We have some 5% CD’s maturing today. Amounting to 2.5 % of our investable assets. I just have no enthusiasm and no conviction for any reinvestment direction for these funds. I know that folks are hungry and hurting but I got them old “Reinvestment Blues.” Crash,,, remember Tab Benoit had a great guitar riff on this song back in the day.

Proviso - Your investments should reflect your needs based on things like: age, expected time horizon, risk tolerance and your other assets and sources of income.
(Speaking as an Old F here) - If hedging or going more conservative is gambling, then “guilty as charged”. I’ve got 1.5% in SPDN (short S&P 500). 1.5% on DOG (short Dow), 1.5% TAIL. But having a 4.5% stake that often moves opposite the market provides a modicum of stability, allowing me to take risk in other areas. Baring a significant market correction, I’ll keep those hedges in place. Prepared to wait UHFO.
To me, a portfolio is a package with many parts serving different roles. It’s not an “all-in” or “all-out” proposition. Gambling may be a suitable term though, because a good gambler’s job is to assess risk / the likelihood of something occurring. These likelihoods (odds) are sometimes expressed in percentages. Bill Gross was a professional gambler before starting PIMCO. To the professional, gambling is a lucrative science. A good spot to remind folks that the motto above the old Fund Alarm board was a line from Kenny Rogers’ “The Gambler”.
”Know when to hold ‘em. Know when to fold ‘em …”
Should you market time? NO - if you mean speculating for near term gratification. YES - if you mean amping-up your risk exposure or tamping it down a bit from time to time based on your best assessment of relative valuations and investor sentiment. But there are no guarantees. Had you gone “all in” after the initial 50% drop in 1929 thinking the market looked “cheap”, you’d have shed another 20-30% of that sum until the markets finally bottomed a decade later.
Food for thought.

Forge Capital is a private-equity platform that connects buyers and sellers. Interval-funds are also planned.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/charles-schwab-to-buy-forge-global-private-markets-a25c6d56?mod=hp_WIND_A_3_5
Open https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/topstocks/charles-schwab-to-buy-forge-global-boosting-client-access-to-private-markets/ar-AA1PVsI1
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/charles-schwab-acquire-forge-660-million-all-cash-deal-forge-stock-surges-premarket

SENTIMENT & MARKET INDICATORS, 11/5/25
AAII Bull-Bear Spread +1.7% (below average)
CNN Fear & Greed Index 24 (extreme fear)
NYSE %Above 50-dMA 39.35% (negative)
SP500 %Above 50-dMA 40.60% (negative)
These are contrarian indicators.
INVESTOR CONCERNS: Budget (DC shutdown, 10/1/25- ), debt, tariffs, inflation, jobs, Fed, dollar, recession, geopolitical, Russia-Ukraine (192+ weeks), Israel-Hamas (67+27 weeks; fragile peace).
For the Survey week (Th-Wed), stocks down, bonds down, oil down, gold up, dollar up.
Supremes are reviewing tariffs under emergency orders. DC shutdown is now the longest in history. More troubles surfaced in private-credit market. Democrats had victories in a handful of regional elections.
#AAII #CNN #Sentiment
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/2291/thread

Be aware of what can affect your investment.
https://morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20251104118/whats-at-stake-for-markets-as-the-supreme-court-gets-ready-to-hear-trump-tariff-arguments
As an investor, this administration policies tie directly to my investment.
Things are not going well at Supreme Court’s open argument today,
https://cnn.com/2025/11/05/politics/takeaways-supreme-court-tariffs-trump
“traffics are taxes…….Chief Justice John Roberts
https://msnbc.com/the-last-word
Lawrence O’Donnell’s The Last Word exposes the lies in this administration. American citizens are actually paying the tariffs, not the importing countries. No wonder food, housing, and everything else are getting much more expensive than that of the previous administration.

From Markets A.M. newsletter by Spencer Jakab.
On this day in 1999, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found that Microsoft
was a monopoly and the Justice Department initiated plans to break it up.
The following trading day the stock fell as much as 8.5%.
Less than two years later, a federal appeals court overturned much of Judge Jackson's ruling.

Underwhelming, though there is a great deal in the works looking into 2026 and beyond. Still the dividend rises, as promised---- barely. But that's been the pattern.
https://www.morningstar.com/news/business-wire/20251105661225/energy-transfer-reports-third-quarter-2025-results

Can I interrupt the Revival? Please?

