are we heading down the path of China, whose government economic data we absolutely knew was manipulated?
The numbers are still accurate, at least for now.

The published report, released Monday but dated May 29, includes numbers that are unchanged from how they would’ve read in the unredacted report

It's not as though someone pulled out a Sharpie and marked up the data. Oh, yeah ...

We seem to be writing at cross purposes.
You were "looking for earnings-weighted ETFs and found them". I'm looking for reasons to seek out such ETFs, and how well the ETFs you found meet those objectives.
In particular, I'm concerned with the effects of anomalous transient spikes in individual company's earnings. Like "pops" on a vinyl record. Here's a basic description of how a simple low pass filter can help smooth spikes like this:

into signals like this:

https://www.eetimes.com/the-math-of-dsp-part-3-filters/ (See example 1)
Shiller's PE10 does P/E average over 10 years
Shiller looks at diversified markets (e.g. S&P 500) and at sectors, not at individual companies. Merely by using market (or sector) averages he is already smoothing out individual company "pops". He uses 10 (and 20¹) year averaging is to smooth data over full business cycles (10 years serving as a proxy for a business cycle). Different focus, apples and oranges.
https://indices.cib.barclays/dms/Public marketing/Shiller10_brochure.pdf
I agree with your original statement that using earnings exclusively takes valuations out of the picture. I'm still trying to understand why one would want that.
¹ This is the first time I noticed Shiller's use of 10 and 20 year averages. My mind immediately jumped to the Nyquist-Shannon theorem (sampling must be done at at least twice the frequency of a signal being sampled, see 44.1kHz audio sampling). Just an instantaneous pattern recognition; I've given it no thought as to whether it makes sense in this context. Shiller averages PE10 ratios over 20 years to serve as a baseline.

I'm not sure we're going to be able to trust economic reports coming from the USG these days....are we heading down the path of China, whose government economic data we absolutely knew was manipulated?
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/04/trump-officials-farm-product-trade-deficit-forecast-00382549
Per Politico:

Trump administration officials delayed and redacted a government forecast because it predicts an increase in the nation’s trade deficit in farm goods later this year, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The numbers run counter to President Donald Trump’s messaging that his economic policies, including tariffs, will reduce U.S. trade imbalances. The politically inconvenient data prompted administration officials to block publication of the written analysis normally attached to the report because they disliked what it said about the deficit.
< - >
“The report was hung up in internal clearance process and was not finalized in time for its typical deadline,” said USDA spokesperson Alec Varsamis in a statement. “Given this report is not statutory as with many other reports USDA does, the Department is undergoing a review of all of its non-statutory reports, including this one, to determine next steps.” [Rick: I call BS on this, it's a standing report that everyone knows when it will come out and there's no excuse for it to be 'hung up' in process - this is a very weak excuse imo.]
It’s not clear when or if the written analysis portion will be released.
< - >
Republicans used the quarterly report’s rising trade deficit projections during the Biden administration to accuse then-Secretary Tom Vilsack of not doing enough to promote U.S. farm exports. Agriculture secretaries historically have used the forecasts to promote policy initiatives.
< - >

Magnets get lumped with rare-earths category. There are news reports of potential slowdowns in auto production in the US, Germany and India due to Chinese export restrictions on magnets.
This problem may be more immediate than that for some esoteric rare-earths.
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/shortage-rare-earth-magnets-endangers-us-vehicle-production
https://www.thedrive.com/news/the-next-car-production-crisis-could-be-caused-by-magnet-shortage
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/auto/auto-components/chinas-rare-earth-curbs-threaten-indias-auto-sector-ev-production/articleshow/121606509.cms

Some observations after going through MFO, June 1, 2025.
@lynnbolin2021: A few years ago, I moved from Wellesley VWINX / VWIAX and VGWIX / VGYAX to Wellington VWELX / VWENX and VGWLX / VGWAX. I used ST- or ultra-ST- bond fund to make appropriate allocation adjustments. Maybe, with higher interest rates, it's time to take another look at Wellesley.

