Disclaimer: Cryptoassets is a tiny interest of mine in terms of investing but an area I want to learn more about solely for investment / profit purposes. I'm not an official defender of BTC or crypto. In the future, I think I'll leave rebuttals to experts or others better informed than I.
You present some good points. I've been a long term skeptic and even critic of crypto... That said, before you define bitcoin and crypto as the term imaginary (btw bitcoin mining is as "real" as mining for gold) ... Imagine this:
For the first time in history there is now a system where you can send "value" from one person to another or from point A to point B without the physical exchange of an item AND without using a 3rd party intermediary. The last part being the most important and intrinsic to the story of bitcoin/blockchain. There is no administrator that can be influenced. This is an electronic payment system that goes uncensored and payments are delivered without going through a financial institution and without the need to ID people further than a hashtag. Yet all of these transactions are visible and transparent to anyone on an open ledger.
"its supply and demand of something no one really needs and it's scarcity is manufactured" - the same could be said of gold and diamonds. Intrinsic value is a faulty concept. The value of something really comes down to the demand for it.
Re: Bitcoin and Energy required to mine. Is it less energy efficient than mining for gold or printing modern currencies/fiat? The vast majority of bitcoin is currently mined in areas of the world (CN) with an extremely low electric cost. Many of these miners are converting to geothermal and the CEO of Square notes that "eventually" BTC will be powered completely by clean energy or renewables. Here's the whitepaper on it: https://assets.ctfassets.net/2d5q1td6cyxq/5mRjc9X5LTXFFihIlTt7QK/e7bcba47217b60423a01a357e036105e/BCEI_White_Paper.pdf
The last paragraph 'Bitcoin feeds...' - I don't subscribe to that as the intention or intended purpose and outcome of BTC and I'd bet those CEOS and companies dumping 100's of millions into it subscribe to a different theory as well. Best investing fortunes to all!

https://investornews.vanguard/5-investing-principles-that-are-built-to-last/
investing principles that are built to last
**Markets are unpredictable and investment fads come and go. Already in 2021, we’ve seen speculative behavior around AMC and Gamestop and overheated trading based on emotions rather than fundamentals. At Vanguard, we believe you can stay on the path to long-term financial success by avoiding trends and focusing on balance, discipline, and diversification.**
Is Jack Brennan Bogle*s long lost brother?

It would be a good idea to review the holdings in your emerging market local currency bond funds. Russian government bonds offer high yield over 7% but the sanction may change that.

In the face of a flurry of new US sanctions mostly aimed at the Russian Central Bank, Moscow had decided against holding on to its 2021 borrowing plans and had been exploring an option to offer only OFZ treasury bonds from June 14, the date after which US lenders would be barred from purchasing Rouble-denominated Russian sovereign bonds

https://financial-world.org/news/news/loans/7499/russia-hurt-by-new-biden-sanctions-slashes-2021-borrowing-plans-to-offer-ofz-bonds/
https://reuters.com/article/us-russia-debt/foreigners-share-in-russias-government-bonds-nears-five-year-low-as-sanction-fears-increase-idUSKBN2BH2GH

Thanks for the clarification. As hank observed, derivatives can be used for protection or to increase returns. Either way they change the risk profile of the fund. I believe that investors should look at what's in a fund and if they don't understand it or it makes them uncomfortable, they shouldn't invest in it.
Note that many types of securities are derivatives. CMOs for one. Commentary from the Cleveland Fed, 1995: "Collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs), first introduced in 1983, are a form of financial derivative created to provide more stability and predictability for those investing in mortgage assets. Although some investors have profited handsomely from CMOs, others have lost millions of dollars. ..."
https://www.clevelandfed.org/~/media/content/newsroom and events/publications/economic commentary/1995/ec 19950901 derivative mechanics the cmo pdf.pdf
That four page paper does a pretty good job of explaining how CMO tranches are derived from the underlying mortgages and various ways the risk profiles may be tweaked.
The point is simply that derivatives are everywhere (including in FPFIX). One does the best one can to understand what one owns (or might choose to invest in), and goes from there.

