Bunch of stuff today.
Moved 3rd and final 5-figure slug this summer into cash for ongoing home infrastructure project. Would have preferred to use home equity - but not at current rates. (Funds are held under Roth IRA umbrella until actually spent).
In the process, I re-jiggered my allocations. Reduced OEF “Core” target from around 68% to 62%; slightly raised CEF basket target from 25% to 28%. Added FMY to CEF basket (now 15 holdings). Raised target cash position from 7.5% to 10%. Net-Net: Slightly less risk on the table going forward.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1395397/000089418925003895/plumbfunds497e-may2025usbm.htm
497 1 plumbfunds497e-may2025usbm.htm 497
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
1933 Act File No. 333-141917
1940 Act File No. 811-22045
WISCONSIN CAPITAL FUNDS, INC.
PLUMB BALANCED FUND
PLUMB EQUITY FUND
(collectively, the “Funds”)
Supplement dated May 19, 2025
to the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”)
dated August 1, 2024, as supplemented August 29, 2024
1.Based on the recommendation of Wisconsin Capital Management, LLC, the Board of Directors of the Wisconsin Capital Funds, Inc. has approved converting Class A Shares of the Funds to Investor Shares of the Funds.
Effective as of the date of this supplement, Class A Shares will no longer be available for purchase. After the close of business on June 27, 2025 (the “Effective Date”), the Funds will convert Class A Shares into Investor Shares and the Class A Shares will thereafter be abolished. Prior to the conversion, shareholders of Class A Shares may redeem their investments as described in the Funds’ Prospectus. Depending on the tax status of the shareholder and whether or not the account is invested through a tax-deferred arrangement such as a 401(k) plan account, such redemption may be a taxable event resulting in taxable income to the shareholder. Please consult your own tax advisor on this issue.
If shares are not redeemed prior to the Effective Date, each shareholder owning Class A Shares of the Funds will own Investor Shares with an aggregate net asset value equal to the aggregate net asset value of Class A Shares held by such holder immediately prior to the conversion. The conversion will be effected without the imposition of any sales charge or other charge. The conversion is not expected to be considered a taxable event for federal income tax purposes...

Treasury yields rise as expected from Moody's downgrade on Monday, May 19, 2025. 30 years yield rose over 5.0%, all time high for the year.
https://cnbc.com/2025/05/19/us-treasury-yields-moodys-downgrades-us-credit-rating.html

The sovereign ceiling rule (that corporate lenders should not have a higher credit rating than the sovereign debt) is applied by many credit rating agencies. This is a rule of thumb, not an ironclad rule, though agencies tend to apply it strictly especially to financial institution lenders.

Credit rating agencies are inclined to apply a de-facto sovereign ceiling rule, wherein the domestic bank ratings are bounded by their sovereign credit rating (Adelino and Ferreira, 2016), even when they maintain higher creditworthiness. ... The rationale for applying the rule is based on economic reasoning, particularly in relation to the need to account for capital controls and the economic stress caused by a sovereign downgrade.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1544612320316287

Moody's and Standard & Poor's historically have applied the sovereign ceiling concept in practice fairly strictly

https://www.financeasia.com/article/the-sovereign-ceiling-now-a-broad-consensus-on-its-permeability/32286 (2001)

Well, peak shale at current prices.

Oil prices have fallen to $62.49 a barrel, down about 13% since Trump’s early April tariff blitz. That price is roughly equivalent to about $45 in 2015 dollars—below the average price that sent the oil industry into a painful downturn that year.
“On an inflation-adjusted basis, current prices are at amongst the lowest they’ve ever been,” Paul McKinney, CEO of Permian driller Ring Energy, said in an interview. Prices should be around $85 a barrel to encourage companies to drill, he said.

Perhaps a sign of things to come......
Axios Article:
How AI could end the ETF boom
Generated Assets AI Tool:

Turn any idea into an investable index

"I wonder how much is due to funds reducing fees and how much is due to changes in investor behavior."
Good observations.
I think it's a combination of both factors noted above.
Following info is from M* 2024 US Fund Fee Study Executive Summary (link in OP).
In 2024, the average expense ratio paid by fund investors was less than half of what it was two decades ago.
Between 2005 and 2024, the asset-weighted average fee fell to 0.34% from 0.83%.
Investors have saved billions in fund fees as a result.
Three factors played a role in lowering fees:
• Investors are increasingly aware of the importance of minimizing investment costs,
which has led them to favor lower-cost funds.
• Competition among asset managers has led many to cut fees.
• Evolution in the economics of advice has also played a central role.
The move toward fee-based models of charging for financial advice has been a key driver
of the shift toward lower-cost funds, share classes, and fund types—most notably exchange-traded funds.
Fund fees are not falling as fast as they used to, though.
Two factors are behind this slowing rate of change:
• Fees of prominent index mutual funds and ETFs are approaching a floor,
with many already charging less than 0.05%.
• The emergence of active and alternative ETFs contributed to higher-priced fund launches
than previously observed.

