not much new here, but i find it very re-assuring when he takes a confident stand such as anti-tsla, which trp most certainly holds in some funds.
this is not your typical trader\manager that capitulates on logic simply because some price goes up and stays elevated longer than expected.
momentum likely plays a minor role for giroux only during large block trading, where these houses have dedicated specialists.
am glad to pay slightly higher fees for such a mindset, especially GARP which i find tricky on individual names. i see giroux more now as a conservative but opportunistic asset allocater rather than stock picker. i have traded prwcx for prcfx in all ret holdings, and elsewhere w/min tax gains.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2025-08-06/inside-active-t-rowe-s-giroux-on-avoiding-fatally-flawed-firms

Morningstar Alt Categories
https://pdfhost.io/v/Tb3lMEngT_MStar_Fund_Categories_042024
Alts, short for Alternatives, is a name that stuck for anything beyond stocks and bonds, the mainstay of investments for decades. Hedge funds and pension funds were into Alts even before the term became mainstream. But once the retail investors started getting into Alts, the term Alts or liquid-Alts (listed funds, not nontraded funds, interval-funds, etc) became popular. IMO, it's a good one-word description and it may be hard to find an alternative (!) for it.
Nontraditional Equity
Long-Short Equity
Derivative Income
Alternative
Macro Trading
Event Driven
Relative Value Arbitrage
Options Trading
Multistrategy
Equity Market Neutral
M* Allocation categories include traditional, tactical, TDFs, convertibles. Tactical allocation within Alts could be under Multistrategy.
My LinkedIn comments:
This may also mean that publicly-traded alts format isn't the best for alts.
Is there a way to track alts AUM for publicly traded, nontraded & interval-funds? (excluding hedge-funds)
Alts are so different, & Morningstar has MANY alt categories now, but some have only a handful of funds. May be Morningstar should consolidate its alts categories.

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.

A basic internet search yields the following CPI Criticisms:
1. Substitution Bias:
The CPI uses a fixed "basket" of goods and services to track price changes. However, it doesn't fully account for the fact that consumers often substitute cheaper alternatives when prices rise. For example, if the price of beef increases, consumers might buy more chicken instead. The CPI might not accurately reflect this shift in spending patterns.
2. Quality Improvements:
The CPI may not fully capture improvements in the quality of goods and services over time. Newer products with better features may be more expensive, but their higher price might not be accurately reflected in the CPI if they are considered "new" and not yet included in the basket.
3. Changing Spending Patterns:
The CPI's fixed basket also struggles to adapt to changing consumer preferences and spending habits. For instance, the rise of online shopping and the decline of brick-and-mortar retail might not be fully reflected in the CPI's calculation.
4. Volatility of Food and Energy Prices:
The CPI includes volatile components like food and energy prices, which can cause significant fluctuations in the index. This makes it difficult to discern underlying inflation trends.
For example, a temporary spike in oil prices can significantly impact the CPI, even if overall inflation remains relatively stable.
5. Alternative Measures:
Some economists prefer the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index as a more accurate measure of inflation because it allows for more flexible adjustments to spending patterns and new goods. The GDP deflator is another alternative that considers changes in the overall economy, including new goods and services.
While the CPI is a valuable tool for tracking inflation, its limitations mean it's not a perfect measure of the cost of living or a complete representation of the inflationary experience.

@JPtak:
"On Jan. 1, 2015, there were 1,345 alternative mutual funds in existence. Those funds followed approaches that utilized hedging, shorting, or trend-following, and sported names with terms like “multi-alternative,” “market-neutral,” and “absolute return,” among others.
Guess how many of those alternative funds still exist? 341. The other 1,000 or so have been liquidated or merged away, a 75% mortality rate."
Beware the hype.
Many alts are also in nontraded and interval-fund formats.
https://www.morningstar.com/alternative-investments/75-alternative-mutual-funds-have-died-there-are-lessons-that-would-be-private-market-investors

