I completely agree that the focus on numbers is wrong. I didn't pick it. The thesis of the opinion piece was that from a financial perspective, fracking is a sham.
A piece that presents readers with dubious assertions creates impression that it can't make its case objectively. It is easy to attack, especially by those with an opposing perspective. Ultimately it is harmful as it doesn't persuade and leaves readers suspicious.
I don't appreciate hit pieces on any side of any issue. They're problematic regardless of whether they are more prevalent on one side or another.
Aside from all of that ISTM that it was worth the space saying a little bit about how one looks at cash flows, capital intensive investments, and tax subsidies. There are a number of people investing in MLPs getting "tax free" payments courtesy of the industry's tax breaks: K-1 line 1 ordinary income "May be negative in early years due to accelerated depreciation, but become positive over time."
https://tortoiseecofin.com/media/2581/the-abcs-of-mlps_053018.pdf
2020 - the year that oil futures turned negative. If there was any time in the past few years that the industry would go through a shake out, that was it. OTOH, the piece you cited states that between 2015 and 2020 the industry filed more than 500 bankruptcies. So while the 107 given for 2020 may have been the high for that time span, it doesn't seem that far out of line with the other years.
Again, a frame of reference would help. What is the size of the companies that failed? What percentage of the industry did that represent? The point of the original piece was that "fracking companies" were not profitable, yet aside from Chesapeake which was pretty much a pure play, what even constitutes a fracking company? Haliburton? Schumberger? Are oil companies the same as fracking companies or are we conflating things here? (That was another problem with the original piece.)
harmful emmissions should not only be measured but taxed significantly.
Maybe, or maybe cap and trade would work better. They're not quite the same, and sometimes one can be better than the other. (The former sets the price of emissions and lets the market decide the amount, while the latter sets the amount and lets the market set the price.) Of course in the end either is far superior to the status quo.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2014/08/12/pricing-carbon-a-carbon-tax-or-cap-and-trade/

@MSF I don't doubt your numbers, but I do doubt your focus, given what's at stake environmentally. Part of the problem with finance's fixation on traditional cash flow metrics is it ignores the triple bottom line and the old saying what gets measured gets managed applies. This is why the SEC's movement to force each company to provide comparable statistics on their carbon emmissions matters. And those and other kinds of harmful emmissions should not only be measured but taxed significantly. Not only that but the total carbon/environmental impact of products manufactured should be measured. What then would the fossil fuel industry's cash flow be when adjusted for environmental and social impact? I am aware of course that no industry including for instance solar panels is impact free. Yet the right wing's fixation on alternatives and ESG every time there's a problem like Solyndra is far more of a hit piece if you ask me. Consider another potential "hit piece" comparing Solyndra to the military: https://vox.com/2015/1/5/7490593/F-35-vs-solyndra The fact is we should be investing in real alternative fuel sources whether they're good short-term financial investments or not. That should be the focus. Despite our missions to Mars, there still is no planet B. I would also add that Chesapeake's problems were not an isolated incident: https://ogv.energy/news-item/over-100-oil-and-gas-companies-went-bankrupt-in-2020
@WABAC Although the technology may have advanced since this article was published, as far as I know biofuels are not an adequate environmentally-friendly solution: https://scientificamerican.com/article/biofuels-bad-for-people-and-climate/

Bio-fuel. Is that where they burn garbage and waste to produce the energy? Bio-Mass?

No. Liquid fuels for things like trucks, rail, ships, tugs, even airplanes eventually--so they say, where batteries are not yet considered to be efficient. Which basically means bio-diesel. I think it will be awhile before people are ready to ride in an airplane filled with used vegetable oil.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/05/03/martinez-refinery-to-start-producing-biofuels-instead-of-crude-oil/
But fuel cells are also considered alternatives for some of those applications in the future.

