Please find the link for CrossingBridge’s 2Q25 Investor Commentary entitled “United We Stand, Divided We Deal”: https://blog.crossingbridgefunds.com/blog/q2-2025-commentary-united-we-stand-divided-we-deal
Feel free to share widely – it’s not just for financial folks.

There are 4 FOMC meetings left in 2025 - July, September, October, December. Market expectations are for 2 cuts - September & December according to CME FedWatch. That's a total cut of -0.50% (not anywhere close to -3%). July FOMC may have a split decision on rate hold (or unlikely cut). It doesn't look like a big deal so far.

the heineken example is one of a subsector in which , if there are any profits to made, this is the type of company built\aligned to gain them. it appears heineken is the only top 10 holding he has not trimmed in 2025.
also based on russo's public holdings, the only buy above ~2% was uber in 2023, so he is unlikely to buy in a sector that has had tailwinds rather than headwinds (outside of a mkt crash).

Tariffs would have to go beyond 50% to cause any real large-scale manufacturing growth in the U.S.A. and the cost to our economy vis-a-vis inflation and prices would be staggering. All that will come from this is higher prices and slowing GDP.

Bingo. Meanwhile, the crazies have wiped out the renewables program surge, the only thing that would have actually helped U.S. manufacturing, and was already doing so, the majority of it in red states. But then we know well what they really think of their brainwashed constituents.

He comes here to plant political flags, pretending he isn't. Mainly though, he isn't engaging or interesting enough to banter with. A Reddit level troll.
The elephant in the room is that the economy was strong as heck in 2023/2024 and handed to this admin on a silver platter. It is still holding up to the onslaught of chaos and tariffs and a Big Deficit Bill. It is not strong because of Trump, it is strong despite Trump. Taking credit for what he was given, not what he earns, is Trump's style.
When things turn bad, he will abdicate any/all responsibility. We have watched this happen many times. But, wrecking a booming economy is all his protectionist strategy will accomplish. Three decades of U.S. prosperity accompanied embracing free trade policies. Europe, China and more will thank Trump for providing them all this edge by self-immolating our trade policy.
Tariffs would have to go beyond 50% to cause any real large-scale manufacturing growth in the U.S.A. and the cost to our economy vis-a-vis inflation and prices would be staggering. All that will come from this is higher prices and slowing GDP.

Y'all might enjoy this from 1947-1950. An Atomic Ring from KIX cereal. Just a tiny bit of radioactive ???

@WABAC, if you look at Tether quotes for ALL times at CNBC, Tether got badly un-tethered in 2014, but has been quite stable around 1.00 since 2020.
Unfortunately, some other stablecoins didn't fare as well in the unregulated environment and many people lost money. But now, the prices will matter only after the effective date of the GENIUS Act - 120 days after final regulations are issued, or 1/18/27 (18 months after 7/18/25), whichever is earlier.
IMO, with major stablecoins such as Tether ($162 billion market-cap), USDC ($65 billion market-cap), etc, may be as good as the true effective date after 7/18/25.
Those who travel a lot may appreciate the value of a stablecoin account that can be accessed anytime (24/7) from anywhere in the world, rather than carrying around cash $s or global ATM cards (Schwab or Fido - no ATM fees).
Note the 24/7 aspect - bank account access is limited to bank business days, and money-market fund access is limited to market business days (some may remember that, technically, the money-market funds were unavailable for almost a week after 9/11 until the Fed told the banks that it was OK to fly blind for a week for good customers). Credit cards overseas can be hit with up to 4% transaction fees plus 3% currency exchange fee - that's 7% hole right at the start. BTW, even cash $ isn't accepted in many countries now (I know about India) UNLESS one goes to a central bank branch (not any bank) to exchange it.
https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/USDT.CM=