The following PBS News Hour segment suggests some Supreme Court justices are questioning
the president's power to impose tariffs via the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/supreme-court-justices-question-trumps-authority-to-impose-sweeping-tariffs
"The President possesses the authority to impose tariffs under a variety of trade statutes
that he can turn to if the Supreme Court rules that IEEPA does not, or constitutionally cannot,
provide broad tariff-setting authority to the executive.
Some of these authorities, including Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232
of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, require the executive branch to conduct investigations
and prepare bespoke reports before imposing new tariffs.
However, two authorities empower the President to potentially impose tariffs without
any predicate agency action: (1) Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which empowers the President
to impose tariffs of up to 15 percent for a period of 150 days to address balance-of-payment problems;
and (2) Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which permits the President to impose new or additional tariffs
up to 50 percent without any durational limit to counter discrimination by foreign governments against
U.S. commerce."
https://www.cov.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/2025/11/dont-count-on-immediate-ieepa-refunds-what-president-trump-might-do-if-scotus-throws-out-ieepa-tariffs
Note: Bold text above added for emphasis.

Deposited $200 cash to be able to trade. Bought some shares in an ETF. Came to $195.93. My intention was to take the remainder and stow it in the SWVXX MMkt. After the ETF trade, the Trade page showed me I had $4.09 in that particular account left to play with. (It only deals with one account at a time, anyhow.) So, I threw it all in the MMkt.
...End of day: My cash balance in that acct. shows MINUS .02 cents. The Chat agent pointed out that $195.93 +4.09 = $200.02.
I trusted him, of course. The numbers don't lie. But Schwab's system DID. Which REALLY sucks. What if the amount involved had been much more than that?
They asked me to make a -.02 cents withdrawal from SWVXX to see if it would work. I complied. They checked, and saw that the order was "good." ...Even though I thought the minimum was $1.00. So, was I teaching THEM? That should not be, but I'm not surprised.
Just wanted to get this misadventure out there for others to see. He assured me that tech support will get on it so that such an erroneous figure won't ever show up again like that. My trust is tarnished. ...

I don't expect much from the usual suspects.
That depends on whether they follow the guidance of the duopoly of proxy advisors, Glass Lewis and ISS.

Proxy firm Glass Lewis has recommended that Tesla (TSLA.O) shareholders vote against the proposed $1 trillion pay package for CEO Elon Musk, days after ISS also urged investors to reject what might be the largest-ever compensation plan awarded to a company chief.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/proxy-firm-glass-lewis-joins-iss-urging-vote-against-musks-1-trillion-pay-2025-10-20/

But why do you think A's strategy statement is as it is, compared w FDFIX. Why does A not have the last sentence that D has? Something lawyerly?
I doubt it, except to the extent that marketing material has to stay within the bounds of the law. I don't understand what's in the minds of pitchmen. Though I'll toss out a wild guess, so long as it is clear that this is just spitballing.
Investors may think they know all about S&P 500 index funds - that they invest in "the market", that the stock selection is purely mechanical (both by S&P and by the fund), that the funds just buy the requisite 500 stocks and do nothing else. All of which range from oversimplified to plain wrong. But if Fidelity says little to disabuse investors of these ideas, it may sell more shares.
With FDFIX, Fidelity relies instead on a different investor article of faith. That the robo advisors buying this fund "know" what they are doing. Trust the machine, much as investors trust that the S&P 500 is mechanically constructed.
An anecdote may help demonstrate how investor perception is used. A couple of decades ago, Vanguard worked with MSCI to create indexes that were more amenable to tracking by funds. For example, they used buffers, something novel back then. At the time VLCAX was better designed than VFIAX.
Yet when Vanguard prepared a free financial plan for my mother, the plan recommended VFIAX, not VLCAX. I asked the Vanguard planner why. The response was along the lines that VFIAX was the better known fund.
Compare the stated risk factors for the two funds. For FXIAX, Fidelity say only that, well golly gee, stocks are risky thingies. Especially foreign ones of which it has none.

Stock markets, especially foreign markets, are volatile and can decline significantly in response to adverse issuer, political, regulatory, market, or economic developments.

But Fidelity says more about the risks of FDFIX:

Stock markets, especially foreign markets, are volatile and can decline significantly in response to adverse issuer, political, regulatory, market, or economic developments. Fund and index performance may vary somewhat due to factors such as transaction costs, sample selection, and timing differences associated with index additions and deletions.

The same golly gee stuff, but also risk of tracking error including sampling. Based on everything (and everything omitted) on the FXAIX page, you wouldn't know that FXAIX might also use sampling. Don't dare shatter the illusion that S&P 500 index funds contain precisely 500 stocks.
Next, compare the strategy and risk statements of both of these funds, which Fidelity wants to sell, with the verbiage about VFIAX which Fidelity would rather you not buy.
Below text is taken from the Fidelity brokerage (marketing) page for VFIAX:

Strategy
The fund employs an indexing investment approach designed to track the performance of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index, a widely recognized benchmark of U.S. stock market performance that is dominated by the stocks of large U.S. companies. The advisor attempts to replicate the target index by investing all, or substantially all, of its assets in the stocks that make up the index, holding each stock in approximately the same proportion as its weighting in the index. The fund is non-diversified.
Risk
Value and growth stocks can perform differently from other types of stocks. Growth stocks can be more volatile. Value stocks can continue to be undervalued by the market for long periods of time. Stock markets are volatile and can decline significantly in response to adverse issuer, political, regulatory, market, economic or other developments. These risks may be magnified in foreign markets. Additional risk information for this product may be found in the prospectus or other product materials, if available.