For a variety of environmental reasons, I'd like to see the end of fracking. But that doesn't diminish the appearance of the cited NYTimes Op-Ed piece as a polemic, grounded in misleading, cherry picked data.
Start with the except quoted. Here's an alternative description of 2014, just as factually accurate and just as misleading: With oil prices plummeting over 50% in 2014, it's not surprising that the oil industry failed to make a profit that year.
Is it really true that the domestic industry cannot make a profit with oil at $100/bbl? A graphic by the Dallas (yes, I know) Fed asserts that oil companies can make a profit on drilling new wells at WTI prices ranging from $48 to $69 depending on the oil field (including fracking). See p. 35.
https://www.dallasfed.org/-/media/Documents/research/energy/energycharts.pdf/
The Op-Ed piece draws your attention to oil, while using Chesapeake as a poster child. What it doesn't say is that Chesapeake "was far slower than many of its peers to pivot to tapping shale formations for oil, which turned out to be much more lucrative than gas."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fracking-trailblazer-chesapeake-energy-files-for-bankruptcy-11593374287
What caught my eye in the Times Op-Ed was this part: "Previously, from 2002 to 2012, Chesapeake, the industry leader, didn’t report positive cash flow once, ending that period with total losses of some $30 billion"
Negative cash flows are to be expected in capital intensive industries when they first start out. They have to put a lot of cash into equipment and oil fields for payoffs down the road. It's a balancing act. Expand too slowly and you get killed by fixed costs. Expand too rapidly and you're crushed by debt. The WSJ I cited reports that Chesapeake failed the latter way: "Chesapeake’s breakneck growth left it highly leveraged." That's an indictment of Chesapeake management (ousted by Icahn in 2013), not of the industry.
Let's talk about that $30B in losses for 2014. While I'm not fond of non-GAAP figures, in some industries one should also look at EBITDA. The oil industry gets tremendous subsidies from the federal government in the form of accelerated depreciation and depletion allowances. It is curious how this taxpayer subsidy is not mentioned. Perhaps because it could call the dollar losses into question - are these real losses or just financial manipulations?
$30B is surely a ton of money, but it's presented for shock value without a frame of reference. Here's one (also misleading, but in the other direction): while the industry leader lost $30B in ten years (in a capital intensive industry where it invested for the future), Uber lost the same amount of money in just five years, spending that money not on capital but on capturing market share. They lost money on every ride but made it up in volume.
Limited cites to data, no links given (e.g. "the single best and most thorough account of the fracking boom", so the writer says); this stands in stark contrast to copious citations and links presented for environmental concerns. Not even a link to a Chesapeake financial statement? (Here's the 2014 10K, showing a $2B net profit, even after writing off $2.7B in depreciation, depletion, and amortization.)
The conclusion may be right or wrong. One can't tell because in the end, this is just a hit piece.

For the week ending on 7/27/22, Sentiment continued to improve: Bearish remained the top sentiment (40.1%; high) & bullish became the bottom sentiment (27.7%; low); neutral became the middle sentiment (32.2%; near average); Bull-Bear Spread was -12.4% (low). Investor concerns included recession; inflation & supply-chain disruptions; the Fed/FOMC (rate raised +75 bps; more hikes to come; QT continues); market volatility (VIX, VXN, MOVE); Russia-Ukraine war (22+ weeks); geopolitical. For the Survey week (Thursday-Wednesday), stocks were up, bonds up, oil down, gold up, dollar down. #AAII #Sentiment #Markets
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/141/aaii-sentiment-survey-weekly?page=7&scrollTo=716

I will be adding to ET. The share price is still below my current cost-basis. The political feces everywhere is resulting in good results on my investment in that stock. I see Analysts estimating Fair Value between $15 and $17. That's about a 30% upside. With the regular dividends, I intend to just let it ride, long-term. QAT might be a target for a small amount.

ISTM that the fracking industry, probably with help of lobbyists, succeeded beyond expectations in hoodwinking the public into thinking fracking is patriotic, good laissez-faire economics, and beneficial to the country. The industry seems to have succeeded in sidelining dissent, especially from those who claim environmental harm. Promotion of the US as an energy bully may suit the purposes of the previous presidential régime, but it really is bad policy for this country, other countries, and poor suffering Mother Earth.

