@Crash - 0n that Muted Response to ET's quarter. Sam Smith's thoughts at SeekingAlpha:
"While this might baffle some investors, the reason is clear: ET signaled that the "old ET" is still very clearly present and Kelcy Warren's hunger for growth spending is as strong as ever. While it is still very likely that ET will restore its quarterly distribution to pre-cut levels in 2023 or 2024, the likelihood of additional capital returns via additional distribution growth or unit buybacks just took a huge hit.
It appears ET does not get it: Mr. Market clearly wants ET to reign in its acquisition and growth project spending and instead focus keenly on debt reduction and unitholder capital return acceleration. However, ET appears to be dedicated to simply reaching a certain leverage target, restoring the distribution to pre-cut levels, and then focus heavily on growth spending. While this could pay off, ET's past track record does not bode well."

Under investigation.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/cfpb-is-investigating-goldman-sachss-credit-card-practices-11659640285?mod=hp_lead_pos2
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596363/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0
.....And yesterday, Wells (not Goldman) sent me a spam mailing, offering me a teaser ZERO percent rate on a credit card. After the teaser-term is over, the rate jumps to over 20%. It's ripped up and in the trash. They must think we're pretty stupid. Often enough, I am. But not about THAT kinda stuff. Not anymore. Schmucks.

I have no idea how to make geographical sector bets so personally I wouldn't use any non-diversified EM fund myself, especially as a buy and hold fund.

Yeah, That’s a tough nut to crack. I have a little diversified EM at Dodge & Cox. Blind faith I guess in their stewardship. And a very small hold in ENOR (Norway) which is actually in my Real Assets sleeve due to its economy’s heavy dependence on energy exports. Neither of the aforementioned funds, however, is “shooting the lights out.” In fact I’d liken it more to shooting myself in the foot.
As far as going “off the reservation” is concerned with non diversified EMs, I always think back to hearing Sir John Templeton remark that it’s very rare for any country’s market to fall more than 50% and stay down that far for long. (In specific he was addressing a rout in the Asian EMs back than.) In that day Sir John would have found an economy down that far a lucrative investment target. However, a lot has changed in the 25-35 years since he made that remark. May not hold water today.
Kudos to @Crash for sticking to his guns.
Great insights from @LewisBraham. Much appreciated.

Thx for the explanations, appreciate it.
@Derf, ya it does seem wonky but...opened 5 year $90k Goldman Sachs, CD thru Schwab 1/19 @ 3.50% APY, matures 1/23, value stated a few days ago as $90,491...opened others thru Schwab during 11/19 @ 3.55%... 5 yr CDs were offering decent APYs back in late '19 etc.
Best,
Baseball Fan

So, one by one, the OLD Nuveen mutual funds are disappearing. Last time were the old Nuveen EM fund that was just liquidated, and some old Nuveen bond funds and target-risk funds that were merged into similar TIAA-CREF funds (see links below). Now, another, the Nuveen International Growth is being merged into a similar TIAA-CREF fund.
It is surprising how slow TIAA has been on doing this (after all, TIAA bought OLD Nuveen in 2014; later, to confuse the matters, it rebranded its entire fund arm as NEW Nuveen). They may have made promises to keep the old Nuveen operations going on for a while. Old Nuveen CIO Bob DOLL retired in 2021 and joined a faith-based investment firm.
Going forward, TIAA may only keep muni CEFs and OEFs from the old Nuveen and may liquidate or merge most of its mutual funds into TIAA-CREF funds. No point in running 2 middling groups of mutual funds.
At the M* TIAA forum, it was also noted recently that TIAA has plans to get rid of CREF name and operations and fold all of those into TIAA. So, all the TIAA-CREF mutual fund names may soon change to just TIAA.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/59626/nuveen-emerging-markets-equity-fund-is-to-be-liquidated/p1
https://www.nuveen.com/en-us/investments/reorganizations

