Bloomberg story via open Yahoo Finance.
Basically, Illinois is consolidating many local police pension funds into a big state level police pension fund. But this is under litigation as many locals like to "play" with their own underfunded pension funds. This is hurdle# 1.
If it is overcome (as it was for IL Firemen pension fund), then the designated managers are soliciting bids for junky FR/BL by December 2023. Then, they will decide if/how many such external managers may be hired, and how these may be made available.
STAY TUNED!
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/illinois-police-pension-fund-plans-194125760.html

YBB Notes
FED FUND rate held at 5.25-5.50%; bank reserves rate at 5.4%; discount rate at 5.5%. Possibly 1 more hike in 2023. Real & nominal rates may change differently. The base effect is in y-o-y, but the Fed also looks at monthly (m-o-m) and shorter terms changes over rolling 3m or 6m. There is some yield-curve adjustment - longer-term rates are rising more than short-term rates & that may be because stronger economy, higher supply of Treasuries, etc. Interest rate sensitivity of the economy isn't what it used to be - may be the business & household balance sheets are stronger, some consumer savings remain.
QT continues for Treasuries at -$60 billion/mo, for MBS at -$35 billion/mo (Total QT -$95 billion/mo).
New SEPs were available.
INFLATION remains high. Fed's target remains +2% average inflation. Core PCE removes distortions from volatile food & energy, but nominal PCE is also important.
Monetary POLICY remains tight - rates are higher, real rates are positive, neutral rate may be higher, ongoing QT, tight credit conditions, known lag effect of monetary policy.
ECONOMY is solid. LABOR market is strong. SOFT LANDING is plausible.
EXTERNAL FACTORS - high oil/gas/gasoline prices, labor strikes, possible government shutdown, etc. There are many uncertainties around. But pandemic related distortions seem to have unwound.
CONSUMER confidence low. Consumer credit rising. Surveys tend to be more negative, but consumer spending is strong. Higher rates affect households differently according to their wealth levels. There are ad-hoc surveys of nonprofits and community groups to assess what may be going on with low/moderate income groups.
HOUSING is mixed. Measurements are via OERs & rent/lease increases have moderated. Housing supply is constrained. High mortgage rates discourage existing homeowners (with low-rate mortgages) from moving.
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1182/thread

SSGA might have a point about SPY appealing to institutional investors.
If it were primarily a matter of cost, then why is SPY still so large? Its ER is more than triple that of IVV ($353B AUM) and of VOO ($334B AUM including all share classes). And that's before including the additional opportunity cost of SPY's cash drag. As a UIT, it cannot put underlying stock divs to work except quarterly, and then only indirectly.
One might rationalize retail investors using SPY based on name recognition, but I expect more informed decisions by institutional investors.
The UIT structure that creates a cash drag also keeps the NAV extremely close to the index value. This is because the UIT can't loan securities and can't "randomly" reinvest stock divs.
[IVV specifically has another source of tracking error: "Because the Fund uses a representative sampling indexing strategy, it can be expected to have a larger tracking error than if it used a replication indexing strategy". (IVV Prospectus.). VOO uses full replication.]
Tracking that is accurate to the nth decimal place doesn't matter for retail, long term investors (or even traders unless their transactions are huge). However,

Because SPY’s net asset value (NAV) always closely mimics the S&P 500 index it is very reliable and suitable for options trading. Without this strict structure, price deviations from the index may disrupt an option strategy. Any strategy depending on the ETF tracking very closely S&P 500 should rely on SPY. Because of that reason SPY is a favorite, relative to IVV for intraday trading. Traders and strategy investors demand no surprises other than what is reflected by the underlying stocks or trading on the ETF.

https://wiserinvestor.com/spy-or-ivv-the-sp-500-index-decision/ (2008)
This gets us back to Yogi's point on liquidity. SPY is highly liquid not only because of its AUM but because of its robust options market, driven in part by its UIT structure. As a "small potatoes" investor, I would not use SPY. But what makes it unappealing to me makes it attractive to institutions.
Why 'SPY' is King of Liquidity (ETF.com, 2019)

So, if you have SPLG /SP500 at ER of 2 bps, do you really need SPY/SP500 at ER of 9.5 bps?
Yes, would say State Street - for higher liquidity for institutions. But retail investors would be just fine with SPLG.
SPY is State Street's original cash cow that may fund its other ETF businesses. State Street wants to have it both ways for a while - low and high ER ETFs for different types of clients.
iShares/BLK used a similar trick years ago when it introduced overlapping low ER ETFs. Sure, those had poor liquidity initially, but all investors wised up and now those newer lower ER iShare ETFs are larger than its older higher ER ETFs.
Remember this when SPLG (AUM $19.9 billion) becomes bigger than SPY (AUM $411.6 billion) in a few years.

