FDIC and SIPC coverages are quite different.
Federal FDIC related to banks and nonprofit SIPC relates to brokerages.
Confusion arises for brokerage cash, money-market funds, brokered CDs.
To begin with, consider brokerage firm A and financial product B (cash, market fund, CD). Then, the SIPC coverage is at the brokerage firm level (for fraud, failure; total $500K including $250K for brokerage cash) while the FDIC coverage is at product-CD level ($250K).
Case 1 - Firm A is fine, but product-CD fails. The FDIC coverage kicks in (if the issuing bank is covered by FDIC). The SIPC is not involved.
Case 2 - Firm A is fine, but product-money-market fund fails. The SIPC coverage doesn't kick in; the FDIC has no business in this. There has been only one major money-market fund failure - Reserve Primary Fund. Much of the money was recovered after being frozen for several years. That situation was not covered by the SIPC or FDIC. More realistic risks of money-market funds today are not failures, but gates and/or redemption fees (least likely for government money-market funds) but those situations are also not covered by the SIPC or FDIC.
Case 3 - Firm A fails, CD is fine. The FDIC isn't involved. The SIPC coverage kicks in for securities and brokerage cash. The SIPC coverage of $500K would be for the total account value (net equity for margin account) including $250K for brokerage cash.
Case 4 - Firm fails, CD fails, money-market fund fails. A total disaster, may be an economic collapse. In that unlikely and absurd case, the SIPC will cover $500K and the FDIC $250K, for a combined total of $750K, more if the brokerage firm has excess insurance coverage beyond SIPC (most major brokerages do).
Securities are stocks, bonds, money-market funds, Treasuries, CDs, options; excluded are futures, warrants. While we may think of money-market funds as cash equivalents, for the SIPC, they are classified as securities. It goes without saying that there is no FDIC or SIPC coverage for the money-market fund itself, and the SIPC coverage will kick in for the total brokerage account only if the brokerage firm fails.
Brokerage cash is the cash held from securities sales or that waiting only to be deployed for purchases of securities (and for no other purpose). When in 2018, Robinhood foolishly launched an interest-bearing checking account with SIPC coverage, the SIPC rejected that notion immediately and publicly - because that Robinhood money wasn't really waiting to be deployed for security purchases only. Robinhood mistakenly thought that it could stretch the definition of brokerage cash into an interest bearing product (i.e. a banking product without really saying so). The SIPC wasn't amused, nor was the FDIC. An embarrassed Robinhood withdrew that product, and a couple of years later, relaunched a cash management product in partnership with banks with FDIC coverages.
In conclusion, Vanguard Cash Plus savings is a FDIC insured banking product that allows ACH withdrawals (for money transfers to brokerages/banks or bill pay) but there won't be any credit/debit card associated with it at this time. If your brokerage account is linked to an online savings account now, then VG Cash Plus can be a better alternative.

"The 2% target is not realistic today."
My guess is final range of 3-4.5%. That would allow Fed nice range of "dry powder" to decrease rates if necessary to offset future financial problems. What the Fed says and what it really thinks may be two slightly different things. I doubt that Bernanke's demonstration of Fed weaponry will be forgotten any time soon.

There's also a difference between any current rate during a hiking cycle and the rate that will result after the hikes have worked their way through the economy, which can take many months. So they've got the fallback of "yeah, it's down only to 4% now, but we're confident that once all our work is reflected in the system, it'll be more like 2%."
And if they actually did wait to stop until year-over-year was at 2%, the biggest risk would be a truly awful, long recession rather than a shorter, shallower one.

Your guess on the inflation range is very reasonable. Except for Bullard (hawkish guy), a number of Fed members want to take a more gradual rate hike, i.e. 50 bps in December, and perhaps several 25 bps hikes in first half of 2023. I think US is entering a recession late this year. Hopefully the people are in better financial situation and with debt comparing to 2008. By then I hope the Fed can start to cut the rate again.
Also the Fed has stop buying bonds (quantitative tightening) and may sell the bonds on the book. How would this would impact the bond market?

"the stock with no comparable competitors for semiconductor manufacturing"
Yes, thanks to a non-financial article several years ago in The Economist.
So I said to myself... cutting edge technology, world is going to need this stuff for quite a while, company safely located in Netherlands, restrictions on selling to China, wide competitive moat... hey, why not?

"The 2% target is not realistic today."
My guess is final range of 3-4.5%. That would allow Fed nice range of "dry powder" to decrease rates if necessary to offset future financial problems. What the Fed says and what it really thinks may be two slightly different things. I doubt that Bernanke's demonstration of Fed weaponry will be forgotten any time soon.

@Crash

Uncle Josh speaks truth.

Not really here:

No amount of due diligence in the financial services industry can prevent a person or organization from going rogue. You can vet the leadership, you can analyze the balance sheet, you can background-check, you can ask for references, you can obtain signed pieces of paper, you can demand third-party custody, you can vigilantly check in on the website and analyze activity logs, you can do all of these things – but if someone decides to commit a crime, the end result is going to be the same until that crime is revealed. No matter what regulations are in place, we are always – all of us – subject to this risk.