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1041673/000119312522211741/d371429d497.htm
497 1 d371429d497.htm NUVEEN INVESTMENT TRUST II
NUVEEN INTERNATIONAL GROWTH FUND
SUPPLEMENT DATED AUGUST 4, 2022
TO THE PROSPECTUS AND SUMMARY PROSPECTUS DATED DECEMBER 1, 2021
Proposed Reorganization of
Nuveen International Growth Fund into
TIAA-CREF International Opportunities Fund
The Board of Trustees of Nuveen Investment Trust II (“NIT II”) and the Board of Trustees of TIAA-CREF Funds (“TC Funds”) have each approved the reorganization of Nuveen International Growth Fund (the “Target Fund”), a series of NIT II, into TIAA-CREF International Opportunities Fund (the “Acquiring Fund”), a series of TC Funds. In order for the reorganization to occur, it must be approved by the shareholders of the Target Fund.
If the Target Fund’s shareholders approve the reorganization, the Target Fund will transfer all of its assets and liabilities to the Acquiring Fund in exchange for Acquiring Fund shares of equal value. These Acquiring Fund shares will then be distributed to Target Fund shareholders and the Target Fund will be terminated. As a result of these transactions, Target Fund shareholders will become shareholders of the Acquiring Fund and will cease to be shareholders of the Target Fund. Each Target Fund shareholder will receive Acquiring Fund shares with a total value equal to the total value of that shareholder’s Target Fund shares immediately prior to the closing of the reorganization. It is expected that the reorganization will qualify as a tax-free reorganization for federal income tax purposes and that Target Fund shareholders will not recognize any gain or loss as a result of the reorganization. However, Target Fund shareholders will receive a distribution of substantially all net income and/or realized gains, if any, prior to the reorganization.
A special meeting of the Target Fund’s shareholders for the purpose of voting on the reorganization is expected to be held in early October 2022. If the required approval is obtained, it is anticipated that the reorganization will be consummated approximately 15-30 days after the special shareholder meeting. Further information regarding the proposed reorganization will be contained in proxy materials that are expected to be sent to shareholders of the Target Fund in September 2022.
The Target Fund will continue sales and redemptions of its shares as described in the prospectus until shortly before its reorganization. However, holders of shares purchased after the record date set for the Target Fund’s special meeting of shareholders will not be entitled to vote those shares at the special meeting.
PLEASE KEEP THIS WITH YOUR PROSPECTUS
AND/OR SUMMARY PROSPECTUS
FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

For the week ending on 8/3/22, Sentiment improved significantly: Bearish remained the top sentiment (38.9%; above average) & bullish remained the bottom (tie) sentiment (30.6%; below average); neutral remained the middle (tie) sentiment (30.6%; near average); Bull-Bear Spread was -8.3% (low). With all Sentiments in 30s (last times 1/5/22, 3/23/22, 6/1/22), future flip-flops in ordering are expected. There is widening belief that the worst is behind for the Sentiment and markets; mid-June may have been the worst. Investor concerns included recession/slowdown; inflation & supply-chain disruptions; the Fed/FOMC; market volatility (VIX, VXN, MOVE); Russia-Ukraine war (23+ weeks); geopolitical. For the Survey week (Thursday-Wednesday), stocks were up sharply, bonds up, oil down sharply, gold up sharply, dollar flat. #AAII #Sentiment #Markets
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/141/aaii-sentiment-survey-weekly?page=7&scrollTo=731

From Morningstar's write-up. Dated 25th July, '22.
What does this even SAY? It's not proper English. Written by a bot?
"...Morningstar's style-agnostic evaluation of this fund's process seeks to understand whether the strategy has a performance objective and sensible, clearly defined, repeatable execution. T. Rowe Price New Era Fund earns an Above Average Process Pillar rating.
This strategy hews closely to the market-cap and investment style of its Natural Resources category peers. Analyzing additional factors, this strategy holds highly liquid stocks. More-liquid assets are easier to buy and sell without adversely moving their prices and tend provide some ballast during market sell-offs. They also are easier to sell to meet redemptions if a host of investors decide to leave the fund in a short period of time. However, compared with Morningstar Category peers historically, the strategy is less exposed. (***Exposed to WHAT?) This strategy also has an overweight bias to the volatility factor, meaning investing in stocks that have a higher historical standard deviation of returns. This contributes to a high-risk, high-reward approach. But when compared with category peers, the strategy historically has had less exposure. Additionally, the managers have tended to overweight yield, shown by the portfolio's high exposure to stocks paying dividends or buying back shares. Such stocks can provide dependable income payments but also have their risks. Dividend-payers might cut payouts if their earnings fall. And the portfolio has more exposure than its Morningstar Category peers. (***Exposure to div. payers?) More information on a fund and its respective category's factor exposure can be found in the Factor Profile module within the Portfolio section.
In terms of portfolio turnover, this fund trades less frequently than the category’s average, potentially limiting costs to investors.
**********************************************
Yes, it had to be a bot, or else maybe a 7th grader.... Jayzuz.

EFCU Financial, out of Baton Rouge. 3.75% for 5 years. (Scroll down the page.) For a "jumbo," you can get 3.85%. That's a $100,000.00 minimum.
https://www.investopedia.com/best-5-year-cd-rates-4801473
https://www.efcufinancial.org/media/201852/august-2022-rate-sheet.pdf
I did not look to see about membership eligibility.

Exxon doesn't care who its owners are.
That's a pretty good definition of poor governance - ignoring your shareholders. Ultimately that comes with consequences.

