A company with a good reputation can rally public support when dealing with regulators. That's a major reason why monopolies advertise.
Just last month, Boeing asked the FAA to waive a safety regulation through May 2026 so that it could deliver MAX 7s. This latest hit to Boeing's safety reputation is not going to help Boeing make its case with the FAA. And it's not going to help sustain airlines' demand.

“You get our attention when you say people might get killed,” Dennis Tajer, a spokesman for American Airlines pilots, told The Seattle Times, which reported on the waiver request Friday.

https://apnews.com/article/boeing-exemption-safety-rules-max-10be423759080f64d4418019e4e4874d

Just taking a look at the investment implications here -
- ”Analysts, Unfazed By 737 Max 9 Grounding, Say Spirit And Boeing Stock Are Buys”
https://www.investors.com/news/boeing-stock-spirit-still-a-buy-with-analysts-unfazed-by-737-max-9-grounding/
- “The order, which the FAA said affected 171 aircraft, requires inspections the FAA says will take four to eight hours per aircraft.”
https://www.investors.com/news/boeing-737-max-loses-emergency-door-in-flight-eyes-turn-to-spirit/
- ”Doing some rough math … , it's likely that there are anywhere between 7,782 and 8,755 commercial planes in the air on average at any given time these days.”
https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/number-of-planes-in-air

I responded to a comment about finding allocation funds that performed at least as well as JHQAX with lower volatility.
One can start with equity and attempt to reduce volatility in various ways. One can use options, as JHQAX does. One can add ballast (bonds and cash) via asset allocation. The allocations can be static (e.g. moderate allocation funds) or dynamic (tactical allocation). Tactical allocation is more costly and essentially by definition trades frequently. I linked to a piece documenting these attributes.
The fact that on average tactical allocation funds don't deliver does not mean tactical allocation cannot be executed successfully, just that the odds are against it. Whether by luck or skill HFSAX has beaten the odds for over a decade.
Here's another way one can match or beat JHQAX with equity and ballast. A 72/28 mix of PRWCX and cash (rebalanced annually) outperformed JHQAX 8.02% to 7.29% over the lifetime of the latter, with nearly identical volatility (8.56% vs 8.55%). Want lower volatility? Add cash. You'll reduce performance but still keep it ahead of JHQAX, so long as you don't dial up the cash too high.
“Our findings indicate that tactical allocation funds did not outperform the benchmarks, and investors would have been better off with passively managed funds that followed benchmark indexes.”
Over its lifetime, HFSAX has achieved the same return as a 51/49 mix of VFIAX / VBTLX rebalanced monthly, doing that with significantly lower volatility (6.11% vs 8.28%). Alpha? 3.73% vs. 0.45% for the blended benchmark.
As always, past performance does not guarantee future returns. 20/20 hindsight, back testing and all that.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1537140/000158064224000163/rondure-overseas_497.htm
497 1 rondure-overseas_497.htm 497
Rondure Overseas Fund
Investor Class - ROSOX
Institutional Class - ROSIX
(a series of Northern Lights Fund Trust III)
Supplement dated January 9, 2024 to
the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated October 20, 2023
The Board of Trustees of Northern Lights Fund Trust III (the “Board”) has concluded that it is in the best interests of the Rondure Overseas Fund (the “Fund”) and its shareholders that the Fund cease operations. The Board has determined to close the Fund and redeem all outstanding shares on or about February 8, 2024 (“Redemption Date”).
Effective immediately, the Fund will not accept any new investments, will no longer pursue its stated investment objective, and will begin liquidating its portfolio and will invest in cash equivalents such as money market funds until all shares have been redeemed. Any required distributions of income and capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders and reinvested in additional shares, unless you have previously requested payment in cash.
Prior to or on the Redemption Date, you may redeem your shares, including reinvested distributions, in accordance with the “How to Redeem Shares” section in the Prospectus. Unless your investment in the Fund is through a tax-deferred retirement account, a redemption is subject to tax on any taxable gains. Please refer to the “Tax Status, Dividends and Distributions” section in the Prospectus for general information. You may wish to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO THE REDEMPTION DATE WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THAT DATE, AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OF RECORD. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact your financial advisor directly or the Fund at 1-855-775-3337.
This Supplement, and the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated October 20, 2023, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. Both the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference and can be obtained without charge by calling the Fund at 1-855-775-3337.