I have had no interest in cryptocurrency because of fraud and theft. Stablecoins are growing in popularity. I have concerns over them becoming a shadow banking system and increasing financial instability. At my age, I don't expect to use them during my lifetime, but they warrant following for their potential impact on the global financial system.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/are-stablecoins-a-threat-to-the-us-dollar-dominance-what-it-means-for-your-wallet/ar-AA1IFgDU?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=DCTS&cvid=9a2830067523446cb167f6888e00dc4c&ei=25
"Dollar-backed stablecoins could help reinforce the U.S. dollar's dominance in global finance, but their rapid growth brings new risks to financial stability, consumer protection, and monetary sovereignty.
For everyday users, stablecoins offer speed and access, but also expose them to new forms of uncertainty. “The big risk is that people will get to feel comfortable holding wealth in stablecoins under the assumption they are secure and well-regulated," Baker [co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research] warned. "They may then find that their specific stablecoin was not stable and they are suddenly holding a near-worthless asset.”

Just bumped into this one:

For a firm that prides itself on penny-pinching and low-cost indexing, Vanguard’s leaders sure seem to be stuffing their bank accounts with a lot more than pennies."
Vanguard employees, including its CEO, are just that - employees. If you believe in an efficient market, then you either pay market rate to get good employees or you provide some other compensating incentive. For example, many people work for lower pay in government or in teaching or at a variety of other places because the difference they feel they can make has value to them. Others may stay with a company even though they can get more elsewhere because they are comfortable with "the familiar".
Vanguard has been falling behind the industry in ease of use, quality of service, and cash management features. I'm sure others can construct a long list of additional areas for improvement. That suggests a need to turn more actively toward the outside for "new blood".
Which is what Vanguard has been doing lately. That means paying "near" market rate wages. As Bloomberg reports: "Insiders say Vanguard is offering pay packages that, while not quite New York-level, nonetheless amount to big money in Malvern. "
Just because Vanguard is private doesn’t mean it can’t disclose compensation details.
Just because Fidelity is private doesn't mean it can't disclose Abigail Johnson's compensation details.
Let's look at that compensation. Vanguard's Partnership Plan was created decades ago by John Bogle.

When Bogle founded Vanguard in 1975, he said he set out to be "the world's lowest cost provider of mutual funds." As the firm grew, however, he found that some of his employees were afraid their wages would be kept down to achieve this goal. By 1984, he felt Vanguard was successful enough that he could find a solution to that problem, and it's how he ended up with the Partnership Plan.

https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-bogle-vanguard-partnership-plan-career-landmark-2019-1
As at other companies, the higher the level the employee, the greater the percentage of compensation that comes from "profit sharing". (The BI piece describes how Bogle created the Partnership Plan to approximate profit sharing at for-profit companies. See below.) The amount of these bonuses wax and wane. The same IVA writer (Jeff DeMaso) who this month complained about "Vanguard’s Partnership Plan: Big Profits ..." last year reported "Vanguard’s Profit-Sharing Stalls Out". Does he have a point or is he filling column inches?
DeMaso says that " It’s Vanguard’s asset growth—not fund performance—that matters." That sounds like it's just sales that are getting rewarded. It also sounds different from what Bogle wrote (see cited BI piece): What matters is "the difference between Vanguard's expense ratios (the percentage of a fund's earnings that go toward operational expenses) and those of their largest competitors applied to Vanguard's assets under management, combined with the extra returns due to funds' performance.
I don't know whether Vanguard will turn itself around. Its metaphor for itself used to be a ship. It's a large tanker that can't turn on a dime. I hope it succeeds.

Just posted all ratings to MFO Premium site, using Refinitiv data drop from Friday, 18 July 2025. All flow tools also updated through 18 July.

I don’t trust most fiduciaries. Just because someone holds that title doesn’t guarantee they’ll act in your best interest—or that their advice is good. Yes, it’s better than working with someone who isn’t obligated to prioritize you, but it’s far from a safety net. Some fiduciaries still charge high fees, push unnecessary products, or underperform.
This is what I feel about financial advisors. See (link).