Nice chart @bee / Pretty bubbles. I didn’t realize Franklin is so high. Must be their legacy OEFs. Their etfs are quite reasonable. One good one I’ve held before is LVHI which continues to ”shoot the lights out.” I track it expecting it to falter - but it hasn’t.
I wonder if fees become less significant with age? Yes, at 35 years of age with 30 years until one begins pulling IRA distributions a tenth or quarter of a point is a big deal due to the long term compounding. No argument. But for a 75 or 80 year old picking a fund (often hybrid types designed to hedge risk) I’m not so sure fees are a big deal. OTHO if that 75 year old is investing only in short term credit or cash, I suppose a quarter point is still a big deal.

Big Bang is the place I go for investing chat.
Big Bang has been directing the political dumpings here:
"I may or may not moderate political posts (which most of these are) unless they are rabid, but I do encourage people to keep to the topic "Economic Impact of Tariffs". If you want to discuss the politics of tariffs, please go here:
www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/63635/tariffs/p7"
"No, you don't have to offer your solution to trade problems. This forum is for investing. Take it off-line with Raq. BB is not going to follow MFO into the mud-wrestling pit."

What does any of that have to do with the ytd return on money market funds versus the S&P 500? But thanks for contributing to the mud you draw attention to.
I don't need to spend my life in regulated space. If this forum is the only one that doesn't ban FD1000 for expressing his opinions I won't lose sleep. Might even get me to donate.
I look at Big Bang from time to time. It reminds me of the early days of the 21st century. I think it's nice y'all have a safe place to chat.
I drop in here because I subscribe to the data feed from Refinitiv. I should add that what Charles has done to make the data accessible is first rate work.

(If you ask me, Queens, New York comes a lot closer to being who we are now.)
I hope Krugman's economics are more thorough than his demographics. While Queens is often cited as the most diverse county in the country, that diversity is only, pardon the pun, skin deep.
By one measure, Queens is the most segregated county in NYS, itself one of the most segregated states in the country.
Yes, the impact of redlining is still felt.

[Researchers] estimate that the [redlining maps] maps account for 15 to 30 percent of the overall gaps in segregation and homeownership that they find between “D” and “C” neighborhoods from 1950 to 2010 (the gaps between “D” and “A” neighborhoods are clearly even wider).

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/upshot/how-redlinings-racist-effects-lasted-for-decades.html
Agriculture doesn't dominate employment for a variety of reasons including consolidation and mechanization. Likewise, even with "reindustrialization" manufacturing wouldn't dominate employment due to automation and increasingly "intelligent" factory floors.

"There is, however, a lot of nostalgia for the 1950s and 1960s, when more than a quarter of U.S. workers were employed in manufacturing. Income inequality was much lower in that era; many blue-collar workers considered themselves middle-class. And there’s a widespread narrative that
(a) attributes those good times for workers to the availability of well-paid jobs in manufacturing, and
(b) attributes the relative decline of manufacturing to outsourcing and trade deficits."
That was only true for white males. For the most part all women, Hispanics, Asians and of course African Americans were denied such opportunity. In addition, redlining of mortgage applications, "equal but separate" educations, and other vestiges of Jim Crow laws impaired income equality for a large part of the workforce. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were slow to come; currently both are under assault in (SCOTUS?) cases. As a 63 year old straight white male with a life-long physical handicap I, for one, am far from nostalgic for those days.

Just waiting for tweet storm from DT, DEFUND Moody.

I LOL'd at this, but then thought "Hmmm, he actually would".
Today, Scott Bessent called Moody’s a ‘lagging indicator’ after U.S. credit downgrade.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/18/scott-bessent-calls-moodys-a-lagging-indicator-after-us-credit-downgrade.html

Anent the fantasy of US "reindustrialization," Krugman today:
The economy changes over time, and so do the industries in which people work. A century and a half ago, despite rising industry, America was still largely a nation of farmers; today hardly any of us work on the land:
Oh, and many, possibly a majority of farm workers are foreign-born, with many of them undocumented.
You don’t hear a lot of nostalgia for the days when agriculture dominated employment, although some politicians still portray rural areas and small towns as the “real America.” (If you ask me, Queens, New York comes a lot closer to being who we are now.)
There is, however, a lot of nostalgia for the 1950s and 1960s, when more than a quarter of U.S. workers were employed in manufacturing. Income inequality was much lower in that era; many blue-collar workers considered themselves middle-class. And there’s a widespread narrative that
(a) attributes those good times for workers to the availability of well-paid jobs in manufacturing, and
(b) attributes the relative decline of manufacturing to outsourcing and trade deficits.
But is this narrative right? It’s a simple, compelling story, but as I tried to explain to Clinton all those years ago, the math doesn’t work. To preview the conclusions: Even if we could somehow eliminate our trade deficit (which Trump’s tariffs won’t do, but that’s another story), America wouldn’t reindustrialize — our manufacturing sector would be slightly bigger, but nothing like what it used to be. And any wage gains for ordinary workers would be trivial at best. ...

