Silvergate/SI has tapped FHLBanks for billions in advances/loans. The FHLB $s are ahead of EVERYBODY, even the FDIC. This is getting curiouser and curiouser.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/silvergate-capital-got-4-3-bln-loan-from-feds-amid-run-on-deposits-report-11673459671
https://www.americanbanker.com/news/silvergate-bank-loaded-up-on-4-3-billion-in-fhlb-advances
What is FHLB? https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/386/fhfa-fhlbanks

One suggestion often overlooked is additional "umbrella insurance" for your homeowners and auto policy. $5,000,000 coverage is fairly cheap and will cover a judgement for an automobile accident or something at your house.

The data on "fixing the dirtiest" is fascinating. I also heard today that the author (a Forbes employee) of a book about the meat industry "Raw Deal " calculates that if "plant based meat" and beyond meat etc reached 15% the same penetration of the meat market than non-milk products have now in the milk market it would be equal to eliminating the carbon produced by 25% of the cars in America!
Not surprising I guess when you realize that Cattle ranching accounts for about 30% of the land use in America and Domesticated livestock equal 60% of world's biomass
I am not familiar enough with Fossilfree methodology to know how they arrive at their determinations, where they draw the line, and how the measure plans of any company to improve it's fossil footprint, but I am glad you all reminded me of the site and will do some more digging.
There are so many moving parts here, and companies available, with rapidly changing prospects I think active management is probably better than index funds, unless you use index funds limited to particular segments like Solar, wind EV vehicles etc.
I also believe that this is an engineering problem, but almost all the funds seem to lack engineers who can evaluate new technology.
I lot of fund reports remain vague and not terribly useful.
@LB thanks for tip on ECAT. It is encouraging that BlackRock and Goldman Sachs and Vanguard are creating funds for this

>> back down to 15% or less
you left out the minus sign

I bond is limited to $10K per person @0and additional $5K on their tax return.
CDs and T bills can be purchase in large sums. However, T bills are more liquid and can be sold through secondary market. T bill ladder is recommended so the shorter ones mature every several months. Not the same with CDs since the secondary market is much smaller and one have to watch for the penalty.
Many money market funds are yielding in 3-4% and they are most liquid.

I rebalance quarterly -- generally to control risk.
I have had luck rebalancing into market downturns (COVID, 2008), but the net effect seems to be modest. Here I was using the safer assets (cash, short term high yield) as dry powder and balancing into major drawdowns. My wife, on the other hand, holds fewer safe assets directly, but holds more AA funds (which presumably are rebalancing into drawdowns as well). She seems to have done about the same as I have over the past several years (actually, I do marginally better on average), but with a bit less volatility.
Probably the reason for the low returns to my opportunism is because even though getting the timing right on market entry is straightforward ("hold your nose and jump in"), getting out at the right time is not a simple matter once the juicy returns start to accumulate and I get greedy and hold on too long. I.e., you get a nice15-20% return and feel pretty good about yourself ("you bold and daring genius, you!") -- do you try to take it to 25% and 26% and 27% before ... *whoops* ... the market dips and you're back down to 15% or less.

Portfolios can be rebalanced based on time intervals or asset threshold ranges.
Frequent rebalancing may be counter-productive due to short-term market trends (momentum).
Rebalancing annually or even biennually can be more productive.
Investors often use a 5% or 10% deviation from their target stock/bond allocation as a trigger.
The primary benefit of rebalancing is risk reduction but it may lead to higher returns when executed
on an intra-asset level (e.g., US stock/foreign stock, large growth stock/small value stock).
I was unable to access this article via the link because of a paywall.
It was accessed via ProQuest which is made available through my local library system.

Thanks Mark. Great article. I don’t doubt Hulbert’s overall premise. But you know what they say about ”In the long run …”.
Gosh - depends on what all you’re invested in as well as age, risk profile, etc, Curiously, a very speculative stock (one of Cathie Wood’s holdings) I sunk a tiny amount in a week ago has bounced 10 15% in a week - up over 5% Tuesday alone. Should I sell all or part? LOL. Last year I might have sold, as I felt locking-in whatever small gain I could in every corner of the markets a necessary “survival” strategy. With a lot of the “free-fall” (hopefully) behind us, I’m not feeling nearly as eager to capture small gains now, Will let this one run a lot longer. But, then again, were it a larger portion of the portfolio I would dump it now - as a quick 10 15% gain is a 10 15% gain any way you cut it. (Again - age, risk tolerance, etc. affect this decision).
(Edited post for accuracy)
Sarah Ketterer, a frequent guest on Bloomberg WSW, recently suggested a tactic she calls ”tactical rebalancing”. By that she means capturing short-term (a few months) or intermediate-term gains in some parts of your portfolio. Probably amping-up and throttling-back certain holdings rather than all-in or all-out. I guess it’s the uncertain and highly volatile nature of today’s markets that led her to that conclusion. ie: “Trying to make the best of a bad situation.”
But lots of good input from the contributors here, Great thoughtful article. And was easy to access,