Check out the Alberta oil sands project(s). It is wanton, open-pit, shameless defacing of the Province of Alberta, Canada and Mother Earth.
***************
Wiki: "...Only 20 percent of bitumen can be extracted using open pit mining methods,[5] which involves large scale excavation of the land with huge hydraulic power shovels and 400-ton heavy hauler trucks. Surface mining leaves toxic tailings ponds..."
Still, 20% is 20%. This is BIG Industry, BIG Money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_oil_sands

Never even heard of this company. Not a single fund has turned up in all the screens I've run theses last 15-20 years.

FOMC Statement came out & Powell had his say at Q&A. Fed fund futures traders see, as of 7/27/22 EOD, 50-25-25 bps hikes thru December FOMC to 3.25-3.50% level & then the Fed PAUSING. This until the Fed OPEN MOUTH Committee people start talking gain.
https://www.cmegroup.com/trading/interest-rates/countdown-to-fomc.html

Notes After Powell’s Press Conference
Fed funds raised by +75 bps (again) to 2.25-2.5%; more hikes, small or large, would be data dependent. Fed average inflation target remains +2%. Reserve balance rate 2.4%. Primary credit rate 2.5%. Balance sheet QT (-QE) continues at previously announced pace.
US is not in recession now & the Fed is trying to avoid recession; economic data are mixed. Initial Q2 GDP growth (due 7/28/22) will be subject to revisions (there are speculations whether it would be + or -). There is policy effect lag, but the economy is slowing down in some areas.
Fed’s preferred inflation measure is PCE (due 7/29/22) although public watches CPI.
UM Sentiment (due 7/29/22) was not mentioned at all.
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/158/fomc-statements-6-7-weeks?page=1&scrollTo=715

Agreed, the chip bill passing was a mild positive when announced but...
Today is far more about the market reaction to MSFT's unexpectedly strong guidance after their earnings miss yesterday and GOOGL's powerful, after hours move yesterday (and further advances today) after SNAP's debacle. Not all advertising revenue is created equal.
And of course, the Fed came through as expected and that uncertainty is now resolved. As well, Powell's comments are being received very positively.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/surprise-how-the-stock-market-has-reacted-on-each-fed-decision-day-since-march-11658933993?mod=home-page
NOTE: Above link was posted before chart was updated for today's action, which action is similar to prior meetings. Link is fee and may be updated for the above sometime later.
Disclaimer: I am LONG GOOGL, MSFT, AAPL and AMZN, as well as FSELX and FBGRX.

@Crash

you guys are correct, but it seems to me that you're simply beating up on a simple maxim: given our system, and given a young-enough starting point, investors will do well, over long periods of time. Don't the "sadistics" bear this out?