https://www.financial-planning.com/list/bond-funds-with-the-best-15-year-returns
Bond funds with the best 15-year returns
By Andrew Shilling
Managers behind fixed-income funds with the biggest long-term gains nearly double their peers. After a year marked by a global pandemic and near-zero rate environment, their shorter term returns were subsequently even more impressive.
The 20 top-performing bond funds of the past 15 years, with at least $100 million in assets under management, had an average gain of more than 7%, Morningstar Direct data show. Over the past 12 months, the same funds notched an average return of almost 18%.
When considering the bond-market landscape over the shorter timer, it may be hard to fathom the same success in the years to come, says Tom Bradley, managing director and head of capital markets at Miami-based fixed-income software vendor YieldX.
“Last year was an aggressive year for fixed-income performance with global central banks slashing rates as a result of COVID-19, and at the same time re-engaging in secondary market bond purchasing — the perfect combination for high-yield performance,” Bradley says. “Now that markets have plateaued and interest rates globally look grounded (possibly trending higher in the U.S.), fixed income will become a more nuanced sector to invest in as opposed to the ‘rising tide lifts all ships’ mantra of the last few years.”
Compared with broader markets, the iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (AGG), which has a 0.04% net expense ratio, recorded a 15-year gain of just 4.23%, data show. Over the past year, the fund had a gain of 0.32%.
In stocks, the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) and the SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (DIA) have had 15-year returns of 10.20% and 10.28%, respectively. In the past 12 months, SPY and DIA had gains of 50.29% and 45.30%. The funds have net expense ratios of 0.09% and 0.16%.
Morgan Stanley captures surge in retail investing thanks to timely E-Trade purchase
Despite record growth in wealth management, an otherwise rosy earnings report was marred by $911 million loss related to Archegos Capital.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/935015/000119312521118559/d36840d497.htm
497 1 d36840d497.htm ARTISAN PARTNERS FUNDS, INC.
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
File Nos. 033-88316 and 811-08932
ARTISAN PARTNERS FUNDS, INC.
Artisan High Income Fund (the “Fund”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED 16 APRIL 2021
TO THE FUND’S PROSPECTUS
CURRENT AS OF THE DATE HEREOF
Effective after the close of business on 30 April 2021, the Fund is closed to most new investors. The Fund will accept new accounts from certain investors who satisfy new account eligibility requirements. Eligibility requirements are described in Artisan Partners Funds’ prospectus under the heading “Investing with Artisan Partners Funds—Who is Eligible to Invest in a Closed Fund?”
Accordingly, effective 30 April 2021, the following changes will take effect:
1. The following paragraph is added under the heading “Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” on page 33 of Artisan Partners Funds’ prospectus:
The Fund is closed to most new investors. See “Investing with Artisan Partners Funds—Who is Eligible to Invest in a Closed Fund?” in the Fund’s statutory prospectus for new account eligibility criteria.
2. The following replaces the text under the heading “Who is Eligible to Invest in a Closed Fund?” on pages 101-102 of Artisan Partners Funds’ prospectus in its entirety:
Artisan High Income Fund is closed to most new investors. From time to time, other Funds may also be closed to most new investors. The Funds do not permit investors to pool their investments in order to meet the eligibility requirements, except as otherwise noted below.
If you have been a shareholder in a Fund continuously since it closed, you may make additional investments in that Fund and reinvest your dividends and capital gain distributions in that Fund, even though the Fund has closed, unless Artisan Partners considers such additional purchases to not be in the best interests of the Fund and its other shareholders. An employee benefit plan that is a Fund shareholder may continue to buy shares in the ordinary course of the plan’s operations, even for new plan participants.
You may open a new account in a closed Fund only if that account meets the Fund’s other criteria (for example, minimum initial investment) and:
∎ you beneficially own shares of the closed Fund at the time of your application;
∎ you beneficially own shares in the Funds with combined balances of $250,000;
∎ you receive shares of the closed Fund as a gift from an existing shareholder of the Fund (additional investments generally are not permitted unless you are otherwise eligible to open an account under one of the other criteria listed);
∎ you are transferring or “rolling over” into a Fund IRA account from an employee benefit plan through which you held shares of the Fund (if your plan doesn’t qualify for rollovers you may still open a new account with all or part of the proceeds of a distribution from the plan);
∎ you are purchasing Fund shares through a sponsored fee-based program and shares of the Fund are made available to that program pursuant to an agreement with the Funds or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC and the Funds or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC has notified the sponsor of that program in writing that shares may be offered through such program and has not withdrawn that notification;
∎ you are an employee benefit plan and the Funds or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC has notified the plan in writing that the plan may invest in the Fund and has not withdrawn that notification;
∎ you are an employee benefit plan or other type of corporate, charitable or governmental account sponsored by or affiliated with an organization that also sponsors or is affiliated with (or is related to an organization that sponsors or is affiliated with) another employee benefit plan or corporate, charitable or governmental account that is a shareholder of the Fund at the time of application;
∎ you are a client, employee or associate of an institutional consultant or financial intermediary and the Funds or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC has notified that consultant or financial intermediary in writing that you may invest in the Fund and has not withdrawn that notification;
∎ you are a client of a financial advisor or a financial planner, or an affiliate of a financial advisor or financial planner, who has at least $2,500,000 of client assets invested with the Fund or at least $5,000,000 of client assets invested with the Funds or under Artisan Partners’ management at the time of your application;
∎ you are an institutional investor that is investing at least $5,000,000 in the Fund and the Fund or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC has notified you in writing that you may invest in the Fund and has not withdrawn that notification (available for investments in Artisan International Value Fund only);
∎ you are a client of Artisan Partners or are an investor in a product managed by Artisan Partners, or you have an existing business relationship with Artisan Partners, and in the judgment of Artisan Partners, your investment in a closed Fund would not adversely affect Artisan Partners’ ability to manage the Fund effectively; or
∎ you are a director or officer of the Funds, or a partner or employee of Artisan Partners or its affiliates, or a member of the immediate family of any of those persons.
A Fund may ask you to verify that you meet one of the guidelines above prior to permitting you to open a new account in a closed Fund. A Fund may permit you to open a new account if the Fund reasonably believes that you are eligible. A Fund also may decline to permit you to open a new account if the Fund believes that doing so would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders, even if you would be eligible to open a new account under these guidelines.
The Funds’ ability to impose the guidelines above with respect to accounts held by financial intermediaries may vary depending on the systems capabilities of those intermediaries, applicable contractual and legal restrictions and cooperation of those intermediaries.
Call us at 800.344.1770 if you have questions about your ability to invest in a closed Fund.