@yogibearbull: You may be interested in the following articles. I have reduced my stock to bond allocation from 67% to 50% over the past nine months or so. Last month, I reduced risk by trading equity funds for the Vanguard Global Wellesley and helped family and friends do the same.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/consider-flipping-your-60-40-portfolio-to-40-60-as-bonds-become-more-attractive-than-stocks-2f0ce96b
https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/corporatesite/us/en/corp/vemo/bonds-remain-favor-time-varying-model-portfolio.html

@Sven there is one US processor currently in business: https://mpmaterials.com/ and https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnys/mp/quote
Actually, it's the only operating miner and processor in the Western Hemisphere according to the M* link. However, Canada also has a claim: https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/international-issues/canada-opens-its-first-commercial-rare-earth-elements-refinery/ I wonder what has happened to that project in the current environment.
The Pea Ridge mine is permitted, but not yet producing. https://calderausa.com/
As for recycling, this project surprised me: https://www.azcommerce.com/news-events/news/2025/4/cyclic-materials-to-invest-over-20-million-in-first-us-commercial-facility-in-mesa/

Just sold RIV after approximately 6-8 weeks. Fido says I made 9.59% on it in that short a time. Hated to let go. Been doing some de-risking. Nothing to do with politics or global affairs. Just woke up one morning and realized that at nearly 80 I was still investing like a 60 year old kid.

The personal consumption expenditures price index, the Federal Reserve’s key inflation measure, increased just 0.1% for the month, putting the annual inflation rate at 2.1%. It went down from 2.6% on Dec 24 to 2.1%. This is a four-year low.
The Atlanta Fed GDPNow model estimate for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the second quarter of 2025 is 4.6 percent on June 2, up from 3.8 percent on May 30.
mmm...not bad.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1589756/000093041325001936/c112806_497.htm
497 1 c112806_497.htm
Virtus KAR Long/Short Equity Fund (the “Fund”),
a series of Virtus Alternative Solutions Trust
Supplement dated June 3, 2025, to the Summary Prospectus and the
Virtus Alternative Solutions Trust Statutory Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) applicable to the Fund, each dated February 28, 2025
Important Notice to Investors
On June 3, 2025, the Board of Trustees of Virtus Alternative Solutions Trust voted to approve a Plan of Liquidation for the Fund, pursuant to which the Fund will be liquidated (the “Liquidation”) on or about July 25, 2025 (“Liquidation Date”).
Effective July 3, 2025, the Fund will be closed to new investors and additional investor deposits, except that purchases will continue to be accepted for defined contribution and defined benefit retirement plans, the Fund will continue to accept payroll contributions and other types of purchase transactions from both existing and new participants in such plans, and the Fund will allow reinvestment of distributions from existing shareholders. Investors should note that the Fund’s investments will be sold in anticipation of the Liquidation and may be sold in advance of July 3, 2025.
At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may redeem or exchange their shares of the Fund for shares of the same class of any other Virtus Mutual Fund. There will be no fee or sales charges associated with exchange or redemption requests.
Prior to the Liquidation Date, the Fund will begin engaging in business and activities for the purposes of winding down the Fund’s business affairs and transitioning some or all of the Fund’s portfolio to cash and cash equivalents in preparation for the orderly Liquidation and subsequent distribution of its assets on the Liquidation Date. During this transition period, the Fund will no longer pursue its investment objective or be managed in a manner consistent with its investment strategies, as stated in the Prospectuses. This is likely to impact the Fund’s performance. The impending Liquidation of the Fund may result in large redemptions, which could adversely affect the Fund’s expense ratios. Those shareholders who remain invested in the Fund during part or all of this transition period may bear increased brokerage and other transaction expenses relating to the sale of portfolio investments prior to the Liquidation Date.
On the Liquidation Date, any outstanding shares of the Fund will be automatically redeemed as of the close of business, except those shares held in BNY Mellon IS Trust Company custodial accounts, which will be exchanged for the same class of shares of Virtus Seix U.S. Government Securities Ultra-Short Bond Fund, with the exception of Class C shares which will be exchanged for Class A shares of Virtus Seix U.S. Government Securities Ultra-Short Bond Fund, and any contingent deferred sales charges will be waived. Shareholders with BNY Mellon IS Trust Company custodial accounts should consult the prospectus for the Virtus Seix U.S. Government Securities Ultra-Short Bond Fund for information about that fund.
The proceeds of any redemption will be equal to the net asset value of such shares after the Fund has paid or provided for all charges, taxes, expenses and liabilities. The distribution to shareholders of these proceeds will occur as soon as practicable and will be made to all Fund shareholders of record at the time of the Liquidation. Additionally, if required, the Fund will declare and distribute to shareholders any undistributed realized capital gains and all net investment income no later than the final Liquidation distribution. To the extent that the Fund has experienced redemptions prior to the date the Fund distributes any realized capital gains and net investment income, the remaining shareholders at the time of the distribution(s) may bear increased tax liability due to receiving a higher proportion of the distribution(s).
Although shareholders are expected to receive proceeds of the Liquidation in cash, proceeds distributed to shareholders may be paid in cash, cash equivalents, or portfolio investments equal to the shareholder’s proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund (the latter payment method, “in kind”). Shareholders who receive proceeds in kind should expect (i) that the in-kind distribution will be subject to market and other risks, such as liquidity risk, before sale, and (ii) to incur transaction costs, including brokerage costs, when converting the investments to cash.
Because the exchange or redemption of your shares could be a taxable event, we suggest you consult with your tax advisor prior to the Fund’s Liquidation.
Investors should retain this supplement with the Prospectuses and SAI for future reference.
VAST 8034 KAR L/S Equity Fund Liquidation (6/2025)