@catch22 - Why not hold on to your technology marbles and wait for SpaceX to go public?
Perhaps as early as 2024
In keeping with the football motif here, were I inclined to play this one I’d probably employ an ”End-around” (indirect route) and invest instead in mushrooms which should benefit from all the IPO publicity and are far less likely to explode.
Really, the possibilities here are endless …
- Reverse play - Sell the stock short which would pay off big if the first rocket blows up.
- Punt - Hang on to for a few days as IPO attracts buyers and soars in price and than sell all.
- Double reverse - Try driving the price down with a massive short position; than switch directions and buy in “on the cheap” after panicked investors have fled.
- “Hail Mary” - Go for broke. Double-down using leverage.
My own low key ”ground game” has never been interested much in high-tech. I’ve have made more money over the years - potentially anyway. But the big swings in valuation would have led to many sleepless nights. Those kinds of swings can also lead to making dumb decisions like jumping ship at the worst possible moment. However, I did own some PRMTX for a few months in late ‘08 - early ‘09 when valuations were at rock bottom.

@msf,
The link you posted by Robin Powell stated the following:

1. Tactical allocation funds had an average expense ratio of 1.39% (they are very expensive) and an average turnover of 289% (trading costs are high and tax efficiency is low).
2. TAA funds on average had about 49% of their assets in U.S. equity, about 33% in bonds, about 15% in foreign equities, about 8% in foreign bonds and about 13% in cash.
3. TAA funds underperformed all benchmark indexes and had lower absolute and risk-adjusted performance. The average TAA fund had cumulative returns of 215% versus 486% for P1 and 406% for P2. They even underperformed the Barclays Aggregate Bond Index, which returned 242%.
4. TAA funds produced an average Sharpe ratio of just 0.10 versus 0.17 for P1 and 0.15 for P2. Their Sortino ratio (a measure of downside risk) was also much lower, at 0.14 versus 0.25 for P1 and 0.22 for P2.
5. Benchmarked against a seven-factor asset pricing model (the four Fama-French-Carhart factors of beta, size, value and momentum plus factors for foreign equities and domestic and international bonds), TAA funds had a highly significant (t-stat = 4.6) negative monthly alpha of -0.16 over the entire period. The negative monthly alpha was even worse, at -0.20% (t-stat = 5.2), over the period beginning in 2004.
6. TAA funds failed when needed most, during the Great Financial Crisis — over the period 10/2007-3/2009, they produced a negative monthly alpha of -0.37% (t-stat = 2.7).
It concluded that “Our findings indicate that tactical allocation funds did not outperform the benchmarks, and investors would have been better off with passively managed funds that followed benchmark indexes.”
Am I missing something on this tread?

Facts as presented are unclear.
If a mutual fund order is entered BEFORE 4 PM Eastern market close (beware that some brokers may have earlier cutoffs, but none of the major ones do now), you will get the closing NAV of THAT day. BTW, I have successfully entered mutual fund orders as close as 3:58 PM or 3:59 PM at multiple sites, but that is cutting it too close - any network disruption or transmission issue can cause order failure.
Settlement is only when the funds are due for the trade (T+1 for mutual funds, T+2 for stocks/ETFs/CEFs). Prices/NAVs are never set on settlement dates. If that does happen, report to the SEC or FINRA.
In cash accounts, Fido, Schwab, etc don't allow order entry without settled cash in core/settlement account, but Vanguard does with a prominent warning on when funds are due. Margin accounts don't have this issue.

The settlement date for shares purchased on 12/8 was 12/11. Settlement date for shares purchased on 1/5 was 1/8. Both purchases occurred on a Friday, well before market closing. Both purchases did not settle until closing prices on Monday. In every transaction I can recall at Fidelity, if I purchased a fund before market closing, the settlement price was the closing price on the day of purchase.
In the long run, it’s no big deal. However, it’s irksome because the fund had a nice gain on Monday, which I missed. It should have been a rare instance in which a fund that I bought had a nice gain the first day after purchase. Usually I’m not so lucky, so I guess my bad luck is holding.
The bigger issue for me is that it seems to be another example of eroding customer service at TRP, assuming the problem was on their end. I have sold a number of TRP funds over the past year because of declining performance and this is another straw on the camel’s back.

