at the risk of further exciting certain opportunists who are unable to invest directly in ICE, noted SEC filing forensic analyst Michelle Leder dropped a note on prison profiteer geo group.
geo has been a 'trump trade' for 2 characteristics :
1. long disdain for ESG, where Leder focuses her corp governance expertise.
2. the 'immigration' entertainment catalyst rounding up citizens and non-criminals alike, billed to taxpayers
" ...operate over a dozen prisons (they call them processing centers) under a contract with ICE. Needless to say, business is booming. When it reported second quarter results last week, revenues were up 5% to ~$640million for the quarter. Investors were not impressed, sending the stock down over 20% on the results.
In my adopted hometown of LA, you don’t have to drive too far to see brown-skinned people being rounded up at the Lowes or Home Depot. Today's LA Times had a story about a 15year-old -- the same age as my son -- being approached by ICE agents wielding guns on his way into a local school...
For many people, myself included, this represents an unprecedented attack on people who are just going about their lives. For GEO, it represents “unprecedented business opportunities”. That’s the exact language that the company has used in three separate SEC filings...
In the July 10 8-K, the company extended the contract for founder and Executive Chairman George Zoley. When Zoley transitioned from CEO to Exec Chairman 5 years ago at the age of 71, the company entered into an agreement for him to serve as Exec Chairman through July 1, 2026. Yesterday, the company extended that date to April 2, 2029, citing the “unprecedented business opportunities” as the primary reason.
...Zoley’s target bonus and target stock award will both increase to $1.5million, up from $1million previously. In the same filing, the company also increased CEO J. David Donahue’s target bonus and stock grant to 150%, again citing the “unprecedented business opportunities” [to] $1.5million. ...Donahue only took over as CEO on Jan. 1, that seems as if he’s being rewarded for luck, rather than any type of managerial skill. GEO stock rose sharply after Trump won on Nov, 5, GEO Group stock has been falling since he took office January 20.
Rewarding executives when business is booming makes a lot of sense. But what if the reason that it’s booming is due to highly questionable legal tactics and misery for all sorts of people? Much of LA has been living under a pall for the past 2 months, where people are afraid to drop their kids off at summer camp or go grocery shopping. Is that really worth a hefty reward for two executives? If nothing else, the optics behind these awards are pretty dreadful..."
linkedin.com

Always playing both ends off the middle here. We will celebrate surviving 25 years together in 2026. Married, even! A big deal expensive trip is in the offing. Stashing cash in MMkt to grow it and keep it away from the ravages of the Stock Market. Otherwise, reinvesting divvies.

@PRESSmUP,
From the VTMFX fact sheet (dated June 30, 2025):
"The fund invests approximately 50% to 55% of its assets in municipal securities
and the balance in common stocks. The fixed income portion of the fund is concentrated
in high-quality municipal securities with a dollar-weighted average maturity expected
to be between 6 and 12 years."
"The fund’s stock holdings are chosen from the stocks that pay lower dividends
within the Russell 1000 Index—an index that is made up of stocks of large- and
mid-capitalization U.S. companies. The fund uses statistical methods to 'sample'
the index, aiming to minimize taxable dividends while approximating the other
characteristics of the index."
https://institutional.vanguard.com/assets/corp/fund_communications/pdf_publish/us-products/fact-sheet/F0103.pdf
According to M*, the equity sleeve mirrors Vanguard Tax-Managed Capital Appreciation,
while the muni sleeve is similar to Vanguard Intermediate-Term Tax-Exempt.
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/vtmfx/analysis

@Hank. I am so impressed that you hung on to PRPFX for nearly 25 years. We haven’t owned anything for 25 years except our house (37 years ) and our last boat, sold recently after almost 25 years.

@hank,
Do you consider PRPFX a permanent portfolio hedge?
For example, it's LT Bonds holdings should appreciate if ST rates are cuts.
It is ranked #1 in its category YTD, 1 YR, 3 YR, & 5 YR. Impressive.