A year ago this month [May], a small hedge fund won an unlikely victory against ExxonMobil, gaining support from a majority of the company’s shareholders to replace three of its directors, against management’s wishes. The fund, called Engine No. 1, had argued that Exxon was failing to plan for a transition away from fossil fuels, and as a result was jeopardizing its long-term business prospects.
While Engine No. 1 held only a tiny number of shares, it waged a six-month campaign and convinced large investors like BlackRock and State Street that Exxon needed fresh faces on its board of directors. Even before the vote, Exxon responded to the pressure by announcing a new low-carbon business line and more ambitious plans to reduce its own direct greenhouse gas emissions.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/17052022/charlie-penner-engine-no-1-exxonmobil/
That sounds like Exxon cared who its owners were - it opposed replacing board members and it responded to pressure by owners.
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/07/23/eesg-activism-after-exxonmobil/

@Baseball_Fan : I checked average 5 year cd's issued .from January 2019. 1.4 -1.5 %
Your total sum seems somewhat suspicious for holding it that long, 3.5 years .
If you google , average cd rate 2019, you should find a chart.
I'll also admit it seems to me I bought a cd @ 3 % around 1/st qter 2018.
One other thought. Maybe that's the value going forth, if you sell, after your interest payment to you?
Have a good one, Derf

TYVM for the info.
Checking to see how a portfolio is doing on an intra-day basis is arguably a pointless activity that one should not be engaging in anyway. But it can be somewhat amusing -- for a certain kind of person.

Agree. :)
70% or more here is in mutual funds that only report after the markets close. But enjoy looking sometimes at how the ETFs and stocks are faring. Often, it’s a good indicator of how the day will go. If one has an IOS device, “Active Portfolio / Premium” ($35 a year) is excellent for that kind of real time tracking - though it falls short in other areas.

These are features of legacy pages from two iterations ago. M* hid them many months ago, though it has only recently completely disabled them.
In its current iteration (at morningstar.com) one can still compare fund performance by using interactive graphs and selecting the desired time period. In the newest iteration (at investor.morningstar.com) you can find the interactive chart by looking for the "charting" icon down the left hand side (thanks to Yogi for finding this).
These issues have been extensively discussed in this thread:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/59701/m-screwing-everything-up-again/p1
They are also the subject of an August commentary
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2022/08/new-coke-the-ford-edsel-cheetos-lip-balm-and-morningstar-investor/
As annoying as removal of convenience features are, so long as one has access to the data, one can at least in theory make do. (Though pragmatically it may not be worth one's time and effort.) OTOH, it is impossible to compensate for data that is completely eliminated, such as brokerage availability.

To enlarge on yogi's comments, note that your account at Schwab shows the "Market Value" of your CD. Because the best return on currently offered CDs is around 3%, and your CD is paying 3.55%, it would be worth more to someone desiring to buy it from you in the secondary market.
Conversely, if your CD was returning 2.5%, it would be worth less to a purchaser.
None of this has any relationship as to the amount your CD will be worth at maturity. At maturity, you will receive the face amount plus any accrued interest.

Good afternoon All,
Serious question here as I feel I should but do not know the answer.
CDs.
When I buy them thru a bank, let's say for example sake, $100k, 3% APY, I see $103000 a year later in my account.
How does that work for CDs that you buy thru Schwab. When I look at the value, it makes no sense to me what the value and gain/loss is. For instance I opened a 3.55% brokered CD thru Schwab 3.5 years ago with $90k and it states the value is ~$90,492. No way that can be correct right? I called and their rep could not explain it. Does it all "true up" at the end of the CD term?
I hope this question makes sense.
Best,
Baseball Fan

Chart in the article:

Seems to point out that active management has a very low alpha add when it comes to Global Emerging Market across all time frames. Maybe just buy the index VWO, VEIEX, etc

Just checked Fidelity and there are at least 5 more banks offering 1 year CD at 3.0%.

☞ Free link to NPR Article
Excerpts from the article:

The problems are mounting for Robinhood, a company that had big ambitions to revolutionize markets by attracting millions of amateur investors into stock trading for the first time.
On Tuesday, the company announced plans to cut almost a quarter of its staff, citing economic uncertainty, a steep selloff in cryptocurrencies, and a deteriorating market environment. This is the second round of layoffs for Robinhood, which reduced its workforce by about 9% in April.
The cuts mark another reversal for a company that created an app for trading stocks that became wildly popular when COVID-19 spread and the economy shut down, leaving millions stuck at home with plenty of time on their hands. At the time, interest rates were near zero, tech companies were expanding, and Americans had extra cash thanks to stimulus checks from the federal government.
But a deep downturn in markets has eroded Robinhood's fortunes this year. The company has seen its shares tank more than 70% since raising almost $2 billion when it went public in a high-profile initial public offering in 2021.
On Tuesday, CEO Vlad Tenev acknowledged in a blog post that the first staff reduction a few months ago "did not go far enough. As CEO, I approved and took responsibility for our ambitious staffing trajectory — this is on me," he wrote. "In this new environment, we are operating with more staffing than appropriate."
Robinhood has also attracted government scrutiny. Also on Tuesday, a New York financial regulator fined the company $30 million "for significant failures in the areas of bank secrecy act/anti-money laundering obligations and cybersecurity."
Robinhood is not the only tech company to lay off staff. Shopify, Netflix, Tesla and several crypto companies have also cut their workforces amid the worsening economic outlook.