Truth! They are gambling with lives. No one can say it's a mix-up, like the Air Canada plane that ran out of gas and had to do an emergency landing at a retired military airstrip in Manitoba, which was by then being used for drag-racing at the time. Why? it was a mistake regarding the switch from Imperial gallons to liters as the new standard measurement. 40 years ago.
https://www.cbc.ca/archives/when-a-metric-mix-up-led-to-the-gimli-glider-emergency-1.4754039

FYI, I purchased shares in PRCFX 12/8/23 and 1/4/24 through Fidelity. Both transactions took 3-4 days to settle. I’ve never had a fund purchase take so long to settle since I’ve been doing transactions online. I plan to speak to someone at Fidelity about the reasons for this, as I missed at least one day of gains. I don’t know if the transaction would have been delayed so long if conducted at the TRP website, but I haven’t encountered such problems with other third party fund purchases at Fidelity. This is something that others might want to be aware of if considering this fund.

Glad you told us about that! Stinky, maybe even poopy, too. I do all my trades at TRP. They are "threatening" to put forward a website upgrade. Oh Joy! Oh Rapture! TRP fund entry minimums are $2,500.00. All others require an initial $5,000.00.

12/8/23 was Friday. T+1 settlement would be Monday, 12/11/23.
1/4/23 was Thursday. T+1 settlement would be Friday, 1/5/23.
This assuming that orders were in BEFORE 4 PM Eastern.
If AFTER 4 PM, then dates would be 12/12/23 and 1/8/23.

SMH etf, VanEck, Semi Conductors, 26 holdings as of today, Jan. 8.
--- +73.4% in 2023 and it was down -5 last week, but strong again today at +3.5%, with other tech. advancing, too (Jan. 8)
I/we prefer 10% of the portfolio for a holding to be meaningful for either the positive or negative affect. Perhaps some dollar cost averaging, in 2% chunks. Magic 8 Ball is awaiting parts. But I can make hand drawn dart board.
So many have to have the chips and their related vendors, eh?
Gonna watch a football game first with a game snack of Michigan 'Jiffy Mix' corn bread. :)

Ticker	Holding Name	% of Net Assets	 
NVDA US	Nvidia Corp	20.35
TSM US	Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co 	9.12	
AVGO US	Broadcom Inc	6.02	
AMD US	Advanced Micro Devices Inc	5.59	
INTC US	Intel Corp	5.36	
ASML US	Asml Holding Nv	4.79	
TXN US	Texas Instruments Inc	4.49	
LRCX US	Lam Research Corp	4.47	
QCOM US	Qualcomm Inc	4.46	
ADI US	Analog Devices Inc	4.38	
AMAT US	Applied Materials Inc	4.37	
MU US	Micron Technology Inc	4.02	
SNPS US	Synopsys Inc	3.62	
KLAC US	Kla Corp	3.55	
CDNS US	Cadence Design Systems Inc	3.21	
NXPI US	Nxp Semiconductors Nv	2.23	
MCHP US	Microchip Technology Inc	2.10	
MRVL US	Marvell Technology Inc	1.91	
STM US	Stmicroelectronics Nv	1.38	
ON US	On Semiconductor Corp	1.26	
MPWR US	Monolithic Power Systems Inc	1.08	
SWKS US	Skyworks Solutions Inc	0.77	
TER US	Teradyne Inc	0.62	
QRVO US	Qorvo Inc	0.46	
OLED US	Universal Display Corp	0.38	
USD CASH-		-0.01		-
Other/Cash	0.04	--

The Year in Charts (01/07/24)
These were the charts and themes that told the story of 2023...
00:00 Intro
00:15 The Wall of Worry
02:55 The Pain Trade
04:35 A Run on the Bank
09:36 A Different Kind of Fed
14:06 AI Exuberance
18:03 The Magnificent Seven
20:19 The Sky's the Limit
23:38 The Recession that Never Came
26:38 The Earnings Comeback
28:18 A Frozen Housing Market
32:20 Back on the Path to Prosperity
36:32 A Rally for the Ages
42:18 The Polar Opposite of 2022
45:06 Triumph of the Optimists
49:41 What Comes Next?
Video
Blog

