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.

Though it's painful to see this kind of performance, it's refreshing to see a manager admit mistakes were made, describe those mistakes in detail and then say what actions have been taken to ensure they won't happen again: https://vulcanvaluepartners.com/core/uploads/2022/08/VVP-Quarterly-Letter-22.06.30.pdf
I've spoken to a tremendous number of money managers and they so rarerly are willing to do this, and to me it's a sign of managerial strength, not weakness, to acknowledge what went wrong and seek to correct it. I think there is a tremendous amount of overconfidence in the financial services industry in general, and that leads to errors, and a refusal to admit them.

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.

☞ Free link to NPR Article
Excerpts from the article:

The problems are mounting for Robinhood, a company that had big ambitions to revolutionize markets by attracting millions of amateur investors into stock trading for the first time.
On Tuesday, the company announced plans to cut almost a quarter of its staff, citing economic uncertainty, a steep selloff in cryptocurrencies, and a deteriorating market environment. This is the second round of layoffs for Robinhood, which reduced its workforce by about 9% in April.
The cuts mark another reversal for a company that created an app for trading stocks that became wildly popular when COVID-19 spread and the economy shut down, leaving millions stuck at home with plenty of time on their hands. 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.
But a deep downturn in markets has eroded Robinhood's fortunes this year. The company has seen its shares tank more than 70% since raising almost $2 billion when it went public in a high-profile initial public offering in 2021.
On Tuesday, CEO Vlad Tenev acknowledged in a blog post that the first staff reduction a few months ago "did not go far enough. As CEO, I approved and took responsibility for our ambitious staffing trajectory — this is on me," he wrote. "In this new environment, we are operating with more staffing than appropriate."
Robinhood has also attracted government scrutiny. Also on Tuesday, a New York financial regulator fined the company $30 million "for significant failures in the areas of bank secrecy act/anti-money laundering obligations and cybersecurity."
Robinhood is not the only tech company to lay off staff. Shopify, Netflix, Tesla and several crypto companies have also cut their workforces amid the worsening economic outlook.

Obviously a financial instrument designed To Be Opaque.

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/

@MSF I don't doubt your numbers, but I do doubt your focus, given what's at stake environmentally. Part of the problem with finance's fixation on traditional cash flow metrics is it ignores the triple bottom line and the old saying what gets measured gets managed applies. This is why the SEC's movement to force each company to provide comparable statistics on their carbon emmissions matters. And those and other kinds of harmful emmissions should not only be measured but taxed significantly. Not only that but the total carbon/environmental impact of products manufactured should be measured. What then would the fossil fuel industry's cash flow be when adjusted for environmental and social impact? I am aware of course that no industry including for instance solar panels is impact free. Yet the right wing's fixation on alternatives and ESG every time there's a problem like Solyndra is far more of a hit piece if you ask me. Consider another potential "hit piece" comparing Solyndra to the military: https://vox.com/2015/1/5/7490593/F-35-vs-solyndra The fact is we should be investing in real alternative fuel sources whether they're good short-term financial investments or not. That should be the focus. Despite our missions to Mars, there still is no planet B. I would also add that Chesapeake's problems were not an isolated incident: https://ogv.energy/news-item/over-100-oil-and-gas-companies-went-bankrupt-in-2020
@WABAC Although the technology may have advanced since this article was published, as far as I know biofuels are not an adequate environmentally-friendly solution: https://scientificamerican.com/article/biofuels-bad-for-people-and-climate/

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.