Good question @bee
Yes and no!
It’s a fund with many different types of assets which do tend to hedge themselves. Over 25 year periods if I had to own just one fund PRPFX would be the one. It’s designed to “endure” many different market cycles. But nearer term the fund is prone to multi-year periods of outperformance and underperformance. Not that you’ll loose a lot of money. You won’t. But as good as it is, I’ve seen periods when investors piled in when the fund was soaring, but became disenchanted a year or two later when it lost a bit and entered the doldrums - and they sold out. Last ones in might even have lost a little.
Will the fund effectively “hedge” the remainder of your portfolio against big losses? No. I wouldn’t think so. Owned it nearly 25 years. Sold a year ago. No longer fits my needs. Everyone here probably knows a Troy Ounce of gold has doubled in 2 years from around $1600 to $3400.
I”ve linked the chart on holdings. The fund has caught several strong winds of late. Gold has more than doubled in price over 2 years - maybe a bit longer. Silver’s hot too. The portion in the Swiss franc has benefitted from the weaker dollar this year. And the hold in “Aggressive Growth” (stocks) has benefitted from the likes of NVDA which now comprises 8% of the S&P by weight and is bigger than the entire economies of some countries (like Germany).
In the following:
Gold 20%
Silver 5%
Swiss Franc 10%
Real Estate & Nat Resources 15%
Aggressive Growth 15%
Dollar Assets (Dollar denominated bonds) 35%

@bee… thanks for raising the question of how to perceive PRPFX. Its raw performance is and has been awesome and seems greater than the sum of its parts. We owned it years ago and now again. I am guessing it’s recent out performance is due to its gold allocation. It’s not cheap and has no yield so some here would pass. I am loving it and I call it my hedge but what do I know?

IMO, Fido warning was good for a CEF that trades only about 5,000 shares/day and bid-ask spread is 9c (not that bad). Fido probably has a trigger based on low trading volume.
I haven't run into such situations a lot but I think Schwab did the same few years ago when I wanted to buy a tiny Canada-based CEF.

Are we approaching China’s model on private companies, state-run companies?
The Chip Act was passed in 2022 to encourage domestic investment on semiconductor manufacturing. Results is mixed after 3 years that shows re-sourcing manufacturing is not easy, especially with the complex supply chain involved. It will take lots of investment to turn Intel foundry around and to catch up to the leading foundries. Minor stakes, in my opinion, are too little to move the needle.

Defense sector has done well over the last couple of years, but where is it headed with upcoming Ukraine talks and the prospects for ceasefire? Any specific fund or stock buy/sell ideas?

Just found out that Bessent worked for (protege of) George Soros for many years. Surprising that has not spawned any weird conspiracy theories... yet.
His Wikipedia page is a good read.

Thank you @yogibb for the data. The full impact of tariffs has been delayed due to front-loading of imported goods. In coming months, the full effect will show up in goods price as well as higher CPI. This morning the wholesale prices was reported that rose 0.9% in July, much more than expected.
Just as a side note, we experienced in our travel this year a considerable higher cost in hotels, food, and entertainment than previous years.

I appreciate all that. I guess a good bit of it just does not apply, because (until there is a substantial change) we pay no federal income tax? Haven't, for years....

I recall Forbes' The Honor Roll.
Active Fund Strategies researched funds' subsequent performance
after inclusion on Forbes' list from 1990 through 2010 (highlighted below).
I wonder if anyone has conducted similar research for the M* list?
While the Forbes Honor Roll did produce some stellar fund selections, especially the 1996 list,
Forbes Magazine’s ability to call out top fund performance in advance,
either short-term or longterm, was not much better than that of a coin toss!
1. Over the 23 years studied, Forbes had 1,491 opportunities to demonstrate its fund selection prowess.
The annual in-category performance of its recommendations is as follows:
top quartile__2nd quartile__3rd quartile__bottom quartile
27%________ 24%________ 22%________ 27%
408_________365_________326_________392
That’s a first/worst ratio of 51/49, which, once again, has all the success of a coin flip!
2. Three years after inclusion on the list, 27% of the honorees made it to the top quartile of their category,
while 25% landed at the bottom.
A small majority (54%) finished in the top half and a large minority (46%) finished in the bottom half.
3. Five years after inclusion on the list, 27% of the honorees made it to the top quartile of their category,
while 26% landed at the bottom.
The 5-year post performance produced a dismal top half/bottom half ratio of 50/50.
PDF

