I had been under the impression that SIPC covers JOINT accounts for $500K for each of the joint owners, or $1M for a couple.
I found out today that the coverage is only $500k for the whole account.
I now have far more in our joint account than the SIPC will cover. I could sell a lot of it and move it to another brokerage firm, but that would involve a very large CG tax.
Does anyone know any way to get around this?

There are a few small gotchas.
In 2016, Fidelity changed bank providers from BofA (FIACardServices) to Elan. Do a little web searching and you will find many less than kind things said about Elan's customer service. If you don't run into a problem with the card, that isn't a big deal.
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/OcLG5wTmofuC0d1S2BiROA2
If you had a Visa Signature Card before that switch, it paid only 1.5% until you hit $15K of charges in a year, then it paid 2%. When Fidelity switched to Elan, it didn't automatically up the rebate to a flat 2%, you had to ask for it.
https://www.doctorofcredit.com/fidelity-changing-over-product-change-fidelity-1-5-fidelity-2-card/
In order to get the full 2% back, you need to have a Fidelity account into which the rebates can be deposited. Not an issue for @hank who opened accounts there, but still it is used as a hook to reel in customers.
Personally, another gotcha is that I've got enough Visa cards in my wallet already. If Fidelity offered this as a MC, I might look into it. (There are still some vendors, like Costco, that take one brand of card but not others.) That's specific to me, though.

My Visa card bank also says that it doesn't require travel notifications anymore because of its intelligent systems, but when my wife recently traveled overseas with it, I informed them anyway via their secure system.
When travel requirement was in place, once I forgot to notify & had it denied. Good that I had another card.
Year ago, when first issued, Schwas ATM/debit had no limit. I called to add limit, but they said that it was backed fully by the brokerage a/c & I shouldn't worry about fraud as there was a max $50 liability. But it worried me & I didn't carry it me except when going to ATM for withdrawal.

Naw @Mike … I prefer generally to pay cash for most things. (Just sent the propane company a $420 check for a tank top-off.) But for airfare, hotels, rental cars etc. I rely on credit. I could make an exception and charge the home project if Fido really wants to lend me 10 or 15K interest free for a year. Doesnt’t take rocket science to know you can invest that amount for 5%.
I’d rather not name my current Visa provider. Been with the firm 20 years. Large well known financial services company. But they will no longer accept “travel notes” ahead of domestic travel. So … after ending up stranded out of state in the early AM hours in January due to a flight delay, they declined a purchase for food (as “suspicious”). And the food / delivery provider would only accept credit at that time of night.
I do have a debit card tied to my Fido cash management account. And, thankfully, they allow you to leave travel notes, as I would expect their signature credit card would.
Thanks for the thoughts folks. I was thinking maybe there’s a hidden fee with the Fido card? Or maybe they’ll low ball me by offering only a small initial credit limit? Won’t know until I apply. Offer’s good until some time in July.

Hank, sounds similar to the Capital One card I got a couple years ago. Cap-1 also gave me $200 if you charged 'x' amount in 'y' amount of time. That limit wasn't hard to reach, so a free $200. I try to use this card as my primary means of paying. I think I've accumulated $5-600 cash back so far. I don't travel a lot, other than visiting the kids in Columbus and Pittsburgh. I don't remember any problems.
I used to be a primarily cash person also, but I now find it very handy and useful to have a record of purchases at your finger tips. I also have a MM with Capital One and use that transfer feature to pay off the card monthly, fwiw.
@hank, are you on Credit Karma? There are a bunch of options there for new cards based on your credit score, fwiw. Most with about the same benefits as the Fidelity card you describe. Many will give you a bonus as I described.

(I can move this into OT later. Kind of a “borderline” issue.)
Received an offer to apply for “Fidelity Rewards Visa Signature Card” today.
If I understand correctly …
(1) No annual fee?
(2) 2% cash back on all purchases?
(3) 0% interest on all purchases until November 2025?
(Doesn't state a credit limit at this point.) Sounds too good to be true. What an I missing? And, importantly, can you pay off the balance in part or in full anytime you want to?
I’m planning a home related infrastructure project for late summer that will top 15K. And the provider says he accepts credit cards. Geez - that kind of $$ interest free for 18 months certainly has appeal, if I understand this correctly.