How do people manage their income and spending in retirement? How do they adjust their asset allocation as they transition into retirement? Certainly, there is survey data on the subject and much informed speculation. Yet the full picture—based on empirical evidence that shows how people actually behave—has remained elusive.
JPMorgan Chase data for around 62 million households, we studied 31,000 people as they approached and entered retirement between 2013 and 2018.
This data offers the very first holistic financial view of households in transition. From it, we created a rich mosaic showing retirees’ income, spending and wealth. Real data about real behaviors, we believe, can deliver the most useful insights.
The research reaffirmed some of our assumptions and in other ways proved surprising.

retirement-insights/retirement-portfolio-allocation
Study was commented on in this retirement blog:

The study was a rare look into how 31,000 people manage their money in retirement. Not surprisingly, a lot of people seem to be making some mistakes (no Roth conversions come to mind). It’s understandable, given the complexity of the topic and the reality that learning to manage your money in the “decumulation phase” is an entirely different skill set than those used in the “accumulation phase.”

how-real-people-manage-their-money-in-retirement/

Stock Rover (SR) Pointers
There are several Stock Rover (SR) links for Help, FAQs, etc, so I will not try to prepare a “Guide”. Rather, as the SR site is not very user-friendly or intuitive, I will give some POINTERS for new users.
NAVIGATION is difficult. Some features/functions appear only on relevant pages/tabs. Page FRAMES can be expanded or shrunk – note up-pointing and side-pointing ARROWS; down-pointing arrows only open the MENUS.
FREE version is very limited. It allows creation of 10 (max) Portfolios and Watchlists but doesn’t allow Table-displays or any analytics. DASHBOARD will show overall summaries including portfolio value, G/L, daily changes; PORTFOLIO right-PANEL (expandable with side-arrow) shows basic portfolio details. If you want to use SR just for QUOTES and CHARTS, the FREE version may be fine.
CHARTS are not linkable but can be SAVED as images (so, this eliminates taking a screenshot). To POST them elsewhere, use copy-and-paste, site upload/attachment feature or an image hosting site link to share/post.
WATCHLISTS have tickers only, but PORTFOLIOS have tickers, quantities, purchase prices.
PORTFOLIO details and analytics are available with PREMIUM and PREMIUM PLUS. Premium has full portfolio functionality, but Premium Plus allows for larger (600 tickers vs 250 tickers) and more (60 vs 25) Portfolios and Watchlists. Premium Plus has many other advanced features. Unfortunately, Essentials doesn’t have much portfolio functionality. So, PREMIUM should be fine for serious portfolio users. https://www.stockrover.com/plans/why-go-premium/
Portfolios to be IMPORTED should have required Excel columns for tickers, quantities, costs/share. For M* Portfolio (that don’t have these 3 columns present in any tab/view), use Export from Tracking==>Gain/Loss to your PC. Insert a column for Tickers and add tickers (using another M* tab/view or from memory), then IMPORT into SR; Name/Rename (see below). SR Portfolio basically starts fresh from the import date; old transaction history at M* (or elsewhere) will be lost. Multiple Portfolios can be COMBINED.
For SR-IMPORT, Click PORTFOLIO on the left-menu, make sure that Portfolio HEADING is clicked/highlighted in the main page (down-ARROW will show full Menu), then from the Menu or the right-PANEL, choose CREATE PORTFOLIO. Entries can then be made MANUALLY, or portfolio IMPORTED from Excel (with Tickers, quantities, costs/share columns), or via CONNECTION to selected brokerages (I won't be trying that). Steps are similar for importing a WATCHLIST, but some options shown are different.
Portfolio TOOLS/Future SIMULATION can be used to conduct SYSTEMATIC WITHDRAWALS/INVESTMENT studies with various other options.
CASH row can be displayed in Portfolio Table (from Portfolio, EXPAND Portfolio panel to see the option for cash display). ADJUSTING CASH (transactional) is by click on every buy/sell. Fully SOLD positions are not deleted from the record (so that performance calculations remain accurate).
LAST-CLOSE prices are updated after next market open. This is to properly indicate price change data. (this is unusual as most want complete updates by evening, but SR notes that this would make all changes 0)
YIELDS are forward yields. FUND YIELDS include CG distributions. Most financial data are for CALENDAR years and for GAAP accounting with applicable RESTATEMENTS. DIVIDENDS are shown as cash and must be reinvested manually. However, Portfolio Analytics does dividend reinvesting internally.
Standard deviation (SD; 1-yr, 3-yr) is based on DAILY returns and then ANNUALIZED (using sqrt(252) = 15.87 or 16); multiply by 100 to show as %. The SR SD values are much higher than those from M* and Portfolio Visualizer (PV) that use monthly returns. Unfortunately, SR just uses a WEIGHTED-AVERAGE of component SDs for PORTFOLIO SD and that is an overestimation (as it ignores cross-correlations). SUMMARY VALUES in portfolio Tables are also weighted-averages (so, not good for Portfolio MPT data) except for ratios such as P/E, P/B, P/S etc for which harmonic-averages are used. Negative P/Es are replaced by blanks.
LIMITATIONS
SR system is POSITIONS-based, not TRANSACTIONS-based. INTRADAY trades are netted for the day; holding SALE prices are closing prices only (default) – so all G/L are approximations.
Prices are delayed 1-5-15 minutes. Tables and charts REFRESH manually on browser refresh but can be set to Auto-Refresh at 1-5-10 minutes (OFF by default) in Preferences for Premium and Premium Plus.
LINK