Not just that stock markets are risky, but that they have all sorts of risk - persistent undervaluation, extra volatile growth stocks. And this Vanguard fund is buying all of this risk! And not diversifying (non-diversified fund). And there's so much other risk that we can't include it all here - look at the prospectus. That's something that the Fidelity fund pages don't suggest.
I wonder why [VFFSX] has 4* and FXAIX 5* from M*.
Adding to what @Observant1 wrote: Both funds have 3/5/10 year ratings of 4*, 4*, and 5*. So without a true 10 year rating, the average (overall) rating would have to be 4*.
The 10 year 5* rating is extrapolated by M*, not real. It is shown as as hollow stars.

What do hollow stars indicate?
Hollow stars indicate the Morningstar Rating calculation was performed using extended performance. Extended performance takes the performance string of an older share class of the same portfolio, strips away the fees and expenses of the older share to determine base performance, then adjusts for the fees and expenses of the new share.

https://advisor.morningstar.com/Enterprise/VTC/Essentials_Guidelines_US_2023_0323.pdf

It could be an interesting vote. He does have a strong hand however owning 15% of the voting shares.

morningstar's star rating imo is a dumpster fire.
VFIAX (vanguard sp500 admiral) is also a 5 star.
VFFSX is effectively the same pool of money. 4 star.

"The Morningstar Rating is based on Morningstar Risk-Adjusted Return,
using Morningstar Risk-Adjusted Return % Rank for funds in a category.
Morningstar calculates ratings for the three-, five-, and 10-year periods,
and then the overall Morningstar Rating is based on a weighted average
of the available time-period ratings."
Ten year risk-adjusted returns are an input for the overall M* Rating.
VFIAX has been in existence for over ten years while VFFSX does not have a 10-year history.
This may be why VFIAX has 5 stars but VFFSX has only 4 stars.

Imagine the childish meltdown that will occur if Musk loses this vote!
His Grok AI is the worst rated AI currently available. His promises on his Telsa robots and self-driving cars are ridiculous. And the loss of federal subsidies are set to crush EV sales. His political trolling is not advantageous to his public businesses.
A strong case could be made that he is an impediment, not a driving force.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/tesla-board-shareholders-pay-musk-or-else-2025-11-05/
"Other major shareholders and executive-pay experts warn that the proposal represents an enormous risk to investors. The package, experts said, flouts governance principles not only because of its size but because the board is so explicitly staking Tesla’s future on one leader, with myriad conflicts of interest, who stands to consolidate unchecked power over the company. Responsible governance, they argue, requires boards to remain open to a competitive market for the best available CEO at any given time."
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2025/11/after-a-great-q3-tesla-sees-double-digit-declines-all-over-europe/
"Sales fell by double-digit margins in Sweden (89 percent), Denmark (86 percent), Belgium (69 percent), Finland (68 percent), Austria (65 percent), Switzerland (60 percent), Portugal (59 percent), Germany (54 percent), Norway (50 percent), the Netherlands (48 percent), the UK (47 percent), Italy (47 percent), and Spain (31 percent)."
https://coloradosun.com/2025/11/05/elon-musk-tesla-sales-yale-study/
"A lot, Yale researchers say, in Colorado and across the country, perhaps more than 1 million car sales"

morningstar's star rating imo is a dumpster fire. VFIAX (vanguard sp500 admiral) is also a 5 star. VFFSX is effectively the same pool of money. 4 star.

Yes, you mentioned short stuff re FXAIX, I believe. I did not infer it was unavailable, not at all. But why do you think A's strategy statement is as it is, compared w FDFIX. Why does A not have the last sentence that D has? Something lawyerly? And why does FDFIX not clearly outperform A, do you speculate? (Honest question.)
VFFSX outperforms FXAIX a hair at 5y and 3mo. I wonder why it has 4* and FXAIX 5* from M*.
As a tech writer and editor of many decades I have always embraced RTFM. Alas, last I inquired it was taken as a Mass. license plate.

I use these memos as a source of advice and counsel and not as source of actionable items.
I feel that I am a more rounded investor for having read and learned from them.

FD1000 believes articles or stories must include information that is currently actionable in order to be valuable.
He will often judge writings which don't meet this standard to be merely

clickbait.
There are some who may conclude that FD1000 is the antithesis of the "thinking man."

So, more like this then?

As to "predicting the future", that is exactly what every single buy/sell is, even if using technical analysis (backwards looking indicators). Predictions about the future based on past events.

SCOTUS is "deeply skeptical" of tariffs per reports.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/05/supreme-court-trump-trade-tarrifs-vos.html
"Conservative and liberal justices sharply questioned Solicitor General D. John Sauer on the Trump administration’s legal justification of the tariffs, which critics say infringes on the power of Congress to tax."