I you can read it and not behind paywall good article about the crisis in home insurance
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/13/climate/insurance-homes-climate-change-weather.html
Regarding car insurance, we had an old station wagon that got hit from behind. The repairs were far more than the Blue Book value but the car still ran and was safe to drive
I told the agent that I did not want to have to buy a new car, why couldn't I just take the check and keep the car
So I did. The title was marked "salvage" so I couldn't re-sell it, but I drove t for another two years then donated it to charity. We couldn't take the tax deduction but we got two years of transportation
I don't know if other insurance companies would do the same thing but it is worth asking.

The old program started benefits at $100K; the newer Summit program starts at $250K. At that level you can get into closed funds; at $500K you can get into cheaper institutional shares with "just" $50K min.
https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/about/client-benefits/index.html

Reiterating, "Unfortunately, the industry has done a good job of conflating two different concepts: cost basis and share (lot) selection."
Schwab makes total hash of this distinction in the page I quoted. Again reiterating: "This page conflates cost basis (average vs. actual) and selection method, so perhaps it will work, perhaps not."
As you reported, the instructions on that page apparently don't work even though that page includes "average" among its list of several cost basis methods to choose from. The others given are LIFO, FIFO, Low cost, High cost, Tax Lot Optimizer, and Specified lot.
Elsewhere, Schwab does make a stab at differentiating the two concepts (cost basis and selection method), using its own unique terminology:

There are two components of cost basis accounting at Schwab: the Cost Method and the Lot Selection Method.

• The Cost Method determines how to calculate the cost of securities sold to determine gains and losses.
     1) The Average Cost Method calculates the average price for shares bought and sold ...
     2) The Identified Cost Method reflects the actual cost basis for each individual lot bought or sold. ...
  
• The Lot Selection Method determines the order in which lots are selected.
  • First In, First Out (FIFO) ...
    
  • Last In, First Out (LIFO)...
    
  • High-Cost Lot (HCLOT) ...
    
  • Low-Cost Lot (LCLOT)...
    
  • Tax Lot Optimizer™ (TLO)...

https://client.schwab.com/secure/file/P-4705302/APP105445-02-01-fill.pdf
That pdf includes the form you requested of Schwab: "Change the Cost Basis Accounting Method on My Schwab Brokerage Account". One doesn't have to log in to access it, and it appears in its own page (not a popup).
Here's Schwab's full 10 page cost basis disclosure statement, April 2024.
https://www.schwab.com/resource/cost-basis-disclosure-statement

This quarter’s earning report for S&P500 came through somewhat better than expected according to Barton’s round table discussion over the weekend. More than half exceeded and consumers continue to spend. Will see how the market reacts on this Wednesday’s CPI number.

I agree with @stillars on the general thrust here. Commodities are a lot riskier than they might appear. You’re at the mercy of weather patterns (coffee, corn, coca); geo-politics and govt. regulatory changes (oil); labor unrest, rising fuel costs, environmental issues and lawsuits galore (mining); and lots of other hard to predict factors. Personally, I prefer to own broadly diversified funds with some commodities exposure. One I own is at 15% commodities at present. When younger I played with a number of specific natural resource / commodity funds. For very long haul PRNEX is pretty well run.

Regarding Progressive and USAA lowballing fair market value of totaled cars, here's a non-paywalled version of the SF Chron story:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/alameda-county-da-pamela-price-insurance-scheme-undervalued-totaled-vehicles/ar-BB1mgL6y
and the Alameda County DA's press release:
https://www.alcoda.org/alameda-county-district-attorney-pamela-price-announces-lawsuit-against-automobile-insurance-and-software-companies-alleging-scheme-underpaying-california-residents-for-totaled-vehicles-to-maximize-i/
It is SOP for insurers to total cars if the cost to repair is more than FMV (before accident) minus salvage value. As Kelley Blue Book explains, under the total loss formula if the FMV is $15K and the salvage value is $4K and if the repair costs are more than $11K, then insurer will total the car.
It costs the insurer less to pay out $15K and recoup $4K of that than to pay $11K+ to repair.
https://www.kbb.com/car-advice/insurance/totaled-car/
If the insurers are lowballing the FMV, that's illegal. The insurers are paying out too little. But ordinarily recouping salvage value is perfectly reasonable.
I suspect what the article isn't clear about is that because the insurer is lowballing the FMV, it is totaling cars that it should have repaired, and thus benefiting too much from the salvage value.
In the example above assume:
True FMV = $15K
Lowball FMV = $12K
Salvage val = $4K
Repair cost = $10K
Using the honest FMV, totaling the car would cost $15K payout - $4K salvage = $11K.
It would be cheaper for the insurer to have the car repaired = $10K.
Using the lowball FMV, totaling the car would cost $12K payout - $4K salvage= $8K.
It is cheaper for the insurer to total the car. It saves $2K with the lowball FMV.