Hi @WABAC
I enjoyed your open thinking pondering about re-balancing.
I flash back to very early days and a type of re-balancing that likely carried over to be a new, young investor. Although being 'older' and with much more experience doesn't necessarily cause one to ponder less, the so-called, re-balance.
The youth years found me in a rural setting. Some of those in my age group were associated with farming. My family was not; but I had buddies' families who were. Which brings me to hay mounds and the near by creek.
--- Hay mounds: A friends uncle and grandpa had a medium sized working farm. We were allowed to play in the big barn. Each end of the barn had hay or straw bales stacked high, with the center being open. We used a large barn rope hung from the inner peak of the roof to swing (Tarzan style) from hay loft to hay loft. Testing one another's skills at various sections, as the bales were not always equal in location, versus the other side. Swinging back to the other side wasn't always the same circumstance.
---Jumping the creek: The creek was 8 feet at the widest, but some sections were only 3 feet wide during a dry summer season. The creek was surrounded by a forest of mature trees, young trees and dead trees. We'd find a dead, but strong tree limb of the right size and use it to kinda 'pole vault' to the other side. We'd often discovered the smooth, tapered bank on one side was a steep bank on the other side; and at times we couldn't find a suitable vaulting stick if the original fell into the creek while 'crossing'. Crossing back wasn't always the same proposition.
Both of the above caused a type of re-balance, a change of mode of operation, at least in my mind; to get back to the other side. Substituted today for a bond to equity, or an equity to bond move. Or perhaps the neutral zone of cash....but still a move and an investment.
The point being, at that young age, is that I unknowingly was learning a form of re-balancing that would eventually apply to investing.
The 'when you sell, what are you going to do with the money now'? What's your next move, dude?
Anyhoo......a fun example I still recall from youth. The learning process.
We don't have a re-balance schedule. The portfolio re-balance occurs merely from a given buy or sell. We generally lean towards at least a 5% move in order to be a meaningful amount to impact the portfolio; and we don't shuffle the money often.

Story (Originally published in the WSJ) -
The overseer of one of the largest public pension funds in the US is demanding an explanation from crisis-hit Southwest Airlines — New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli wants to know how the carrier plans to prevent another operational meltdown that caused the recent holiday travel chaos. "Clearly this crisis has resulted in profound customer dissatisfaction and is expected to generate significant costs to the company," DiNapoli told Southwest CEO Bob Jordan in a January 6 letter seen by Insider. The Wall Street Journal first reported the news on Monday.
In the letter, DiNapoli also asked the carrier how it plans to "correct these failures - not just in the immediate term, but for the coming years."The New York state pension fund is one of the top-100 largest investors in Southwest. As of September 30, it held $17.6 million worth of Southwest stock, or about 0.1% of outstanding shares, according to Refinitiv data. The comptroller's office oversees the fund.
Source of Above Excerpt & Story
Major Holders of LUV - including mutual funds
LUV Market Cap $21.5 Billion - Interesting that LUV Is held in some “Mid Cap” mutual funds. Generally, at over $10 Billion market cap, it would be considered a large cap stock.

Why would that matter? In any case, the point is that FossilFreeFunds does not "by definition" exclude any firm that is not exclusively in solar, wind, geothermal, etc. This looks like a straw man. Where did this come from? And why just US?
So long as there are any utilities (or if you prefer, US utilities) that are not exclusively into renewables but are still acceptable to FossilFreeFunds, that'e enough to show that FossilFreeFunds does not have the zero tolerance policy you described.
A 50% threshold is pretty far away from zero or even de minimis tolerance. Take, for example, Clearway Energy Inc. (CELN.A) According to its most recently posted 10-K (2021), 3/4 of its $12B in operating revenue is derived from renewables. Which means that 1/4 of revenue is still "dirty".
Praising the worst of the worst for "transitioning"? How far? It's easy to put up good numbers by picking the low hanging fruit - substituting something merely less bad.

what if the [100 dirtiest US] power plants simply reduced their emissions rate to the national average emissions rate of all power plants in the United States? That average rate currently sits at 454.7 kilograms per megawatt-hour, which would amount to a 46.46% reduction in total emissions.
What if our “100 Dirtiest” all switched their entire production to natural gas instead of coal and oil products? The national average emissions rate for natural gas power plants is 401.25 kilograms per megawatt-hour, which would be a 52.75% drop in the total emissions released by these plants.

https://findenergy.com/top-100-dirtiest-power-plants-in-the-united-states/#what-would-it-look-like-if-the-100-dirtiest-plants-made-a-change
It's going to take more than a single graph showing bad actors behaving less badly to impress. Not that the changes aren't for the better, but what comes next? And when?