All of that depends on whether we are at an inflection point or not. This is why I think it is a serious mistake to compare the social sciences like economics and its uglier cousin finance with the hard sciences like physics. Tomorrow I can be almost certain that the law of gravity will apply if, say, Vladimir Putin stepped out of a window. I can by no means be certain that the belief that "in the long run U.S. stocks will go up" will remain true.
I also think such a fundamentalist faith in markets is an ideology rooted in mistaken ideas about humanity and history, and is, therefore dangerous. If one believes that stocks always go up eventually during one's lifetime, you could support the notion that Social Security should be privatized and linked to stocks. I think that's a terrible idea as stocks may not always go up and it makes regulating the private sector by the government virtually impossible. Imagine trying to break up a monopoly at one of the largest companies in people's Social Security accounts that would send the accounts downward.
But even as an investor I think the ideology is dangerous. Relative to human history, U.S. stock market history is short, a blip. Why should we believe it repeats when if you look at all of human history every great civilization or world super power has ended either via violent implosion/explosion or a gradual slide into decay? Otherwise, we'd all be Egyptians, Sumerians or Romans today.
The long-term U.S. stocks go up philosophy depends on some basic premises which if we're at an inflection point may not be true:
1. The U.S. remains the world global superpower. There is China.
2. Labor in the U.S. remains powerless, and capital remains triumphant. This depends on globalization, technology and government social programs--to placate labor--and government/corporate oppression--laws preventing labor activism--to remain true. There is evidence that we've reached peak globalization so the labor/wage arbitrage game corporations have played since the 1970s may be coming to an end. In other words, there is much talk about "de-globalization" and "on-shoring" today. Whether that's true or not is a vital question to investors because labor will have power again here if jobs can't just be shipped to low wage nations as easily anymore. That is the wage arbitrage of which I speak.
3. Climate change does not pose a material threat to business. It does. It is, no matter what the deniers think, and capital markets by themselves cannot solve it. It could and will beneift and hurt some sectors of the market, but long-term the growth-at-all costs model may have to change, and that may require a steady state growth or even a declining growth model imposed by government.
4. The Fed maintains control over inflation and the dollar remains the world reserve currency. This is kind of linked to the superpower question.
5. There is no violent social unrest internally or war externally that could lead to the destruction of our nation. January 6th, the BLM unrest and Trump's attempt to overthrow a democratically determined election could be viewed as preludes.
6. Technological increases in labor productivity continue. If they don't continue, then it is harder for the private sector to ignore labor's demands for greater wages.
If any of these premises shift and we are at an inflection point, then the buy and hold philosophy may not be true in the future. In other words, the idea that in the long-run stocks go up isn't science. It's history--In the past stocks went up. And it's libertarian ideology and ideology is a polite term for what the belief system is. Markets can solve all problems including labor's problems with retirement is the belief.

Hopefully the link works.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-questions-for-jerome-powell-federal-reserve-rates-commercial-banks-expenses-interest-income-purchases-debt-obligations-11658846962
Have a good day, Derf

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141819/000089418922005090/rockefellerliquidationstic.htm
Rockefeller Equity Allocation Fund, Rockefeller Core Taxable Bond Fund, Rockefeller Intermediate Tax Exempt National Bond Fund and Rockefeller Intermediate Tax Exempt New York Bond Fund
497 1 rockefellerliquidationstic.htm ROCKEFELLER 497E
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
Registration Nos. 333-62298; 811-10401
Rockefeller Equity Allocation Fund
Rockefeller Core Taxable Bond Fund
Rockefeller Intermediate Tax Exempt National Bond Fund
Rockefeller Intermediate Tax Exempt New York Bond Fund
Each, a series of Trust for Professional Managers (the “Trust”)
Supplement dated July 27, 2022
to the Summary Prospectuses, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information
dated March 30, 2022
The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Trust, based upon the recommendation of Rockefeller & Co. LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to the Rockefeller Equity Allocation Fund, Rockefeller Core Taxable Bond Fund, Rockefeller Intermediate Tax Exempt National Bond Fund and Rockefeller Intermediate Tax Exempt New York Bond Fund (each, a “Fund,” and collectively, the “Funds”), has determined to close and liquidate the Funds. The Board concluded that it would be in the best interests of the Funds and their shareholders that the Funds be closed to new purchases, except for purchases made through an automatic investment program or the reinvestment of any distributions, as of the close of business on July 27, 2022 (the “Closing Date”) and liquidated as series of the Trust effective as of the close of business on August 26, 2022 (the “Liquidation Date”).
The Board approved a Plan of Liquidation (the “Plan”) that determines the manner in which the Funds will be liquidated. Pursuant to the Plan and in anticipation of the Funds’ liquidation, the Funds will be closed to new purchases, except for purchases made through an automatic investment program or a purchase exception that is approved by Trust officers, effective as of the close of business on the Closing Date, after which each Fund’s assets may be entirely invested in money market instruments or held in cash. Accordingly, the Funds will no longer be pursuing their investment objectives. However, any distributions declared to shareholders of the Funds after the Closing Date and until the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange on the Liquidation Date will be automatically reinvested in additional shares of the respective Fund unless a shareholder specifically requests that such distributions be paid in cash. Although the Funds will be closed to new purchases as of the Closing Date, you may continue to redeem your shares of the Funds until the Liquidation Date, as described in “How to Redeem Shares” in the Funds’ Prospectus.
Pursuant to the Plan, if the Funds have not received your redemption request or other instruction prior to the close of business on the Liquidation Date, your shares will be redeemed and you will receive proceeds representing your proportionate interest in the net assets of the respective Fund as of the Liquidation Date, subject to any required withholdings. As is the case with any redemption of Fund shares, these liquidation proceeds will generally be subject to federal and, as applicable, state and local income taxes if the redeemed shares are held in a taxable account and the liquidation proceeds exceed your adjusted basis in the shares redeemed. If the redeemed shares are held in a qualified retirement account such as an IRA, the liquidation proceeds may not be subject to current income taxation under certain conditions. You should consult with your tax adviser for further information regarding the federal, state and/or local income tax consequences of this liquidation that are relevant to your specific situation.
The Adviser will bear all of the expenses incurred in carrying out the Plan.
Shareholder inquiries should be directed to the Funds at 1-855-369-6209.
Please retain this Supplement with your Summary Prospectus, Prospectus
and Statement of Additional Information for reference.