Big Bang is the place I go for investing chat.
Big Bang has been directing the political dumpings here:
"I may or may not moderate political posts (which most of these are) unless they are rabid, but I do encourage people to keep to the topic "Economic Impact of Tariffs". If you want to discuss the politics of tariffs, please go here:
www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/63635/tariffs/p7"
"No, you don't have to offer your solution to trade problems. This forum is for investing. Take it off-line with Raq. BB is not going to follow MFO into the mud-wrestling pit."

Thanks @Mark / @msf
CEF Connect did the job (provided the fund existed in ‘08). Losses appear in line with how growth stock OEFs performed. The worst one of what I hold, UTF, lost 57% in ‘08. I’ll probably sell that one. Two I plan to add are FMY (+4.56%) and ETJ (+6.32%). And there were 3 decent performers which I currently own: GDL ( -8.45%), MMT (-9.61%), TSI (-6.32%). @msf is correct that MIN gained in ‘08. I’ve had that one on radar. But seems to have lagged cash for a decade or more.
One of interest is MGF which invests in government paper and rose +26.29% in 2008. But it hasn’t kept pace with cash over the past decade. I suppose it might someday make a useful hedge. Perhaps even in the near future. :)

Is it normal for the POTUS to instruct a retail company (Walmart) to eat tariffs that he was responsible for?
As to FOTUS demanding companies bend to his tantrums on tariffs, pricing, and production locations
WaPo:

Trump’s view of his role was reflected in his recent comparison of the U.S. economy to a department store. “It’s a giant, beautiful store, and everybody wants to go shopping there,” he told Time magazine last month. “And on behalf of the American people, I own the store, and I set prices, and I’ll say, if you want to shop here, this is what you have to pay.”
...
Trump is not the first president to take a direct hand in economic decisions, although that has generally happened when the country faced dire conditions.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, scrambling to overcome the Great Depression, personally dictated the government’s daily price for gold, reportedly raising it by 21 cents on one occasion because that was a lucky number. Richard M. Nixon, worried that inflation would dampen his reelection prospects, imposed wage and price controls in 1971.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/18/trump-economy-tariffs-taxes-trade/
Is it normal? No. Does it happen? Yes, under dire conditions. Though not when those dire conditions are self-induced (higher costs due to tariffs).

You may need to change the M* chart settings. It sometimes defaults to monthly frequency. Make sure that this is set to daily, then try it again.
Also, make sure that you have selected the data type(s) that you want. NAV or price, with or without divs. Personally I prefer to include divs because without that I don't get a sense of total return.
As an example, and to illustrate the impact of leverage in a down market, I charted (on M*) MIN (unleveraged) vs MMT (current leverage is around 1/4), from 12/28/2007 to 12/30/2008 - just to show that dates other than month's end can be used.
MIN price only - 2.79%
MIN NAV only - (4.55%)
MIN price+div - 13.01%
MIN NAV+div - 3.94%
MMT price only - (15.28%)
MMT NAV only - (15.71%)
MMT price+div - (8.14%)
MMT NAV + div - (9.61%)
This is not to say that leverage doesn't help over the long term, but it can be deadly at times. From 12/28/2007 to now, the cumulative price+div returns are:
MIN price+div - 111.82%
MMT price+div - 247.87%
Still, between 10/31/21 and 10/14/22, MMT (price+div) lost 30.47% while MIN lost "only" 17.88%. For perspective BNDW (Vanguard Total World Bond) lost 14.85%.

You can learn from somebody else's mistakes. Watching these negotiations was a lesson in how not to approach a situation.
Liberation day was a bust.
On Friday, Trump claimed about 150 countries would soon receive letters “essentially telling” them of new US duty rates on their exports. Many learned of similar rates last month, only for the plan to change in a matter of days.
Not much winning here.
Well, at least he negotiated some shady deals in the Middle East for his family this past week. I'm sure he feels "liberated".

In most charting tools, using multiple tickers switches to %changes, while single tickers may display prices.
StockCharts allows dates to 1985.