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1587982/000139834423000515/fp0081452-1_497.htm
497 1 fp0081452-1_497.htm
Sunbridge Capital Emerging Markets Fund
Institutional Class (Ticker Symbol: RIMIX)
A series of Investment Managers Series Trust II (the "Trust")
Supplement dated January 10, 2023 to the currently effective
Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information ("SAI").
The Board of Trustees of the Trust has approved a Plan of Liquidation for the Sunbridge Capital Emerging Markets Fund (the "Fund"). The Plan of Liquidation authorizes the termination, liquidation and dissolution of the Fund. In order to perform such liquidation, effective immediately the Fund is closed to all new investment.
The Fund will be liquidated on or about February 10, 2023 (the "Liquidation Date"), and shareholders may redeem their shares until the Liquidation Date. On or promptly after the Liquidation Date, the Fund will make a liquidating distribution to its remaining shareholders equal to each shareholder's proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund, in complete redemption and cancellation of the Fund's shares held by the shareholder, and the Fund will be dissolved.
In anticipation of the liquidation of the Fund, Sunbridge Capital Partners LLC, the Fund's advisor, may manage the Fund in a manner intended to facilitate its orderly liquidation, such as by raising cash or making investments in other highly liquid assets. As a result, during this time, all or a portion of the Fund may not be invested in a manner consistent with its stated investment strategies, which may prevent the Fund from achieving its investment objective.
Please contact the Fund at 1-877-771-7721 if you have any questions or need assistance.
Please file this Supplement with your records.

Thank you all for the excellent information.
I reside in Washington state which has strong creditor protections for "employee benefit plans."
Here's a snippet from the corresponding state law:
"The right of a person to a pension, annuity, or retirement allowance or disability allowance, or death benefits, or any optional benefit, or any other right accrued or accruing to any citizen of the state of Washington under any employee benefit plan, and any fund created by such a plan or arrangement, shall be exempt from execution, attachment, garnishment, or seizure by or under any legal process whatever."
This law specifically states that employee benefit plans include: IRAs, Roth IRAs, HSAs, 403(b) accounts, etc.
Link

I think that the headline writer didn't read through or understand Hulbert's article, or just wrote the headline for maximizing clicks.
Rebalancing isn't for enhancing returns.
But as the article points out, rebalancing is a risk control strategy.
It is also known that frequent rebalancing doesn't achieve much and annual rebalancing may be sufficient. Some use 5% deviations as triggers.

How many US Utilities are 50% renewal energy?

I do see that ETRADE has it LOAD WAIVED. The Institutional version is $1M Min. Any takers?

Schwab sells EVDIX with a $2500 min and a $49.95 TF.
https://www.schwab.com/research/mutual-funds/quotes/fees/evdix
Alternatively, if Schwab accepts a transfer in of EVDAX shares, you can buy a few shares (with a load) elsewhere to bootstrap and then purchase additional shares at Schwab NL/NTF (OneSource®).
https://www.schwab.com/research/mutual-funds/quotes/summary/evdax

more better
https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?campaign_id=116&emc=edit_pk_20230110&instance_id=82350&nl=paul-krugman&productCode=PK&regi_id=22268089&segment_id=122135&te=1&uri=nyt://newsletter/caa72e77-00ff-5014-961e-6dee698abe00&user_id=83d45440ead1d14c2a89a1e7221337d1

most of the protections carryover from 401k/403b to such Rollover T-IRAs
Unless a debtor files for bankruptcy, rollovers receive no protection under the Bankruptcy Abuse Protection and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA). Seems self-evident.
Outside of bankruptcy, federal protections don't carry over to IRAs, including rollover IRAs:

protection is much different outside of bankruptcy. For example, what happens if you (or your dependents) get into a car accident or cause some other damage and have a large judgment against you? First off, the ERISA protection for assets in a qualified plan would still apply. That means any money in a company retirement plan would be safe from collection. However, unlike bankruptcy proceedings, that protection is lost once the monies are distributed out of the plan. This includes rollovers to IRAs.

