referred to as “quantitative tightening”, or QT.
QT is a bearish force on the stock market, because it takes liquidity out of the banking system. But QT has been getting mitigated by something else the Fed is doing. Starting in 2021, the Fed began accepting a whole lot of “reverse repurchase agreements” or RRPs. An RRP involves a bank borrowing Treasuries from the Fed, to make its balance sheet look better. That bank pledges some of its loan book as collateral for the borrowed Treasuries. The effect of this on the stock market is that RRPs lock up money in the banking system so that this money is not available to do things like help lift stock prices. You can read the NY Fed's description of the process at https://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/rrp_faq

source:
McClellan Financial Publications
reverse_repos_mitigate_feds_qt_campaign

From @BaluBalu linked article:

The late season strike of Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton in Florida could have caused ILS prices to return again to HARD market pricing seen in the first quarter of 2023. But like Ian in 2022, the hurricane tracks turned at the last moment to make landfall away from the most property rich part of the coast (Tampa, Clearwater, and the Tampa Bay area),” the consultancy explained. “The two hurricanes caused significant, but manageable, losses for the reinsurance market and the ILS market. Prices are at neutral levels and absent any further natural catastrophes before year end, we expect them to stay neutral or soften further for January renewals.”
and,
“As of Oct 20 the implied ILS- estimate of loss caused by the two storms was $380 Mn. Allowing for modest losses earlier in the year – perhaps due to aggregate creep and loss development and rounding up for further loss development – say to $500 Mn. for the year – it is still is below expectations. Hence prices will stick in neutral, or soften, absent new Catastrophic events,” Lane Financial concludes.

It will be interesting to see how much FL/NC policy premiums drop as a result of this good news!