Growing Chinese-like control, politicizing agencies. They all become subordinate to the ruling Party. And the courts are even more and more captive. This is what I've been saying, in spades: the Repugnant Party is operating as a subversive, treasonous scam. They are losing size and numbers. The only way they can win is to manipulate and cheat.
https://www.wsj.com/economy/the-u-s-marches-toward-state-capitalism-with-american-characteristics-f75cafa8?st=W3PjfB&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Antoni nominated to replace McEntarfer. Heritage Foundation. Feces. But no surprise.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/11/trump-antoni-bls-statistics.html

Opened my first Synchrony account in 2015. Been a customer continuously. As they like to say “you can open a new CD on line in minutes!” Unless you are me. My online application was sent to be reviewed and could not be completed. I asked three reps and three different “account managers “ why a long established customer could not open a simple CD in a minute and not one could explain. Even the one who spoke English. Jeeez,,,, that sounded horrible.

related gift nyt article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/10/opinion/stagflation-trump-economy.html?unlocked_article_code=1.dU8.7328.SqDKI87QMSKP&smid=url-share

Yesterday posted all ratings to MFO Premium site, using Refinitiv data drop from Friday, 8 August 2025. The latest update includes more MFO Charts enhancement, including more tiptool labeling options and simplified Y-axis options.

bah, come on --- professional perennial econ crapologist SMoore is on the case:
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/the-political-economy-of-incompetence

Tangential: FEIST (in the now customary ending-video which serves as punctuation) is Canadian.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/10/opinion/canada-america-allies.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

+1. Yup his SS minions will come for ya.
ALSO, this:
TACO: China.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/11/trump-china-tariffs-deadline-extended.html

@msf, thank you for the tool tips, and the rest of your work. The April 2025 numbers are especially enlightening to me.

Maybe this pay-to-play scheme (export tax) is the real reason Tim Cook cozied-up at the White House a few days ago. Are there any prohibitions on what Apple can sell to China? If so, might there be ongoing negations now of the type NVDA seems to have carried out? Name the price. Apple’s pretty big. Maybe 25%?
I agree with Dr. V - The market seems to run on something other than valuation or growth prospects these days. More of a barometer of investor appetite. The hungrier the crowd, the more the needle points upward. Hell to pay someday. But when?

Will this cut of 15% cause the value of the stock to drop by 15% or more?!

Normally it should have some adverse effect,

but stocks only go up these days. If this extortion scheme works, what other U.S. companies may need to pay-up? In normal markets that overhanging threat might affect many other exporters who are potential targets (aircraft, auto, Ag, etc.) But due to the ever-higher stock market … no worry. However, tomorrow might be an interesting market day as the ramifications sink in. Investors might say - - ”Duck!”
I did not realize export taxes were prohibited until @msf noted that. Looks like maybe another case headed for the courts …

My thinking is that outsized upward expectations, will be matched when the downside expresses itself.
And, excellent point by @msf. I never knew that either.

Bloomberg article via MSN points out that this "chip-tax" may weaken Administration's defense of tariffs under a national emergency in the other lawsuit. Other countries may not play this game or respond similarly. This is beyond the legal aspects cited by @msf.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/nvidia-amd-to-pay-us-15-of-china-ai-chip-sales-in-unusual-move/ar-AA1KgiKp

What happens when the left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing. Conflicting policies that undermine the narrative.