Yep, although I will always maintain that the greatest crimes are generally the legal ones. Much of what occurred with mortgage backed securities prior to and during the 2008 financial crisis was legal, and that behavior nearly destroyed capitalism in the U.S. That's why Madoff is so despicable in retrospect. During the period in which he ran his funds, there was so much money to be made legally that to actually employee a Ponzi scheme like he did was just pure greed. The other striking thing is that his wife still was allowed to keep $2.5 million after all of this calamity. What an ordinary working person would do for that kind of "punishment!"

stomachturning to read now:
https://www.barrons.com/articles/SB989019667829349012
the author this week calls him a 'financial serial killer'
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/bernie-madoffs-success-the-great-villain-of-the-financial-crisis-is-dead

I’ve long been convinced that there is a link between the end of Madoff’s scheme and the overwhelming popularity of index-fund investing in the aftermath of the financial crisis. It’s not simply that, as the Wall Street Journal theorized, people realized pricey money managers hadn’t seen what was coming. Nor was it merely that the regulators’ cursory investigations into Madoff’s fund left many dubious of all sorts of investments (and the officials tasked with overseeing them). Instead, Madoff demonstrated the lie that almost any savvy individual investor could produce steady gains in a way that nothing else could. By destroying the retirements and dreams of so many, he inadvertently performed a much-needed service.

I'm not so convinced. Outside the realm of the ultra-rich, Madoff was hardly known before the scandal because it was an exclusive hedge fund. Meanwhile, Bogle was already practically a household name by the time of the scandal. I would say the growth of no load funds and fee-only/fee-based financial advisers had more to do with the shift to indexing. Instead of selling high cost active management with a commission or load based fund, advisers were charging a percentage of asset fee, typically 1%. Combine that fee with a high cost active fund charging 1.5% and you've got a 2.5% drag on returns each year. A 0.05% index fund combined with the 1% was far more palatable and produced better results. The whole advice model has shifted dramatically.
Any bull market of course will drive investors to index too, and of course Bogle's own presence, his constant evangelizing and having the numbers to back it up. If there was any fund's fall that might have done more harm to active manager's influence on retail investors it would be Bill Miller's Legg Mason Value when it got completely crushed during the 2008-09 crisis after 15 straight years of beating the market. He was one of the last great heroes of active management in the retail world. Who by contrast in retail-land heard of Madoff before everyone who had heard of him lost their shirts?