I also distrust fiduciaries and absolutely don't trust state-appointed pension/investment board. Which is why I opted for the 403b instead of the state pension -- if I'm going to make or lose my money, I want to be the one responsible.

The “democratization of private markets” has a positive connotation but the term is very misleading.
Investment firms with private investments consider 401(k) plans to be a lucrative opportunity.
Their primary goal is to increase AUM whether or not it will ultimately benefit 401(k) participants.
"Private equity has historically shown the potential for higher returns compared to public markets,
according to SmartAsset. Private equity funds have delivered an average annual return of 13.1%
over the previous 25 years, compared to the S&P 500's average return of 8.6% during the same period."
There is wide performance dispersion between the top decile/quintile managers
and average managers according to multiple sources.
Many of the best managers are inaccessible to the vast majority of investors.
Private funds tend to be expensive, opaque, and illiquid as stated previously.
Broadly speaking, I don't believe allowing private investments within 401(k)
plans (either stand-alone or within TDFs) would benefit plan participants¹.
¹ Fidelity and T. Rowe Price, for example, include private companies in some of their mutual funds.
Mutual funds like this could benefit investors assuming the plan sponsor conducts proper due diligence.

I don’t trust most fiduciaries. Just because someone holds that title doesn’t guarantee they’ll act in your best interest—or that their advice is good. Yes, it’s better than working with someone who isn’t obligated to prioritize you, but it’s far from a safety net. Some fiduciaries still charge high fees, push unnecessary products, or underperform.
This is what I feel about financial advisors. See (link).

First, where’s the link to the article? I don’t see it. Did I miss it?
Second, most investors should ignore politics, headlines, and constant media noise. You don’t invest based on emotion or ideology—you invest based on your financial goals and what the markets are actually doing. That part is simple.
I’ve shared my thoughts. Earlier in the year Value, International, and CEFs (like PDI). After the bear market bounce in mid-April, US Large Cap tilting Growth (VOO, QQQ).
With my own portfolio and not recommended to anyone. I never diversify since 1990. I’ve always focused on top-performing wide-range categories with strong risk/reward profiles. I’m a trader and a timer—used to own a very high percentage in stock funds, but since retirement, I mostly own bond OEFs.
Examples:
I sold PIMIX in Jan 2018 and never looked back.
I closely track Crossbridge funds.
In 2024, I used HOSIX, CLOZ, and CBYYX for the first time ever.
In 2025, I allocated a huge percentage to international bonds—also a first—and I lightened up lately. I don’t forecast—I just follow the data and what the market is showing.
Constant complaining and trashing others doesn’t help anyone get better results.

The Week in Charts (07/18/25)
The most important charts and themes in markets and investing, including:
00:00 Intro
00:53 Topics
02:08 Hotter Than Expected
07:02 No Reason to Cut
13:42 Nvidia vs. Russell 2000
15:47 Another Day, Another Tariff Threat, Another ATH
23:28 Netflix Pricing Power
26:54 Too Big to Fail
28:26 The Condo Crash?
31:33 Rising Real Wages
Video
Blog

I don't think this really clarifies stablecoin vs FDIC, at least to me. Muddy waters for me.
--- However, it is important to note that FDIC insurance does not directly apply to stablecoins themselves. FDIC insurance protects deposits held in insured banks and credit unions up to $250,000 in the unlikely event of a bank's failure. While the GENIUS Act does permit issuers to hold reserves in FDIC-insured depository institutions, this only protects the underlying fiat currency held as reserves, not the stablecoins themselves. Some stablecoin issuers may tout pass-through FDIC insurance, which applies if the bank holding the collateral fails, but it's crucial to understand the limitations of such coverage and that it doesn't guarantee the full value of the stablecoins if the issuer itself becomes insolvent. The primary risk with stablecoins remains the issuer's ability to redeem them for the underlying assets, rather than the risk of the banking system itself.