Added to GOOGL position (increased it by a third) the day SNAP reported earnings and dropped about 35%, dragging GOOGL DOWN about 5% with it.
Why? I listened to an in-depth interview that day with an industry expert who explained the significant differences between ad revenues between the two, and how the about 5% drop in GOOGL that day was largely unwarranted. He made a convincing enough case that day to cause me to BUY, and his analysis seems to have been spot on, for the time being at least.

FMOC is meeting this week and will likely to raise rate by 75 bps. Also earning reporting has been coming in ok for many companies with lowered expectations. I will wait until things settled a bit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/25/business/russia-gazprom-germany-gas.html
how much can canada and the u.s.a help?

Thanks to everyone for sharing your thoughts and what you’re considering buying. Especially appreciate your detailed breakdown @wabac. Very thoughtful portfolio. In the last week I have added a 5% position in SPY and a 5% position in MOAT.

Thermal energy units for natural gas are MMBTU (million BTUs) or MWh.
1 MWh = 3.412 MMBTU
Natural gas futures trade in 10,000 MMBTU units, https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/energy/natural-gas/natural-gas.contractSpecs.html
Mini futures trade in 2,500 MMBTU units, https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/energy/natural-gas/emini-natural-gas.contractSpecs.html
Conversion table https://thermal-engineering.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/conversion-joule-calorie-kilowatthour-energy-units.png

Don't like to jump around, but losing my confidence in Int'l fund managers. Hold VWILX and MGGPX. Thinking of reducing positions and adding to VTSAX, a smoother ride. These guys did weather 2020 pretty well, but are getting beat up now. Stay the course? Thoughts needed!! Thanks!

I've owned VWILX for several years.
The fund has experienced significant losses YTD (-31.11%) and over the trailing 12 months (-34.31%).
I don't have any plans to sell VWILX in the short-term.
Guess I'm a glutton for punishment!

Thanks for everyone's input! I haven't made any changes yet to my portfolio yet. Kind of wait and see for now.

I'm of the mind, the day after I sell, will be the upswing!

ya, story of my life. Or, after I buy, the thing falls hard. I'm sticking with my bets, anyhow. This is an INTERNATIONAL thread.... I'm still holding TRAMX. And giving QAT a look-see, recently. And there's a garment maker with facilities in Jordan and New Jersey: Jerash. JRSH. A penny stock, making clothing for other companies, who then attach their OWN brand names to the items.
https://www.barrons.com/market-data/stocks/jrsh?mod=searchresults_companyquotes&mod=searchbar
I've been to Jerash. Very cool, historical. (2004.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerash
"the region of the Gerasenes" (Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26).
https://jerashholdings.com/