This part strikes me as utter nonsense with the usual line about regulation and laws being meaningless. And I think due diligence absolutely matters. There were people who did the work on Madoff and Theranos and avoided them like the plague. Greed, laziness because of greed, inadequate regulation and a lack of due diligence seem evident all around.

Not sure these are good ideas
I am also not CPA NOR tax expert
What about creating LLC and defined benefits distribution (if you have small business only family memebers up maxinum tax deferred ~ 250k per yr for husband and 250k for wifey) then roll over to this acct.... Don't really need to sale since may expect rebounds in 12-36 months.
If you don't need these monies then Hold until 64.5 yo. My old advisor from Edward Jones told me to roll it to retirement acct and control your yearly Rmd Outputs once 64.5 yo, take only what you need for living and travel (If you don't need monies then leave it until 64.5 yo) ... Everything is probably paperloss for now if you don't sale. Tax expected very little this year because most portfolio are 20-40% down (unless you are Michael Burry and gained so much this yr w short term trading)
Other options maybe Give to kiddos family think max life time gifts 11 millions limited tax paid but need filed by cpa (know Irs loopholes) but maybe lots headaches + hefty fees
Pls consult w tax advisor and financial advisor before taking actions and play w turbo tax first before choosing wisely.

Doesn't look like it's available to retail folks at Schwab, even with the 500K minimum: https://www.troweprice.com/financial-intermediary/us/en/investments/mutual-funds/us-products/capital-appreciation-fund/i-class.html

I haven't seen many references to Charlie Bilello here.
He analyzes various economic/financial charts in "The Week in Charts" blog.
I've found Mr. Bilello's commentary to be very informative.
There is also a YouTube channel where corresponding videos are posted.
Blog
Video

Nov 12th Episode

As the markets fluctuate around us, how much should investors change?
This week’s guest has his own historical perspective on that question because he has lived through a momentous evolution in the markets. He is Charles Ellis, whose storied career started on Wall Street in 1963 after graduating from the Harvard Business School. He was a skeptical analyst during the go-go years of the 60s and founded Greenwich Associates, the top Wall Street consulting firm to major investment firms, institutions, and governments.
He was an influential board member of Yale’s endowment advising its legendary head, David Swensen. He’s taught advanced investment courses at both Yale and Harvard. And he has authored 20 investment books, including the classic, Winning the Loser’s Game, now in its 8th edition, and the recently published Figuring It Out: Sixty Years of Answering Investors’ Most Important Questions, which we will discuss in this week’s exclusive TV interview.
In the first of a two-part interview, Ellis will discuss the most significant changes that have occurred in the markets and what they mean for investors.

Yes, the PK column today was very interesting. I really like his perspective on things financial. For some reason David's link won't work for me, but I subscribe to PK's column by email, so I'd already read it.

FYI, Nova on PBS had an episode on cryptocurrency this week. I haven’t watched it yet but to view it on streaming. One of my core financial practices is to stay away from investments I don’t understand and I’m clueless about crypto.

Crypto as a currency is mostly nonsense. Crypto as a means to power blockchain has some legs.
The simplest way to think of crypto is that it is a protocol to power a decentralized web (aka web3) Whether a decentralized web will take off is unknown, so my comment here is technical not investment related.
Protocols such as TCP, HTTP, etc.. that power the current internet as we know it yielded no financial benefit for the protocol creators but other firms made obscene money (Google, Amazon, FB, etc..). With crypto a basic idea is that the investors in the protocol should also make dough. Lot more to it of course, I am keeping it simple here.

@sma3 This seems to be the explanation FARIX provided in its regulatory documents:
https://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1261788/000114554922056117/ncen-fulcrum.h
Is that what you received? I am not very familiar with this fund, but it is a statement from the fund's accountants, BBD, LLP:

As of June 30, 2022, we noted that controls over the Fund’s valuation of forward exchange contracts were not operating effectively and as a result the fair value of one contract was incorrect resulting in a material misstatement of the Fund’s net assets. Management of the Fund has reviewed the processes and controls that gave rise to the deficiency, and as a result, has implemented changes that management believes will allow for the prevention and/or timely detection of similar deficiencies on a prospective basis. These conditions were considered in determining the nature, timing, and extent of the procedures performed in our audit of the financial statements of the Fund as of and for the year ended June 30, 2022, and this report does not affect our report thereon dated September 1, 2022.

I do think this is a different situation from the one I'm describing from the sound of it, although the period the misstatement occurred was a volatile one.