Hi @yogibearbull Thank you for you reporting on the serious piece(s) of legislation. I'll add with some redundancy.
The GENIUS Act (Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins), signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 18, 2025, establishes the first federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins in the United States. The Act aims to provide regulatory clarity and foster innovation in the stablecoin market while safeguarding consumers and bolstering the U.S. dollar's position in global finance.
Here's a summary of the key provisions and their implications:
Payment Stablecoins Defined: The Act specifically defines "payment stablecoins" as digital assets designed for payment or settlement, with a stable value pegged to a fixed amount of monetary value, typically the U.S. dollar.
Dual Regulatory Framework: The Act establishes a dual federal-state system for regulating stablecoin issuers, allowing for both federal and state-level oversight under substantially similar standards, according to a fact sheet from the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Smaller issuers, with under $10 billion in outstanding issuance, may choose state regulation, provided the state's framework is certified as comparable to the federal standards by the Stablecoin Certification Review Committee.
Reserve Requirements: The GENIUS Act mandates 100% reserve backing for payment stablecoins with high-quality liquid assets, such as U.S. dollars and short-term Treasuries. These reserves must be held in segregated accounts and cannot be commingled with other assets. Issuers are also prohibited from rehypothecating reserves or using risky assets like corporate debt or equities as backing. Issuers are also required to provide monthly public disclosures of their reserve composition, according to WilmerHale, and larger issuers must submit annual audited financial statements.
Consumer Protection: The legislation emphasizes consumer protection through various measures:
Prohibiting misleading marketing: Issuers are barred from claiming their stablecoins are backed by the U.S. government, federally insured, or legal tender.
Ensuring clear redemption policies: Issuers must publicly disclose redemption policies with clear procedures and transparent fee structures, according to Paul Hastings LLP.

Prioritizing stablecoin holders in insolvency: In bankruptcy, holders of permitted payment stablecoins have priority over other claims regarding reserve assets.
Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Sanctions Compliance: The Act subjects stablecoin issuers to the Bank Secrecy Act, requiring them to implement robust AML programs, including customer identification, transaction monitoring, and compliance with sanctions regulations. Foreign issuers seeking to operate in the U.S. must meet comparable non-U.S. regulatory standards and comply with U.S. sanctions orders.
Reinforcing the U.S. Dollar: By requiring stablecoin reserves to be held in U.S. dollars and Treasuries, the Act aims to reinforce the dollar's role as the global reserve currency and potentially increase demand for U.S. government debt.
Limitations on Stablecoin Activities: Permitted issuers are restricted to activities directly related to issuing, redeeming, and managing stablecoins and their reserves, according to Gibson Dunn. The Act also prohibits the offering of interest or yield on stablecoin holdings.
Impact on the Crypto Market: The GENIUS Act is expected to pave the way for greater adoption of stablecoins in mainstream financial services. Banks, nonbanks, and credit unions may now more confidently explore issuing their own stablecoins. The Act aims to bridge the gap between traditional finance and the digital asset ecosystem by providing a clear regulatory environment.
Extraterritorial Reach: The Act asserts U.S. regulatory authority over foreign stablecoin issuers that offer or sell stablecoins to persons located in the United States.
Effective Date and Rulemaking: While the Act was signed into law on July 18, 2025, many key provisions will not take effect immediately. Federal and state regulators are tasked with issuing implementing regulations within a specified timeframe, and full implementation is anticipated to unfold over several years.
Overall, the GENIUS Act is a significant step towards integrating stablecoins into the U.S. financial system. While supporters hail it as a move towards innovation and consumer protection, critics express concerns about potential risks and loopholes within the framework.