Sorry if this is a repeat. I don't remember posting/seeing this filing.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/836487/000110465921032581/a21-8652_3497.htm
497 1 a21-8652_3497.htm 497
Prospectus and Summary
Prospectus Supplement
March 5, 2021
Morgan Stanley Institutional Fund, Inc.
Supplement dated March 5, 2021 to the Morgan Stanley Institutional Fund, Inc. Prospectus and Summary Prospectus dated April 30, 2020
Inception Portfolio (the "Fund")
Effective at the close of business on April 5, 2021, the Fund will suspend offering Class I, Class A, Class C and Class IS shares of the Fund to new investors, except as follows. The Fund will continue to offer Class I, Class A, Class C and Class IS shares of the Fund:
(1) through certain retirement plan accounts,
(2) to clients of certain registered investment advisers who currently offer shares of the Fund in their asset allocation programs,
(3) to directors and trustees of the Morgan Stanley Funds,
(4) to Morgan Stanley affiliates and their employees,
(5) to benefit plans sponsored by Morgan Stanley and its affiliates and
(6) omnibus accounts sponsored or serviced by a financial intermediary that currently hold shares of the Fund in such accounts.
Retirement plan accounts (including new retirement plan accounts) investing through platforms that trade omnibus by plan for Fund shares as of April 5, 2021, fall under the exception for "certain retirement plan accounts" set forth above.
Existing omnibus accounts (accounts offered on platforms that aggregate all underlying client-level transactions into one account) that are shareholders of record are considered one type of existing shareholder. Therefore, shares of the Fund will continue to be offered to underlying clients (including new clients) through such existing omnibus accounts.
The Fund will continue to offer Class I, Class A, Class C and Class IS shares of the Fund to existing shareholders. In addition, the Adviser, in its discretion, may make certain exceptions to the suspended offering of Class I, Class A, Class C and Class IS shares of the Fund.
The Fund may recommence offering Class I, Class A, Class C and Class IS shares of the Fund to new investors in the future. Any such offerings of the Fund's Class I, Class A, Class C and Class IS shares may be limited in amount and may commence and terminate without any prior notice.
The Fund has suspended offering Class L shares to all investors. Class L shareholders of the Fund do not have the option of purchasing additional Class L shares. However, existing Class L shareholders may invest in additional Class L shares through reinvestment of dividends and distributions.
Please retain this supplement for future reference.
IFIINCEPTPROSPSPT 3/21

I can't link the article because of a paywall. Sorry. Read this on my brokerage account page.
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Market participants this week staked out their positions on how to fix systemic risks in the $4.9 trillion U.S. money market fund industry, in what is shaping up to be the first big fight for U.S. President Joe Biden's financial regulators.
After taxpayers bailed them out for the second time in 12 years during the pandemic-induced turmoil in March 2020, money market funds - a key source of short-term corporate and municipal funding - are facing a regulatory reckoning which could potentially change the industry beyond all recognition."
BY PETE SCHROEDER AND MICHELLE PRICE, REUTERS - 1:23 PM ET 4/13/2021

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-04-08/how-bill-hwang-of-archegos-capital-lost-20-billion-in-two-days
Before he lost it all—all $20 billion—Bill Hwang was the greatest trader you’d never heard of.
***Starting in 2013, he parlayed more than $200 million left over from his shuttered hedge fund into a mind-boggling fortune by betting on stocks. Had he folded his hand in early March and cashed in, Hwang, 57, would have stood out among the world’s billionaires. There are richer men and women, of course, but their money is mostly tied up in businesses, real estate, complex investments, sports teams, and artwork. Hwang’s $20 billion net worth was almost as liquid as a government stimulus check. And then, in two short days, it was gone.
The sudden implosion of Hwang’s Archegos Capital Management in late March is one of the most spectacular failures in modern financial history: No individual has lost so much money so quickly. At its peak, Hwang’s wealth briefly eclipsed $30 billion. It’s also a peculiar one. Unlike the Wall Street stars and Nobel laureates who ran Long-Term Capital Management, which famously blew up in 1998, Hwang was largely unknown outside a small circle: fellow churchgoers and former hedge fund colleagues, as well as a handful of bankers.***
Win big...loose big
Anyone came close w their portfolios?