Notes from above & Fed Chair Powell’s Press Conference
Fed fund rate hike by +75 bps to 3.75-4.00%. Bank reserves interest rate 3.9%. Primary credit rate 4%. More hikes are coming until the Fed sees slowdown in economic activity from the financial conditions tightening (but there is no numerical targe for a terminal rate). Inflation-expectations have stopped going up. The Fed watches core PCE and 3mo-18mo yield spread (media watches a variety of yield spreads). Over-tightening is preferable to under-tightening (or a premature pause); reason is that it is easier to fix over-tightening.
QT continues at -$95 billion/mo (-$60 billion/mo for Treasuries, -35 billion/mo for MBS).
Labor and job markets, and wage growth remain very strong. Consumer spending is robust. Housing is regional but isn't hot anymore.
The Fed is aware of global concerns and regularly consults with other central bankers. But the Fed focus is on the US.
US soft-landing is still possible but is becoming less likely due to persistence of inflation.
Impacts of fiscal spending are mixed.
Ethics issues at the Fed are being addressed with stronger disclosure rules and other restrictions.
I had a dentist appointment, so this is a delayed report.
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/158/fomc-statements-6-7-weeks?page=2&scrollTo=823

Excerpts from M* article posted 10/31.
"And sometimes, autocracy risks can even render an investment’s value almost worthless overnight. Last year, the profitability of Chinese tutoring firms was placed at risk by a government order forcing all such companies to register as nonprofit organizations. Since January 2021, ADRs of TAL Education Group (TAL) have lost 93.9% of their value, while those of New Oriental Education & Technology Group (EDU) are down 86.7%."
“'Increasingly, what you’ve been seeing over time is that the government of China is not hesitant to stick its hands in public companies’ positions,' says Daniel Sotiroff, senior manager research analyst at Morningstar. Sotiroff also points to the failed IPO of Ant Group—Jack Ma’s financial-technology company owned partially by Alibaba (BABA), set to be the largest IPO in history—as an example of government regulations affecting the markets. Just hours before the planned debut, Chinese regulators suspended the offering on the basis of new regulations."
“'China has been the fastest-growing economy for years, by a long shot,' Sotiroff says. Since 1992, China’s gross domestic product has risen from $426.9 billion to $17.7 trillion—that’s growth of over 4,000%. 'And for a while, the stock market did grow, but it never really turned into great performance compared to other markets.'”

Link

I have had a modest investment in both Rondure funds since their inception. I've enjoyed reading Laura Geritz's commentaries and have understood them. This new one is causing my eyes to glaze over. I would have preferred plain English. The second paragraph is nearly impenetrable by the likes of me, an ordinary investor, not a professional in the financial industry. The third paragraph is so laden with secret code that it rivals a well-done parody in its opaque incomprehensibility. Here is its final sentence:
"To be clear, the ECB has yet to use TPI, relying first on geographically assymentric purchases under the existing PEPP program."
"To to be clear"? CLEAR?

Here is the background on Nicholas Borst of Seafarer, who @BenWP mentioned.

Nicholas joined Seafarer Capital Partners in 2018. He is Vice President and Director of China Research. Prior to joining Seafarer, Nicholas was a senior analyst at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco covering financial and economic developments in Greater China. Previously, he was the China Program Manager and a research associate at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Nicholas has also worked as an analyst at the World Bank.
Nicholas’ research and commentary has been featured in the Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Bloomberg, and South China Morning Post. Nicholas is a 2021-2023 Public Intellectuals Program Fellow at the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations and has testified before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission on multiple occasions.
Nicholas holds a B.A. in Political Science and International Studies from the University of Arizona and a Master’s degree in International Relations and Economics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). He is a CFA charterholder and a member of the CFA Institute.

https://seafarerfunds.com/team/

Sounds like all of you are doing the best you can do. One thought I have is to ask the victims if they were approached by a sales person (a.k.a. "financial advisor") and collect information about the sales people. Often these sales people prey on innocent seniors in church settings or retirement facilities. So my suggestion would be to assemble contact info on the sales people who are likely culpable. (I would not recommend trying to contact the individual who sold this to you but rather to provide that information to the SEC, the FBI and your state securities division.) The public need to be educated that many sales people have on goal: to separate customers from their money. I will continue to monitor this board and wish everyone the best in a terrible situation. This case illustrates the need for financial literacy education.

“Taxation is the price we pay for civilization.” Oliver Wendell Holmes. According to fellow Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter: “[Holmes] did not have a curmudgeon’s feelings about his own taxes. A secretary who exclaimed ‘Don’t you hate to pay taxes!’ was rebuked with the hot response, ‘No, young feller. I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization.”

Holmes was a better writer than that. We pay taxes, not taxation. His words, excerpted from the source, Compania General de Tabacos v. Collector, 275 U.S. 87 (1927), were "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society". Priceless (no mention of price).
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/13/taxes-civilize/
A phrase very similar to the familiar one is "taxation is the price which we pay for civilization". As Quote Investigator notes, this predates Holmes' dissent by 3/4 of a century. QI's citation for this 1852 writing is:

1852, Journal of the House of Representatives of the State of Vermont, October Session, 1851, Appendix: Report of the Committee Appointed by the Governor to Take into Consideration the Financial Affairs of the State, Start Page 368, Quote Page 369, Printed by Chauncey Goodrich, Burlington, Vermont. (Google Books full view) link

"The good news is America provides plenty of legal ways for people to avoid paying taxes, and the wealthier investors are, the more ways there are. "
I'm not sure that's good news. For this, I'll point to the Oracle of Omaha who said that he pays less (in percentage terms) than his secretary in taxes. Legal tax avoidance techniques available to the wealthier often result in regressive taxation.