As of 8/1/23:
https://www.ssga.com/library-content/pdfs/etf/us/spdr-portfolio-etfs-ter-reductions-faqs.pdf
WSJ has an article on SPLG, a 0.02% ETF, dated 9/18 titled, "You Might Be Paying Too Much for That Index Fund."

While 2Y, 5Y, 10Y yields continue to rise, 3M yields have flattened.
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$IRX&p=D&b=5&g=0&id=p27637493828
In fact, last three 3M T-Bill Auctions (9/5/23, 9/11/123, 9/18/23) were at the SAME discounted price of 98.656486 (matching 6 decimal digits!). I have seen same prices for 2 Auctions, but for three Auctions? Stockcharts for 3M yields shows flattening but not to this extent.
I watch 2-yr FRN index and it hasn't moved since 9/6/23 (good to 9/25/23) and is STUCK at 5.387380201 (that is 9 decimal digits!). It is supposed to adjust weekly based on 3M Auctions, so I looked at recent 3M Auctions.
Another observation for FIDO: In a cash-account (without margin), Fidelity didn't allow purchase for 3M T-Bill Auction on Monday when a 3M T-Bill was also maturing on the following Thursday; in theory, both could settle normally on Thursday. I didn't call Fido. In hindsight, all my Treasury purchases had been in accounts with margin (or with sufficient funds in the core account), and then this hasn't been an issue.

I've bought a couple 1 year CDs from JP Morgan at 5.65% the past 2 weeks.

I was pleased with CDs I bought for 5.3% about a month ago. At Schwab Brokerage today, CDs are now at 5.5% at 3/6/9/12/18 month. 2 year CDs are at 5.3%, 3 year at 5.1%. About the time I thought CDs were likely flattening, they continue to go up, both on a short term and longer term basis. You have to wonder how much higher those CDs could rise!

3 years, top 2% of category.
5,10, 15 years: top 1% of category.
OK by me. If additions to my account would not be non-deductible, I'd be adding.

Thanks for doing the math @msf. None better.
I also appreciate that no one has slammed me for being sacrilegious re this great fund. Like I said, it’s fun to slice and dice the numbers in a variety of ways. I suspect most who were heavy into equities at the start of ‘22 would be happy to be back to break-even, or to 99% of the original amount at this time. BTW - The 1-year return is much better as it’s measured from a low point in ‘22.

@hank, FWIW, I believe Giroux's stated goal for PRWCX is to obtain S&P 500 like returns with lower volatility over a market cycle.

Sounds right Mike. I’ve heard him allude to both 3 and 5 year time horizons in various interviews. He’s also very good at discussing this in his semi & annual reports as well. I’ve stopped reading them, however, since exiting the fund maybe 18 months ago.

To get compound interest (or cumulative returns) - multiply by each period's (1 + rate).
Here: (1 - 11.94%) x (1 + 12.55%) = 99.11153%, meaning that an investor's got "just" 99% of what they started with at the beginning of 2022.

Nothing yet. The original registration filing indicated an offering date as of 10/1, but that may change.
From the SEC concerning the Capital Appreciation and Income Fund:
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?CIK=C000245159&action=getcompany&scd=filings

PRWCX has an absolutely incredible long term record under Giroux. Looking nearer term, the M* numbers say the fund lost 11.94% in 2022 and is up about 12.55% so far in 2023. Since it takes a larger % increase to make up a loss, this would mean that investors in the fund are roughly back to where they were at the beginning of 2022?
That’s more of a question than an assertion. As I said, long term there is no disputing the manager’s success. I know 20.5 months is a very short term in investing. Just find it interesting to pick apart numbers in various ways. (And investors’ investment horizons appear to be getting shorter. Giroux has mentioned in the past that 3 years is a reasonable “break-even” point for this fund. There’s little doubt he has exceeded that.

M* Performance tab shows that the new TCAF (6/14/23- ) had inflows of about $70 million/mo. Its $222.4 million AUM (M*) is decent for a new ETF. A survivable ETF typically has $50+ million AUM. True, there have been hot ETFs from other hot managers that ran up the AUM to billion soon after inception. Some new funds may be seeded by the sponsoring firms (with $50-100 million) but Price didn't do that for TCAF. Also be aware that the stocks haven't done much since mid-June as the rally has stalled.

Giroux made his rep on a low-volatility balanced fund. Now he is on a different playing field. And it's crowded.
MFO premium says you can screen for top-ten holdings, but really only allows five. As it is, Giroux is competing with 98 funds that charge .50 or less, and feature the same top five holdings. If you knock out the index funds, that still leaves 27 active competitors. Ten of those competitors charge less than .31 cents.
Just looking at the etf's from those ten funds, his competitors from least to most expensive are: DFUS, PLRG, JUSA, and DFSU.