"It’s time once again for our popular thrilling funds feature.
As you may recall, this is a list I generate with simple, strict screens to narrow a universe
of 15,000 fund share classes down to a short list ranging between 25 and 50.
It’s purely a screen; I don’t make any additions or subtractions."
Here are the tests:
• Expense ratio in the Morningstar Category’s cheapest quintile. (I use the prospectus adjusted expense ratio,
which includes underlying fund fees but does not include leverage and shorting costs.)
• Manager investment of more than $1 million in the fund (the top rung of the investment ranges reported in SEC filings).
• Morningstar Risk rating lower than High.
• Morningstar Medalist Rating of Bronze or higher.
• Parent Pillar rating better than Average.
• Returns greater than the fund’s category benchmark over the manager’s tenure for a minimum of five years.
In the case of allocation funds, I also used category averages because benchmarks are often pure equity
or bond, and therefore not good tests.
• Must be a share class accessible to individual investors with a minimum investment of no greater than $50,000.
• No funds of funds.
• Funds must be rated by Morningstar analysts.

https://www.morningstar.com/funds/thrilling-33

Giroux feels strongly that vast majority (not all) of Trump tariffs will be declared unconstitutional by courts. How will markets react to that if/when it happens?

Well … normally, the “smart money” would have priced that in by now. But I’m not sure there’s any smart money left. :)
I tried to pull up something re Giroux’s political leaning / party affiliation last evening. Drew a blank. “Smart managers” probably try to hide their leaning, since taking a side is a good way to alienate a substantial proportion of clients regardless of the side you favor. I know Giroux attended a conservative college in Michigan. I can say that a couple decades ago TRP had some loose ties to Democrats. Not sure now how that was expressed. And I think they drew some flack for their preference. I do remember that perhaps the best fixed income person they ever had, Mary Miller, left the firm to take a position in the Obama administration. Also, Gary Gensler’s brother was a money manager with TRP for many years. Not sure if he still is.
Thanks @DavidF for sharing DG’s thoughts on the tariffs.

giroux is probably correct on rulings but incorrect on net effect. trump has many paths to tariffs. as long as the gop support grift without repercussions, one should assume delays and rulings will ensure stays for the remaining 4 years.
there is also no sign that the current congress, nor a future gerrymandered one, will uphold their mandate for legislated tariff responsibility.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/in-house-counsel/here-are-trumps-options-if-tariffs-ruled-unlawful-quicktake

Just looking at a few other funds in PRWCX’s league - perhaps not as good:
From M* 15 year average annual return:
PRWCX 11.96%
GLFOX 10.98%
DODBX 10.24%
10 years
PRWCX 10.86%
GLFOX 9.30%
DODBX 8.76%
5 years
PRWCX 10.94%
DODBX 10.71%
CPLSX 10.42%
GLFOX 10.24%
I’ve owned all 4 over the years. CPLSX, the only one I currently hold, is 9 years old. Surprising, has held its own among this distinguished crowd over that time. It’s a long/short fund with a substantially higher cost. Perhaps a safer bet for us ”late middle-aged” folks. Inception April 2016 / 8% average annual return since.

@yogibearbull
The alleged die-off of alternative funds in the '10s could be evidence of healthy 'wheat from chaff' separation typical of any newly emerging category. Chart in the article ends at 2020, which leaves me wondering whether the improved quality of the offerings and better understanding of the market has led to more encouraging statistics over the most recent 5-year timeframe.
Here is some evidence.
The Globe and Mail: Alternative funds see big jump in flows in first half of 2025 (08-06-25) [paywall]
"Ian Tam, director of investment research for Canada at Morningstar Inc., says almost $9-billion flowed into liquid alternative mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in the first half of 2025. A whopping $6.1-billion was invested in the first quarter of the year alone – more than double the inflows of any previous quarter since liquid alts came to market in 2019.
"Alternative funds accounted for 26 per cent of mutual fund sales in the first half of the year, Mr. Bragg says, while liquid alt ETFs made up about 4 per cent of total ETF sales in the first half.
"Performance has been relatively steady across the range of liquid alternative asset funds, which includes alternative credit and equity, market neutral, multi-strategy, and private debt and equity. The average one-year return is 7.4 per cent, the three-year average is 8.1 per cent, and the five-year average is 6.7 per cent, according to data from Morningstar.
"Alternative investments have changed with the times, Mr. Johnston says. They used to mean investing your money for years with no liquidity options, no interim cash flow, and no secondary market, which doesn’t work for the average retail investor, he says.
Now, funds have lower investment minimums, shorter holding periods, liquidity options and a secondary market."