For the curious. The information is presumed accurate.
Investing in private equity through a 401(k) plan is a relatively new and evolving concept that has generated discussion among investors and industry professionals.
Here's what to know:
Potential Benefits:
Higher Returns: Private equity has historically shown the potential for higher returns compared to public markets, according to SmartAsset. Private equity funds have delivered an average annual return of 13.1% over the previous 25 years, compared to the S&P 500's average return of 8.6% during the same period. This outperformance is often attributed to private equity's focus on undervalued companies, real estate, and infrastructure, which may be less exposed to market volatility.
Diversification: Adding private equity to a 401(k) can provide diversification beyond traditional stocks and bonds, potentially mitigating risk and offering exposure to assets less correlated with public markets.
Access to previously inaccessible assets: For individual investors, private equity investments have traditionally been limited to institutional and high-net-worth investors due to high entry barriers and complexity. Expanding 401(k) options could provide access to these alternative investment vehicles.
Potential Risks:
Illiquidity: Private equity investments are illiquid, meaning they are difficult to sell quickly or easily, often requiring capital lock-ups for several years. This can be a concern for individuals needing quick access to their retirement savings.
High Fees: Private equity funds typically charge higher fees compared to traditional mutual funds and ETFs. These fees can erode returns, especially over the long term. Private equity funds often charge a management fee (around 2%) plus a share of the profits (around 20%).
Complexity and Lack of Transparency: Private equity involves complex investment strategies and less regulatory oversight and transparency compared to publicly traded assets, making it harder to assess and value these investments.
Volatility: While long-term returns may be higher, short-term fluctuations in private equity valuations can be significant.
Regulatory Landscape and Future Outlook:
The Department of Labor (DOL) has issued guidance regarding private equity investments in 401(k) plans, allowing their inclusion within professionally managed funds like target-date funds.
However, the DOL also emphasizes the need for fiduciaries to carefully consider the risks and ensure appropriate safeguards, including disclosure, valuations, and addressing liquidity concerns.
Recent reports suggest potential further loosening of regulations, potentially allowing more direct access to private equity within 401(k)s. This has generated debate about the appropriate balance between expanding access to potentially higher returns and protecting retirement savers from undue risks.
Some major investment firms, including BlackRock and Empower, are already planning to offer private equity options within target-date funds or other professionally managed 401(k) options in the near future. BlackRock estimates that adding private assets could boost returns by approximately 50 basis points per year and increase the total value of a 401(k) by 15% over 40 years.
Important Considerations for Investors:
Consult a Financial Advisor: It is crucial to seek advice from a qualified financial advisor to understand the complexities and risks involved before considering private equity investments in your 401(k).
Risk Tolerance and Time Horizon: Private equity is generally suited for younger investors with a longer time horizon and a higher risk tolerance, as it involves greater volatility and illiquidity.
Fees and Liquidity: Carefully evaluate the fee structure and liquidity terms of any private equity fund before investing.
Diversification and Allocation: Consider a limited, strategic allocation to private equity within a diversified retirement portfolio, as advised by financial professionals. Some experts suggest limiting private market exposure to 5-10% for most investors.
AI responses may include mistakes. For financial advice, consult a professional.

I just finished part one of "Our Dollar Your Problem" by Kenneth Rogoff which looks at dollar dominance and the future of the dollar. The dollar is used in about 90% of global trades, but the US economy has declined to about 25% of the global economy. Counties have historically had the dominant "safe asset" for about 200 years, so the US is past the mid-point.
Gross Federal debt now stands at 119% of GDP which is the highest level since WWII. All three rating agencies have lowered the rating on Federal debt. Clearly, there is room for some concern that the US will continue the current slow trend of losing dollar dominance, but the timing is uncertain.
The price to earnings ratio of S&P 500 is currently 29.5 which puts it at the highest 95th percentile since WWII. The S&P500 has returned 7% in 2025 compared to 17% for large cap international core funds while the P/E of international stocks is about a third lower than the S&P 500. Being overweight international stocks has really helped diversified portfolios this year.
The purported role of stablecoin is to have a more stable currency backed method of reducing the cost of global trade. The global financial system will look dramatically different fifty years from now. The dollar has declined 10% year to date. Purchasing agents often have the ability to purchase goods in other currencies in addition to the dollar.