I'm using M*'s chart page (a tab found on any fund/ETF page) such as:
https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/arcx/fltr/chart
Set the Frequency to Daily and the Data Type to "Growth w/Dividend". That gives you total return and scales each fund charted comparably (total returns relative to $10K start).
If you set a date range of not more than 20 years or so, you can see where the peaks and valleys are. (You won't see much of anything if you look at the lifetime of VWELX, as that spans 86 years.) Mouse over spots to get approximate gains (losses). Or spend a couple of minutes zooming in on the exact start point you want. Then M* will calculate the exact gain on each subsequent date.
Over VRIG's lifetime (starting 9/20/16) FLTR has outperformed, though barely: 34.17% vs. 33.82% cumulative.
Zooming in to 2/1/20 through 4/1/20, one sees that they both peaked on 2/19/20. Setting that as the start point, one sees VRIG hit bottom on 3/26, losing 13.0437%, and FLTR hit its bottom on 3/18/20, losing 17.8062%. Other dips are similar though much smaller and not worth worrying about.
VRIG lost 1.3786% from 11/14/18 to 12/21/18; FLTR lost 1.8535 from 11/13/18 to 12/21/18.
VRIG lost 2.2798% from 1/21/22 to 6/16/22; FLTR lost 3.0049% from 2/7/22 to 6/16/22.
VRIG lost 0.7763% from 4/2/25 to 4/7/25; FLTR lost 1.9253% from 4/2/25 to 4/4/25.
YTD, FLTR has outperformed 3.11% vs 3.03%.
Overall, neither FLTR's small outperformance nor its slightly deeper short term losses seem consequential. This slight difference is mirrored in FLTR's slightly higher standard deviation. FWIW, M* gives FLTR a risk score of 3 (out of 100), and VRIG a 2. All of this is just splitting hairs.
I don't recognize what's in the CLO ETFs either. Another potential risk there.
Finally, I'll add that I keep looking at CBLDX. My concern here is that unlike Sherman's RPHIX, it doesn't mitigate risk by buying "money good" debt. Still, the numbers (stability of returns) impress for somewhat longer term cash.

"The U.S. official said the Trump administration did not feel the sale of H20
and equivalent chips was compromising national security."
"It's wild," said Geoff Gertz, a senior fellow at Center for New American Security,
an independent think tank in Washington, D.C.
'Either selling H20 chips to China is a national security risk, in which case we shouldn't be doing it
to begin with, or it's not a national security risk, in which case, why are we putting this extra penalty
on the sale?'"
"Alasdair Phillips-Robins, who served as an adviser at the Commerce Department
during former President Joe Biden's administration, criticized the move.
'If this reporting is accurate, it suggests the administration is trading away national security protections
for revenue for the Treasury,' Phillips-Robins said."
"Nvidia generated $17 billion in revenue from China in the fiscal year ending January 26,
representing 13% of total sales. AMD reported $6.2 billion in China revenue for 2024,
accounting for 24% of total revenue."
"Giving away some revenue from these chips to the U.S. government would bring the gross margins
for these processors down by 5 to 15 percentage points, resulting in an impact of 'a point or so'
to their overall gross margins, Bernstein analysts said in a note."
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/nvidia-amd-pay-15-china-chip-sale-revenue-us-official-says-2025-08-11/

A very thorough comprehensive discussion of some cash-like alternatives by @msf …And thanks!
I had thought JAAA was “good enough” for my less stringent needs and held a lot going into the late March / early April market drop. But when the initial “mini-crash” occurred (the first of several bad days) and I sold a large portion of JAAA to reinvest the money in rapidly falling equities, guess what? JAAA was down more than 0.50% (intra-day) at the time. So the equities I ran to weren’t as “cheap” for me as they would have been with a more stable cash substitute. JAAA did recover in following days. The question remains: “Where were you when I needed you?”
I didn’t own or track NEAR at the time, but my observations have been it holds up much better during those brief times when equities (and a lot of other stuff) are rapidly selling off. That’s the reason I no longer own JAAA - but may someday find a spot for it or PAAA which @msf has pointed out seems a bit more stable. Some may also wish to look at VNLA. I owned some then, and it held up better during the selloff than did JAAA.
Note: The “gamble” one takes with NEAR (ISTM) is the small sensitivity to rates. Over longer periods that shouldn’t be a problem, but near term (1-3 years) it will outperform or lag cash based on how rates in the 1-3 year part of the curve are moving. As far as quality goes, it doesn’t get much better.

Bloomberg article via MSN points out that this "chip-tax" may weaken Administration's defense of tariffs under a national emergency in the other lawsuit. Other countries may not play this game or respond similarly. This is beyond the legal aspects cited by @msf.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/nvidia-amd-to-pay-us-15-of-china-ai-chip-sales-in-unusual-move/ar-AA1KgiKp