This Marketwatch story and commentary from Peter Thiel provides some insight into the China currency story and his thoughts on Bitcoin being a sharp tool against the US Dollar
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-may-be-using-bitcoin-as-financial-weapon-against-u-s-says-peter-thiel-11617837743

From The Wall Street Journal - April 5, 2021
Individual Investors Retreat From Markets After Show-Stopping Start to 2021
“Individual investors kicked off 2021 at a sprinter’s pace. Now, they are finally showing signs of fatigue. Trading activity among nonprofessional investors has slowed in recent weeks after a blockbuster start to the year, with the group plowing less money into everything from U.S. stocks to bullish call options. Daily average trades for at least two online brokerages have edged down from their 2021 highs. Across the industry, traffic to brokerage websites, as well as the amount of time spent on them, has fallen.
The decline in enthusiasm marks a sharp reversal from just a few months ago, when individual investors’ frenetic activity took center stage in financial markets. As shares of “meme stocks” soared in January, millions of small investors piled in, kicking an already robust retail-investing trend into overdrive. In a mania unlike anything market observers had ever seen, individual investors sent stocks like GameStop Corp. soaring, pushing brokerage platforms to the top of app-store rankings. Trading volume surged so much that many brokerages struggled to keep their platforms smoothly running.”
See top of Bing Search Results

https://www.wsj.com/articles/investors-big-and-small-are-driving-stock-gains-with-borrowed-money-11617799940?mod=markets_lead_pos5&mod=djemHeardEUH
Investors Big and Small Are Driving Stock Gains With Borrowed Money
***The past year’s rally has been boosted by Robinhood day traders and big investment firms
Investors are borrowing huge sums of money to buy stocks. Is that a problem?
The “everything rally” that started in stocks last year has been boosted by investors betting money they have borrowed. That includes both small players like the day traders on Robinhood Markets Inc. and heavyweights like Archegos Capital Management, the investing firm that triggered a mini meltdown for several companies’ stocks.
As of late February, investors had borrowed a record $814 billion against their portfolios, according to data from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Wall Street’s self-regulatory arm. That was up 49% from one year earlier, the fastest annual increase since 2007, during the frothy period before the 2008 financial crisis. Before that, the last time investor borrowings had grown so rapidly was during the dot-com bubble in 1999.***
House of card??? Imminent crash coming? Maybe in 24 months after borrowed dry powder run out?

I think the notion that a young person should by default be 100% in stocks is fundamentally false. Individual financial circumstances vary tremendously. A young person with a new job is vulnerable to financial instability—first hired, first fired—may have a lot of student debt, may not even have a steady job but be in the “gig” economy, may need to invest more in their human capital via education to advance their career, may have too little cash for emergencies, etc. All things being equal, a young person should hold more stocks. But all things are never equal.

Meaty...

Let’s begin with the future of money that no one foresaw.
In 2008, in a wonkish paper that bore no relation to any sci-fi, the enigmatic Satoshi Nakamoto launched Bitcoin, “a purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash” that allows “online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.” In essence, Bitcoin is a public ledger shared by an acephalous (leaderless) network of computers. To pay with bitcoins, you send a signed message transferring ownership to a receiver’s public key. Transactions are grouped together and added to the ledger in blocks, and every node in the network has an entire copy of this blockchain at all times. A node can add a block to the chain (and receive a bitcoin reward) only by solving a cryptographic puzzle chosen by the Bitcoin protocol, which consumes processing power.
Nodes that have solved the cryptographic puzzle — “miners” — are rewarded not only with transaction fees, but also with more bitcoins. This reward will get cut in half every four years until the total number of bitcoins reaches 21 million, after which no new Bitcoins will be created. As I argued here last November, there were good reasons why Bitcoin left gold for dead as the pandemic was wreaking havoc last year. Scarcely over a year ago, when just about every financial asset sold off as the full magnitude of the pandemic sank in, the dollar price of a Bitcoin fell to $3,858. As I write, the price is $58,746.

don-t-let-china-mint-the-digital-currency-of-the-future

I think WABAC is on the right track. I googled “financial advisors near me” and found several lists and some that say they specialize in non-profits.

That was Bob Cochran, aka BobC who retired from his financial service. Probably need to find his older posts in order to get contact with him.

NPFA. This may be a good source to start with.
https://www.napfa.org/financial-planning/what-is-fee-only-advising