Not all investors will hold to maturity; not all notes and bonds mature at the same time within that year; and then there are the potential defaults (corporates of course). The portfolio would need to continue buying additional corporate notes/bonds, perhaps at lower rates.
Consider just two investors and a single CUSIP. Investor 1 buys in now, investor 2 in a year.
We'll start off as simple as possible. Let's say the current market rate on a 3 year Treasury is 4%, and the underlying Treasury bonds, maturing in 3 years have 4% coupons. So they trade at par. Let's also say that the ETF shares are $100/share.
Investor 1 comes in an invests $10,000. That's 100 shares, buying 10 bonds at par in the underlying portfolio.
A year goes by. We'll assume that the yield at that moment on 2 year treasuries is 3.5%. Shorter term bonds typically have lower yields, or perhaps all rates dropped over that year. The reason doesn't really matter.
A two year bond with a 4% coupon and a YTM of 3.5% is priced at 100.9577. You can find that with a calculator, e.g. Fidelity's, and you can verify it with EXCEL:
EXCEL function: YIELD(DATE(2024,1,1), DATE(2026,1,1), 4%, 100.9577, 100, 2)
Because the underlying bonds have appreciated from 100 to 100.9577, the share price has likewise appreciated from $100 to $100.9577.
Investor 2 comes in and buys 100 shares for $10,095.77. Keep in mind that the YTM at the time is 3.5%. Now each investor owns 100 shares.
At maturity, Investor 1 has received three years worth of coupons at a rate of 4% and gets back the original $10,000 investment when the bonds mature and the fund is liquidated. That's your basic 4% yield. The fact that Investor 2 bought additional shares at a higher price (lower yield) had no effect.
At maturity, Investor 2 has received two years worth of coupons at a rate of 4%, but gets back $95.77 less than the original investment. That's because the investor bought the bonds at a premium.
The YTM that Investor 2 received was 3.5% - just what the market rate on two year bonds was when the investment was made. See the EXCEL expression above. In short, having to buy or sell bonds shouldn't affect the fund's behavior. That's unlike "normal" Treasury bond funds where trading can alter the portfolio's average maturity. (In corporate bond funds, trading can also affect credit quality and risk.)
The fact that the bonds mature over a period of a year can somewhat reduce yield. In that last year, as bonds mature their proceeds are held as cash (think 3 mo Treasuries) which should yield somewhat less than 12 mo Treasuries. Or as the prospectus puts it:

Declining Yield Risk. During the six months prior to the Fund’s planned termination date, the Fund’s yield will generally tend to move toward prevailing money market rates and may be lower than the yields of the bonds previously held by the Fund and lower than prevailing yields for bonds in the market.

@Level5- Thanks much- I will definitely check that out.

@Old_Joe - Here’s a related post from the bogleheads…
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=374405
There had been a good deal of discussion there regarding defined maturity bond etfs.

Thanks, @Level5- every little bit of info helps on this.

Actively managed funds with the largest inflows/outflows through November 2023 are listed below.
Data from Morningstar Fund Investor (Jan. 2024).
Largest Inflows
JPMorgan Large Cap Growth (OLGAX) $20.0B
Pimco Income (PONAX) $14.0B
JPMorgan Core Bond (PGBOX) $8.2B
Dodge & Cox Income (DODIX) $7.3B
Baird Aggregate Bond (BAGIX) $5.7B
American Funds Bond Fund of America (BFAFX) $5.7B
T. Rowe Price U.S. Large-Cap Core (TRULX) $4.9B
Goldman Sachs GQG Partners International Opportunities (GSIHX) $4.6B
MFS International Equity (MIEJX) $4.5B
Largest Outflows
T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth (TRBCX) $16.3B
American Funds Growth Fund of America (AGTHX) $15.0B
T. Rowe Price Growth Stock (PRGFX) $10.7B
American Funds EuroPacific Growth (AEPGX) $9.5B
Metropolitan West Total Return Bond (MWTRX) $9.3B
Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX) $8.3B
Vanguard Wellington (VWENX) $7.4B
Lord Abbett Short Duration Income (LALDX) $7.2B
Vanguard Short-Term Investment-Grade (VFSUX) $6.9B
Strategic Advisers Large Cap(FALCX) $6.8B

Just posted all ratings to MFO Premium site through December using Refinitiv's data drop dated 5 January. Month to date numbers mixed. Tech off 4.3%, heathy up 2, SPY off 1.6. A bit of a letdown after the strong year-end numbers. Core bonds off 1.1.