Soon-to-be retirees and retirees are the most vulnerable in this new era of higher inflation, interest rates, volatile markets, and possible recession. What kinds of adjustments should they be making in their financial plans, investments, and even lifestyles?
That demographic is one of the specialties of this week’s guest, an award-winning financial planner. He is Mark Cortazzo, Senior Vice President and Financial Advisor with the Wealth Enhancement Group, an independent financial planning firm.

My changes have not really been very significant by percentage to date but I did start rotating sector bets. I would like to progress that rotation into a financial ETF, VFH, and a health care ETF, PPH. I have been rotating to these ETFs by decreasing a commodities ETF I own, COM and sold off completely an energy fund, NANR.
Individual stocks are just plain dangerous to me and I'm really not good at it, but I do like to play a little. I've held SNOW and ASML for a while and they are both still down around -25% since I bought (told you I wasn't good at it :) ). With the big drop, I have added a bit to them to keep the starting principle the same (reducing cost per share). Bought a little AAPL a couple weeks ago and it's now my only stock in the green. But again, for me this is my version of gambling which I do for enjoyment and makes up less than 3% of total.
Good luck to all. I'm thinking we are seeing that dead cat bounce again, but who knows.

If you are concerned with performance over a brief interval like five years, especially the most recent five years, I can't imagine this discussion is relevant. Either EDGAR will give you the report(s) you need, and non-EDGAR sources will often be easier.
My goal is different. I'm looking at historical performance over multiple decades, and more especially, year-by-year expense ratios. The pre-2000 reports, at least by Vanguard, contain year-by-year performance back 20 years or even to inception, which doesn't seem to be the norm for fund reporting today. Helpful when a fund has disappeared from M*
Then as now the "Financial Highlights" section of the AR gives expense ratios for each of the trailing five years. So with mfs' help, I now have these back to 1989 (from 1994 reports), as opposed to being stuck at 1998, before I called for help. Prior to 1989 I go to my Wiesenberger yearbooks; and prior to 1945, to the 1939 SEC report.
Yah, I don't get out much.

Please help a dummy. I cant’ understand what is the practical significance of this research. Please show me how one could use this data to compare the 5 year total return of two otherwise similar funds. Or in other words is this data point useful?

Thanks for chiming in guys. To be honest, my 2018 Honda didn’t come with Sirius. But the previous car had it and I found myself listening to Bloomberg Radio most of the time. (Financial talk junkie). Now, I realize that Bloomberg Radio is actually free of charge off the internet. You don’t need Sirius to listen. However, have resisted the temptation to listen in the car. I’m with @BenWP. Apple music is awesome. Recently switched over from Amazon’s Premium Prime music which cost $2 more monthly. The big difference is Apple’s product has fewer glitches, takes voice commands better and integrates seamlessly with my IOS devices.