The official reason for the abrupt departure is family issues back home in Toronto. That aside, the Bloomberg article mentions the difficulty recent CALPERS investment chiefs have had dealing with a sometimes obstinate, quarrelsome board of directors. Tenures have been brief in recent years.
Musicco had much success in running both public pensions and private investments in Canada before taking the CALPERS position in February, 2022. Her frequent absence from the office, related to commuting from Toronto, appeared to be one source of friction with co-workers. She emphasized direct investment over indirect ones through advisory firms to save on fees. Her attempts to buy professional sports teams was questioned by some at CALPERS. As the largest public pension fund in the country, CALPERS is seriously underfunded and needs to make up lost ground. Recent performance has been “underwhelming.”
Decent article from Yahoo: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/resigning-calpers-cio-led-private-050000716.html
”Calpers appointed Musicco to CIO in February 2022, during a period in which the pension fund set its focus on growing its exposure to the private markets. In late 2021, it had adopted an asset allocation plan to increase its PE investments from 8% to 13% and added a private debt allocation of 5%. Musicco brought private market investment expertise into her new role at Calpers, joining the fund from RedBird Capital Partners as head of the firm's Canadian unit. Prior to that, Musicco managed the private markets investment program at the Investment Management Corporation of Ontario and spent 16 years at the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, where she led both the PE and public equity teams.” (Credit to Yahoo Finance)
Excellent in-depth piece from Bloomberg (if you subscribe or can otherwise find a way to access):
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-18/biggest-us-pension-s-investment-boss-pushed-sports-deals-before-calling-it-quits
”Musicco’s attempt to import the so-called Canadian investment model, which emphasizes direct investments to reduce the fees paid to outside managers, didn’t sit well with key investing staff at Calpers, because there was no clear path communicated on how to do it, according to people close to the pension who were not authorized to speak publicly.” (Credit to Bloomberg)

Shares outstanding (as of Sept 15): 8,450,000
NAV (as of Sept 15): $25.66
=> AUM = $216.827,000
https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/tools/fund-research/etf/TCAF
There are people posting here who have or are running funds; they are much better positioned to say what is needed for viability, though one has to believe that $200M+ is more than enough. (Though how much of this is seed money, we don't know.)
It's about the same size as FAN, XTN, ICSB, FXY, WDIV, and PBJ (gotta like that ticker). Generally not the broadest based ETFs around, but all seem viable.
https://www.tipranks.com/etf/etfs-by-aum

$217M so far. Still pretty new. Time to grow...? Viable? Certainly on the way, eh?
https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/arcx/tcaf/quote

Since the advent of the Credit Suisse Leveraged Loan Index (floating rate bank loans) in 1992 there have only been three down calendar years. 2008, 2015, and 2022. In each case the index bounced back sharply the following year more than making up for the losses.
With 2023 on track for the category’s second best year since 1992 some could argue we are in the later innings of this move. Investors are notorious for chasing what has been hot based on recent performance and then regretting it. And recent performance since we began discussing bank loans here over the past many months has been exceptionally robust.

Rather than the Fed "promising" rate changes, it "expects" or "predicts". That said, even before "early 2022", i.e. in December 2021, it "predicted" three interest rate hikes for 2022.
"The Federal Reserve said [on Dec 15, 2021] it would ... pave the way for three quarter-percentage-point interest rate hikes by the end of 2022".
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/fed-prepares-stiffen-inflation-response-post-transitory-world-2021-12-15/
BL have been doing well.
Eventually (read 2023).
But in 2022 following that "promise", bank loan funds lost an average of 2.49% (data from M*). If one wants to say that "doing well" is a relative statement, then sure, bank loan funds did well.
Except relative to ultrashort fixed rate funds. As a group, those went down "just" 0.14% in what has been described as the worst year ever for bonds.
Even worse was how bank loan funds performed in the first six months of 2022 right after the Fed press release. By July 8, 2022, bank loan funds were down 5.8%, underperforming not only ultrashort bond funds, but short term bond funds as well. (Graph from previously linked M* article.)

The point is that while bank loan funds tend to do better than other funds when interest rates go up, that's only one (albeit major) factor in how these funds actually perform in any given period of time.
Sometimes Fed predictions are wrong. It "predicted" 3 quarter-percent rate increases in 2022. It actually raised rates by a quarter point only once in 2022. But it raised rates by 1/2 or 3/4 percent six other times that year. Shouldn't bank loan funds have done even better as a result? Macroeconomics is hard.
2022-2023 rate hikes (table in Fortune article)