Here's the term sheet: https://www.farmcreditfunding.com/ffcb_live/termsheet/3133ETDT1.pdf
and the complete (64 page) offering circular including risk factors:
https://www.farmcreditfunding.com/ffcb_live/pdfs/offcirc/BondAndDNOfferingCircular2024.pdf
I'm guessing that you're expecting these to get called in a month since (a) you write about parking cash, and (b) 50 basis points is the spread between 4.3% 1 month T-bills and this 4.8% bond. (Fidelity reports the spread to Treasuries (4 years) as 0.855%.) So one risk you may be facing is the possibility of being "stuck" with these bonds for a few years or selling at a loss.
The issuer has an interesting structure. It is a corporation formed by the issuing banks in order to issue bonds. Should some underlying banks fail (and the other banks be unable to service the bonds), these bonds would be junior to bonds issued by the banks individually.
The banks in turn have an interesting structure. They are ultimately owned by cooperatives of borrowers (think farms borrowing from these banks). "The [Farm Credit] System’s mission is to support rural communities and agriculture with reliable, consistent credit and financial services."
This in turn suggests a sector concentration risk that could be aggravated by government policy. This is not a tangential political statement. Rather it is written into the offering circular:

These risks depend on a number of factors, including financial, economic and political events, over which the Banks have no control, including trade policy agenda, such as retaliatory actions by other countries.

When issuers are under financial stress, they often are unable to refinance higher interest debt at market rates. Consequently, even without defaulting, stress increases the likelihood that they don't call their outstanding debt as you expect.
Do I think that all of this to blow up within a month or so (to first call date)? Probably not. Will the bonds get called "on schedule"? Don't know. Not trying to scare you here. Just taking a quick look at the risks stated in the circular.

Follow-up:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1370177/000139834425011195/fp0093848-1_497.htm

Unicorns are global phenomena. So, don't overlook Asian unicorns. When economic growth is high, as in Asia, unicorns also grow like weeds.
Unicorn by countries:
US 656, China 168, India 71, UK 53, Germany 30.....
From the link, I counted 160 for Europe, quite respectable.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/unicorns-by-country