As a further update, and in the spirit of leaving bread crumbs behind for anyone else who wants to attempt such a search, on some other mutual fund:
-Even classic EDGAR stops about 2001, limited to trailing 20 years at a guess. Even entering the old name ("Vanguard Index Trust") doesn't pull up anything earlier.
-Casting around, I found this page: https://www.sec.gov/edgar/search-and-access. At the very bottom of the page is a link to EDGAR archives. That sounded promising. It took me to this page: https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/srch-edgar. Bingo: searching here for Vanguard 1994 to 2000 brought up the annual reports from the 1990s. (N-30D is the code for AR)
-"Financial highlights" has the prior five years of expense ratios. Another tidbit: in the 1990s the norm, at least for Vanguard, was to present twenty years of trailing returns; so in the 1996 report one can see the 500 Index fund annual returns back to its inception in 1976. Will be interesting to see if other fund firms did the same. (The 500 returns are on the Simba backtesting spreadsheet at Bogleheads.org, so no treasure hunt in its case).

Let's apply the law for all.
Okay. Let's apply the disclosure requirements to all, not just to "US congress rep[s]". Would you care to start by disclosing your trades (and ranges of dollar amounts) on a monthly basis?
The violations identified in the business insider article were failures to disclose.

Insider and several other news organizations have identified 65 members of Congress who've recently failed to properly report their financial trades as mandated by the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012, also known as the STOCK Act.

Toe be clear the chips bill has been in the works for quite some time now.
Also for the record it was her husband Paul who is making the trades "Paul Pelosi trades tens of millions of dollars worth of stock and stock options each year, federal records indicate."
From the Insider report:
"Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's husband, Paul Pelosi, exercised millions of dollars in NVIDIA call options and sold large quantities of Apple and Visa options and shares in late June, according to a new congressional financial disclosure.
Paul Pelosi exercised 200 call options, or 20,000 shares, of NVIDIA worth between $1 million and $5 million, according to the disclosure, which Nancy Pelosi filed Thursday with the House of Representatives.
Paul Pelosi also sold 10,000 shares of Visa worth between $1 million and $5 million and sold 50 call options in Apple valued between $100,000 and $250,000."
There is still no guarantee that the bill will be passed.

@LewisBraham, thank you. Appreciated.
All well. I just have not been in the mood anymore, with so much financial loss. (The straw at the time was reading loopholes about 'unintentional / inadvertent' naked shorting, which made me decide life is too short for MFO discussions.)
Also, people can (should) read Krugman et alia about macro issues on their own; his Twitter thread is free and his links to others mostly so.
(Also not enough delving here of CDC, COWZ, CCOR, DSTL, STIP and other current objects of my affections.)
Otherwise, same boat as most, I expect. I am glad to hold so much FMSDX and VONE/VONG, but remain stunned at the behavior of BND, BSV, VGIT, VGSH, and RWGV. Tough market.

Edmond observes that my comments regarding right-wing fondness for guns is out of order because "They have nothing to do with matters financial."
However, he allows himself quite a lot of slack in this thread in commenting on non-financial matters. Here's just a few:
• "we have mass waves of male border crossings"
• "Probably a lot of govt officials are on the take at the highest levels."
• "One (living-) President's son is a known crack addict"
• "What we call "liberal" are those who wish to remove freedom from people"
• "What liberals are, really are 'statists' "
• "They no longer are our servants, but our masters."
• "The above is in no way partisan."
So, as usual with this bunch, it's one set of rules for them and another for everyone else. If one points this out, it's just evidence of being "intellectually lazy".
And I'm pretty sure that there's no misunderstanding about what kind of "bunch" we're talking about here. Lie down with dogs, and all of that...

"a centralized government that is democratically elected by its citizens"
Well, there you go again. Edmond's bunch can't live with that. They have the freedom to have any kind of government that they want... to hell with everyone else.

Joe: You seem to think that I am with some "bunch". I am just speaking for me.
You suggest that I may have assault weapons. I don't. Assault weapons were not the topic of this thread. I did not interject them into the thread. They have nothing to do with matters financial. Frankly, your attitude on this thread is to not debate ideas, but to simply be snarky and apparently to try and deride me by innuendo, rather than having a discussion of ideas.
You have the freedom (no hyphens needed) to do so. But really, it comes off as intellectually lazy.