I'm in the Seattle area and use State Farm for home/auto/umbrella insurance.
My auto insurance increased over 25% since Jan 2023.
My home policy will renew in July.
Hopefully I'm in a good ZIP code!

The San Francisco Chronicle is today reporting that State Farm has raised their rates across California, with the average increase about 20%. The Chronicle has mapped out those increases according to location Zip codes.

Some Californians saw their rates more than double when the increases took effect in March, while others may be paying only about 1% more than they were before, according to State Farm’s filings with the California Department of Insurance. The Chronicle is mapping the increases for the first time, using ZIP code-level data.
More than 1.9 million policyholders were affected by the rate increase, according to the filing from State Farm, which is California’s largest property and casualty insurer.

Our Zip code, and most of the neighboring San Francisco codes are scheduled for a 25% increase. Additionally, the report says, individual homes may be further increased depending upon the perceived risk situation.

@Roy - You mentioned the Progressive Insurance company, above. I just came across an article in the San Francisco Chronicle regarding Progressive. Here are some excerpts from that article:

Car insurance companies and affiliated software developers came up with a scheme that undervalued totaled vehicles, allowing the companies to underpay their customers for the vehicles, the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office alleges in a lawsuit.
The lawsuit says the companies, including Progressive and United Services Automobile Association (USAA), violated state laws that prohibit unfair competition and false advertising. The suit, filed April 26 in Alameda Superior Court, seeks civil penalties against the companies and restitution for their customers.
The lawsuit says the companies and software developers designed vehicle appraisal software to undervalue totaled vehicles, with built-in features to lower the cash value of the vehicles. The suit alleges the companies then made “lowball” settlement offers to their customers based on the deflated cash values and refused to negotiate in good faith.
Once customers accepted the lowball offers, the companies were able to resell the vehicles at auctions to further minimize their losses, according to the lawsuit. The companies, the suit states, “would rather total a vehicle than repair it because of the opportunity to recoup” the losses.

@catch22 / Thanks for the comparison chart. My OP’s title wasn’t worded very well. Sounded like I was trying to decide which fund was better or running ahead of the other. That wasn’t it at all. What I was seeking was insight to the degree, if any, that each holds short equity positions (sells stocks short).
During the discussion it became clear M* doesn’t seem to understand that SPDN (1X short S&P 500) constitutes a short position and thus does not reflect this in its “portfolio” summary (top of page). Fortunately, as JD_co noted, it does list SPDN later on as among the fund’s top holdings. So readers can figure that out - if they realize SPDN is an inverse fund.
@Sven - Thanks for the insights. I wasn’t aware LCORX had lowered its short positioning since the Professor wrote of it. I had a sense they might have from Friday’s Bloomberg snippet I posted elsewhere in which one of LCORX’s managers is intoned (not quoted) to be bullish on the S&P thru year’s end.
As for fund performance, anything under 5 years would seem too soon to react to in terms of buying / selling. And, there are other factors besides past performance to take into account. As @MikeM mentioned, etfs are easier to trade.

Tough love here, so take my comments with a proverbial grain of salt and PLEASE do not be offended. Just trying to help.

No offence taken whatsoever. On the contrary, I'd asked for advice and sometimes the best advice is straight-up critique.

Here goes: Your OP comments reek of the same type of crap that I used to spew to myself just before taking the commodities plunge.
STOP and look at your comments objectively, if possible:
You say:
"I have recently come to believe in a thesis that there is a substantial likelihood of a spike in commodities prices over a year timescale..."
I hear:
I have a new, bright investment idea but I'm pretty sure it's going to require unusual market timing abilities to be even reasonably successful.