It doesn't have to be big numbers, a 3.1% core inflation for years can be very bad. Just as 2.7% headline can be bad over the long run. Especially cumulatively, on top of the last inflation shock. We WILL get lower rates, and that will add to the inflation as well. Companies are going to slowly roll out price increases, like boiling a frog.
Also, as mentioned in my other post, institutional money and the FED are watching "supercore" CPI - minus food, energy and housing. It is presently a little over 3.2%.

Interesting comments & additional materials. Thanks all!
Inflation: We all know what it is. We can see it in the prices of things we buy. But how do you measure / quantify it accurately? Is that even possible?
Life in the 1800s was a lot different than in the current century.
Transportation : Horse & buggy / In1869 you might have traveled coast to coast by rail.
Medical care: The country doctor who visited your home.
Food: A lot of it home grown
Entertainment: Reading by oil lamp at night. Late in the century you might have purchased an Edison “victrola” (hand-cranked) and have listened to some scratchy sounding tunes. In 1880 the first motion picture arrived.
1900 - There were a few cars now (electric mostly). In 1908 you might have been fortunate to own a Model T Ford. In 1914 the first commercial flight took place (Tampa / St. Petersburg). In 1920 United Airlines began service. Electricity in homes became a popular “must have”. It became common in urban homes in the 1930s. Rural areas lagged. Under FDR a program to install electricity in 85% of homes was completed in 1945. Autos became popular. The interstate highway system initiated under Eisenhower was built in the 1950s. Entertainment: (Commercial) AM radio first aired in 1920. WNBT NYC began broadcasting images (via television) in 1941.
2000s - What a leap in standard of living just a couple hundred years! Today - Fiber optic and satellite based broadband. The advent of commercial space tourism. Self-driving / nearly self-driving autos. Virtual reality. Computers in our pockets. 24-hour always connected (always “breaking”) news.
The problem: How can you compute a meaningful “cost of living” tracker when what constitutes “living” itself is in such a constant state of flux?
People always needed to eat. That hasn’t changed much. You can compare the price for a pound of your favorite steak in 1800 with today I suppose. Supermarkets didn’t exist then. 60% of us lived and worked on farms. Was a pound of top-sirloin the same in 1800 as now? (flavor, freshness, packaging, availability?). A gallon of oil in 1800 oddly enough cost about $2.00. Don’t panic, however, as you’d be most likely to use only a little to light your evening lamp.
Home heating costs? Most homes in 1800 were heated by wood burning stoves or fireplaces. How to get a meaningful “home heating” inflation figure here when the process entailed daily back-breaking work splitting & carrying logs? Move on to 1900 when homes were largely heated by coal burning stoves or fireplaces. How to determine the “inflation factor”? Today’s N/G or electric systems are so much cleaner, easier to operate and more reliable.
How about the cost of air travel? Is a “tourist class” seat on AA or United the same product today that it was 40-50 years ago (I say not.) Do the CPI calculations take that into consideration? Do the figures even attempt to factor in things like number of connecting flights or frequency & length of delays? OTOH: One might argue that the same flight today at a higher (much smoother) altitude in a faster plane, over a shorter time is indeed “more product” then aboard a much louder slower moving flight on a twin-prop plane 50+ years ago. Are variances like that factored into COLA?
Cars? There is no resemblance really. How do you figure out how much car prices have “inflated” from an era (early 1900s) when you stood outside and hand-cranked the engine for a start to today’s product? Is it fair to incorporate things like air bags, A/C, run-flat tires, better lighting, automatic lane-keeping into the price and thereby determine cars haven’t really gotten “more expensive” because you’re just buying “more car” for the added price? It’s quality adjustments like these which BLS numbers attempt to factor-in that cause those published inflation rates to “bite” less than what we as individuals feel in our pockets,
Maybe that’s the reason gold holds the allure for some. It is possible to compare its price over the centuries.