https://www.irahelp.com/slottreport/creditor-protection-iras
Rollover monies may still receive better protection than contributory funds in IRAs under state law, but that's not "carrying over" the 401k protection. For example:

If you roll over funds from an ERISA account [in California] into an IRA, those funds remain 100% exempt [protected]. This is the case even though the IRA is not fully exempt in California.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/are-my-retirement-accounts-protected-from-judgment-creditors-california.html
There are no similar protections for [rollover] Roth IRAs
My guess as to where this comes from is the fact that many states afford Roth IRAs less protection than T-IRAs. But this difference in the treatment between traditionals and Roths doesn't care where the money comes from - rollover or contribution.
As far as the BAPCPA is concerned, a rollover is a rollover, whether traditional or Roth:

Because of the unlimited exclusion for qualified retirement plan assets transferred into a rollover IRA, CPAs should always ensure that rolled-over retirement wealth is segregated in a rollover IRA that is distinct from other traditional or Roth IRAs that the debtor may own.

https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2006/jan/protectretirementassets.html
See also: https://mgoprivatewealth.com/ideas-insights/now-you-know-the-only-difference-between-a-rollover-ira-and-a-contributory-ira-bankruptcy-limits/
If you want a less wonky source, though I'm not fond of citing it, Investopedia says:

For the purposes of BAPCPA, a rollover IRA is a traditional or Roth IRA account that was originally funded through a transfer from a qualified retirement plan.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/081915/my-ira-protected-bankruptcy.asp

Thanks @Obsevant1. Couldn’t help noting that 5 funds from TRP comprise close to a quarter of the list.
I hope it’s OK to supplement this thread with a reference to @LewisBraham’s excellent article in the current issue of Barrons (”Investors Rediscover Stock Funds”). A nice broad-brush look at how different equity sectors fared last year. Can’t do it justice here. A few clips might entice folks to pull up the whole article / purchase / read Barron’s.
Excerpts from Barron’s - “Investors Rediscover Stock Funds” - January 9, 2023
- ”In this difficult environment, active management worked. Mutual funds in Morningstar's Large Blend category, which are mostly actively managed, were up 8.4% for the quarter and down 17% in 2022 …”
- “A favorite sector for value investors—energy—continued to dominate, with the average energy mutual fund up 21% in the fourth quarter and 45% in 2022.”
- “Perhaps the biggest surprise this past quarter was the tremendous rebound in foreign stock funds, in particular Morningstar's Europe Stock and Foreign Large Value mutual fund categories, both of which averaged 18% returns. Two value funds—Causeway International Value (CIVVX) and Oakmark International (OAKIX)—had strong runs of 23% each.”
- “The Europe Stock mutual fund category has only 18 funds. Two of the largest—Vanguard European Stock Index (VEURX) and T. Rowe Price European Stock (PRESX)—were two of the best, up 21% each in the quarter. Still, the Vanguard FTSE Europe ETF (VGK), also up 21%, is an easier way to get exposure …..”
- Article details / discusses the impact of foreign exchange rates in driving returns on non-U.S. stocks. (If you haven’t noticed, the dollar has weakened in recent months, helping non-dollar domiciled assets.)
- Lewis also notes, ”One trend that persisted all year was shareholder redemptions from Large-Growth mutual funds. T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth (TRBCX) lost the most from outflows in the quarter's first two months, $2.7 billion, and $12 billion for the year through Nov. 30.”

@hank I agree with the benefits of diversification between these asset classes and their different performance characteristics. Rebalancing can also enforce a certain value discipline as you state. I disagree with the notion that equal weighting these asset classes will produce optimal results or necessarily even good results in the next fifty years simply because it has in the last fifty years.
These back-tested rules based systems lack nuance and a failure to acknowledge that the future is different from the past. Worse, I think the promoters of these rules-based systems can have ulterior motives. They may want to create investment products off them that a simple algorithm can run for 0.05% while charging 0.50% to ETF investors in a world that has devalued active management.
In many ways I think the asset allocation decision requires more nuance and is more important than individual security selection. An active manager who is thinking seriously about how long-term economic, geopolitical, environmental and market trends are shifting in 2023 can add value where the one who is only looking backward to 1973 through 2023 may not.
The problem I admit is most active managers are not adequately equipped to make that kind of macro forward-looking analysis of asset classes. And worse, some are also drawn to short- lived trends that help gather assets instead of produce good results. Crypto as an asset class comes to mind. So I can see how the AANA strategy has a certain appeal and, I think, a dangerous simplicity to it.