I think I should have been clearer: from following world developments, I have come to believe that there is a fairly high chance of a commodities market squeeze, particularly in Europe, over the next year (w the clock starting to tick in say a month or two and the likelihood really increasing in six month or so).
The only point I am 'pretty sure' about is that a market squeeze leads to price appreciation. In all fairness, I did not - and, by-and-large still do not - have any bright 'investment ideas' beyond this which was why I had asked for advice.
I do not think, however, that this is as much about 'market timing' in the conventional sense, i.e., this is not about timing the securities market but the actual goods market. What happens to the securities market is incidental to my reasoning, though it would very likely lead to appreciation. To make this more concrete by way of an example, a number of years ago there was a fire at one of the main silicon chip foundries that led to a lot of sector volatility in both stocks and goods prices. I did not try to time the 'stock market' and bought after the dust settled some days later because I believed that irrespective of the short-term stock market moves, the underlying electronics 'chip market' would be squeezed by the shortage. So, I bought some unaffected companies and waited. It took a couple of quarters but - when the squeeze inevitably hit - this turned into a very good trade.
I view this situation in analogous terms with two differences:
1. The underlying commodities market dynamics is a lot more complicated vis-à-vis the comparatively straightforward chip market.
So, I could be wrong and the squeeze does not happen, though I think there is a fair likelihood that it will. However, one thing I am pretty sure of is that there are no places for the extra supply to come from and no reason to think that the demand will decline. So, basic economic reasoning - and I welcome any critique to this argument - tells me that at worst prices will stay roughly the same (sans, seasonal adjustments), so all I am risking is opportunity cost.
2. Unlike the chip market, I do not know and cannot easily pick the securities to best benefit from the potential squeeze, should it arise.
This was my main problem. Hopefully, I've got good help with that through all the posts to my question! (I still need to go research the recommendations.)

You say:
"I have not invested much in commodities before..."
I hear:
I am a prime candidate for a cold call from a broker at one of the major commodities exchanges [ICE Futures U.S., the Chicago Board of Trade, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), and the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)] asking me if I would like to set up an account.
I will ask them how much it takes to open an account.
They will say, "Well first sucker, how much do you have to lose?"
Note that I had that very conversation (save the "sucker" reference!) several years ago with a broker at CME. I foolishly laughed it off at the time, and went on my merry way, investing instead in commodities ETFs and OEFs.
Here's hoping you at least consider NOT doing the same.

No, no one has cold called me about this. But why 'you laughing it off' was "foolish": sounds like you did not get hoodwinked by a broker and invested in ETFs/OEFs, did this not work out? Do you think you might have done better with a broker? Am I missing something?
I know you've said that you are a 'sceptic' on commodities, so I would be curious to hear what you thought of my reasoning above. I am not really looking for a multi-year investment and - with the global commodities prices bouncing at the bottom of a two-year ~ - 40% DD - I do not see a high likelihood of a significant loss, even if the squeeze I am expecting does not materialize within a year. Any thoughts?

@yogibearbull.
All systems go on the site.
Update ratings with 10 May drop yesterday.
Today, just completed switch to monthly data only for FLOWS and TNA (total net assets) charts. And, continued to refine. Looking pretty sweet.
FLOWS
Still need to address occasional issue with periodic flow coloring (red/green) on combo FLOW chart. And update Definitions.
Will get there!
In future, if you have any issues, please email me ([email protected]).
Another trick: Clear browser's cached images and files via Cntrl-Shift-Delete.
c

Like @MikeM, I have initiated a position with LCR a year ago, and slowly building the position. Interesting that the short position has decreased since Professor Snowball’s write up in 2023. Today, it holds 4.07% in Direxion Daily S&P 500 Bear 1x Shares per @JD_co reporting.
Through the ups and downs in last two year, LCR has performed very well, especially in drawdowns. This aspect is important to us as we approach retirement. We particularly like the ETFs so that it can be readily purchased in major brokerages.
@catch22, thank for the chart. I use StockCharts frequently too.

I have done well in commodities and companies that produce them recently, primarily due to exposure to oil and uranium.
The "story" that you hear especially for oil and energy is that there is significant underinvestment in production as oil companies are no longer pouring money into finding reserves. Maybe, but the fact that energy is one of the least loved SP500 sectors by itself is very useful information, and is probably a counterweight to heavy tech exposure.
ETFs that buy futures have tax issues as 40% of profit is taxed short term, and a lot require K-1s.. Many just buy the indexes, and some of those are very heavily weighted to energy.
You should know what you want.
I also think an active manager can add value but remember if prices go up, the expiring contracts have to be replaced at a higher cost so it is almost automatically "sell low nad buy high"
There was a more extensive discussion her of COM a while back.
BCX invests in equities of commodity related stocks, as do several good natural resources mutual funds like GRHAX and DNLAX. Most of these are heavily weighted to energy but if you look carefully there are funds that also include gold silver uranium and some other commodities.