WisdomTree/WT earnings-weighted ETFs do use several screening criteria to narrow the list - market-cap (to separate LC, MC, SC), profitability, etc, but in the last weighting step, it applies earnings-weights using 4 quarters of earnings data and does annual rebalancing. Because of this, the summaries of the process used by these ETFs may be misleading at other sites.
WT uses its own indexes, so it also saves licensing fees. Self-indexing is a controversial issue.
Of course, flaws can be pointed out. But Shiller's PE10 does P/E average over 10 years and that hasn't worked in years - but that idea is appealing and sells, so remains popular.
Revenue-weights can have its own issues - profitability and market-cap vary a lot across sectors and industries, e.g. IT vs retailers. Top 5 US companies by revenue are WMT, AMZN, AAPL, UNH, BRK.
Equal-weight may generates high turnovers.
A more sensible approach would be fundamental-weighting with multiple factors as RAFI indexes do and are used by Pimco, Schwab, etc.
But as I indicated in the OP, I was looking for earnings-weighted ETFs and found them - LC EPS, MC EZM, SC EES.
And now, anyone looking for them at MFO will also find them.

But, @Crash et al; a 'newbie' with some guidance from another, to invest in a broad-based index, as with SP-500, etc. has the benefit of time and compounding. Newbie in this write is directed to those who have not yet attained a halfway point in their working career. Those older, may have a different vision for investing.
Every day there are those who become enrolled in a company 401k/403b, etc. The vast majority have little understanding about investments, but the younger ones have time to learn.
And for all of us, we are fully within an investment period without precedent, eh? No guidelines from a previous and/or similar event period.
IMHO.
Remain curious,
Catch

interpretation :
someone has attempted to circumvent the normalization of potus grift.
step 1. provide 6-7 figure donation to attend dinner and\or 'consultative' WH event.
step 2. attempt to get last word in on your scam, relative to dozens of other like-minded entrepreneurs
step 3. given odds of outsider becoming insider, prepare to write it all off as business expenses
american capitalism 2025-2028, possibly longer

FFCB 4.8% 07/23/2029 Callable- cusip 3133ETDT1. ( at Schwab)
this is the disclosure - Disclosure Note for CUSIP - 3133ETDT1
Date Type Note
04/23/2025 Secured Text The Bonds are the general unsecured joint and several obligations of the Banks.
04/23/2025 Guaranteed Text The Bonds are not obligations of and are not guaranteed by the United States or any Federal Agency or instrumentality other than the Banks.
04/15/2025 New Issues on IDN information CONTINUOUS CALL BEGINNING ON 7/23/2025 @ 100%.
I understand these are likely to get called unless rates shoot up quickly - I do not quite understand the risk . I am considering this as a parking place for some cash . Is the risk worth the extra .50 basis points over treasuries ?

Weightings based on company earnings makes some sense. It's an intriguing way to build an index.
Weights based on earnings per share (which is not what these ETFs do) would make about as much sense as the DJIA being share price weighted. If a Dow component has a 2 for 1 split, its weight in the index is (approximately) halved. Likewise, EPS is cut in half if a company has a 2 for 1 split.
it removes valuation from the picture.
Almost. It limits its universe to the 500 largest U.S. companies by market cap. From that point on, weightings are substantially independent of valuation. (They must also have a P/E of at least 2, a very low bar if profitable).
I might prefer an index that did a little more smoothing of earnings to avoid whipsawing. It looks only at earnings over the past four quarters. Some companies have relatively steady earnings, while others may be cyclical, running deficits for years (investing for the future) before making profits. (See nimble dividend.) I need to give it more thought.
I haven't delved too deeply into whether nonrecurring expenses (or revenue) are incorporated into the calculation of earnings¹. These could likewise whipsaw a company's weighting, decreasing (or increasing) its earnings weight for one year only.
¹ See, e.g. https://accountinginsights.org/what-are-non-recurring-charges-and-how-do-they-work/

Not a single copy of After Yorktown in the public libraries of Maricopa County. I guess I'll have to buy one. :)
Have to agree that PRBLX lost its way. It used to be a steady low volatility fund. Sad to see Amazon in the top five holdings.

Total returns as of yesterday
1 year...VOO 13.7%....PRBLX 12.6%
3 year...VOO 48.7%....PRBLX 43.6%
5 year...VOO 119%....PRBLX 109%
Simpler: 5-year average annual performance... VOO 15.9%...PRBLX 14.9%.
Why did PRBLX lose its way?
I don't see it yet. When the SP500 is strong as per the last 5 years, it's harder to beat it.
I don't question my managers' selections; either you trust them or not.