why not buy at brokerage (at Auction or in the secondary market) in the first place?
A rhetorical question but one with a real answer. While many brokerages let you buy and sell Treasuries (at auction or in the secondary market) with no commission, some don't.
For example, at Merrill if you want to buy an auction Treasury you have to go through a human being*. You will get charged a commission for that service. If the only accounts you have are at Merrill and at TreasuryDirect, you have three choices: (1) buy at TD, (2) pay a commission and buy at Merrill, or (3) open a new brokerage account.
Buying at TreasuryDirect combines ease and economy in this rare confluence of circumstances. The moral of the story is to make sure that you can trade Treasuries commission-free at your brokerage.
* Online auction Treasuries not available at Merrill according to The Finance Buff. I have not been able to find any information about upcoming auctions at merrilledge.com (i.e. I can't purchase online). While some brokerage review sites say that you can buy auction Treasuries online at Merrill, that appears to be based on a sloppily worded pricing list.

I prefer Treasury Auctions when nearby (for 13-wk and 26-wk T-Bills, there are). There is a large supply and even much larger demand (often 2x-3x). EVERYBODY gets the same price whether buy they $100 (at Treasury Direct) or $1,000 (at brokerages) or $10 million (limit for noncompetitive orders), or $10+ million (competitive orders). So, the retail investors get a break.
Treasuries bought at Treasury Direct must be held to maturity. If you want to sell before maturity, you have to transfer them to a brokerage and then sell. So, why not buy at brokerage (at Auction or in the secondary market) in the first place?
Buying in the secondary market is continuous during the market hours, but there are bid-ask based on which Treasury you are buying and how much. Of course, there are no fees or commissions for them at major brokerages (as there are for bonds generally). Treasury ladders can be setup easily with secondary market purchases.
Treasuries are exempt from state/local taxes.
Unlike CDs, Treasury secondary markets are very liquid. So, T-Bill/Note should be preferred if their yields are close to those of the CDs. The CDs sales on secondary markets may be hit or miss - you may get lucky if there is a ready buyer, or may get a decent haircut. But T-Bill/Notes and CDs are to be held to maturity to the extent possible.

T-Bill CUSIP Numbers - Matching

Because of 13-wk, 26-wk, 52-wk T-Bill issuances, some maturing dates for 13-wk T-Bills will coincide with those for 26-wk and 52-wk T-Bills. Similar for 26-wk and 52-wk T-Bills.
When the T-Bill maturity dates are the same, and the coupon rates are all 0% (because T-Bills are sold at discounts), Treasury uses the same CUSIP# for them. Treasury doesn't call these reopening, nor marks them as such in the Treasury Auction Schedule - in fact, Treasury says that T-Bills don't have reopening.
So, how does one figure out what is going on?
1. Matching T-Bill CUSIP# is one way but that is tedious, even with Treasury site CUSIP search. For example, a search on CUSIP# 912796ZD4 shows that related 13-wk, 26-wk, 52-wk have maturity dates of 11/30/23 (see this link by @msf).
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/auctions/auction-query/?cusip=912796ZD4
2. Comparing T-Bill Original Issue Dates with actual Issue Dates is another way, but that information is lost in the Treasury Auction Results data fields as there are other more important data for rates, spreads of bids, etc. However, the Treasury Auction Announcements have the Auction Date, Original Issue Date, actual Issue Date, and Maturity Date.
13-wk Auction Announcement for 8/28/23 (Maturity 11/30/23)
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/instit/annceresult/press/preanre/2023/A_20230824_3.pdf
(Note that Original Issue Date and actual Issue Date don't match)
52-wk Auction Announcement for 11/29/22 (Maturity 11/30/23)
https://treasurydirect.gov/instit/annceresult/press/preanre/2022/A_20221123_3.pdf
(Note that Original Issue Date and actual Issue Date match)
One can also verify the the CUSIP# in these 13-wk and 52-wk Auction Announcements match.

Today's auction shows the price for a 13 week T-bill (CUSIP 912796ZD4), maturing 11/30/23 was $98.650167. That seems to exactly match what you wrote you bought.
Auction result:
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/instit/annceresult/press/preanre/2023/R_20230828_3.pdf
Announcement (original issue date 12/1/22):
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/instit/annceresult/press/preanre/2023/A_20230824_3.pdf
This security was auctioned off three times: originally as a 52 week T-bill (issued 12/1/22), then as a 26 week T-bill (issued 6/1/23), and now as a 13 week T-bill (to be issued 8/31/23).
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/auctions/auction-query/?cusip=912796ZD4

I made sure I punched at auction & received back what appears to be a one year T bill with 3 months left.
Security: U S TREASURY BILL 0% 11/30/23 12/01/22 Price was $98.65
The T bill dated 12/01/22 shows 4.49 - 4.66 Bank discount & Coupon equivalent
That is the daily rate on the secondary market quotation on most recent auction of T-bills.
From conversation June 8 added below. Why was this a secondary purchase & not the first time it has happen.
I believe YBB gave me a follow up link for whom to contact.
Derf
June 8 in Other Investing Flag
Announcement 6/6, Auction 6/7 bought on 6/6 I received message today of purchased which showed 08/08/23 - 04/11/23. That appears to be a T-bill bought at market. Called VG today & rep said it was an auction purchase. I'll be calling tomorrow , bright & early to see if I can get a reason as to why this happened. If that T-bill was sold out, the order shouldn't have been filled. Maybe no fill or kill at VG ?
Anyone have any ideas ? Rep also mention it maybe a RO bill, reopened. If that is the case, wouldn't it show on the pre- schedule ?
Thanks, Derf

Ms Bhansali steps down as manager of Ariel Global and Ariel International on August 31. Between that, the funds have over $800 million in assets. Bhansali will remain as a consultant until February.
She will be succeeded by Henry Mallari-D’Auria, who joined the firm from AllianceBernstein in April, bringing along five associates. He was the head of emerging markets for Ariel until the announcement of Bhansali's departure, at which point he became head of global and international equities for them He was CIO for EM Equity Value to AllianceBernstein from 2002-2023.
Ariel Global is a four-star fund. Ariel International is vastly larger, and has earned three stars. Given that Morningstar doesn't track growth and value separately, and Bhansali is a distinctly contrarian, value investor, the star ratings might be a bit misleading. MFO Premium tracks Global against Lipper's Global Multi-Cap Value peer group. Global has average returns (it trails the group by 0.2% APR) but substantially lower volatility and substantially higher risk-adjusted returns (Sharpe Ratio is 0.62 since inception, versus the peer group's 0.50). International tracks the International Large Core group where is substantially trails its peers in returns, has substantially lower volatility, and comparable risk-adjusted performance.
Mr. Mallari-D'Auria ran an Europe-based EM hedge fund (Next 50) for AllianceBernstein. He manages two SMA strategies for Ariel (EM Value and EM ex-China Value). He also ran AB Emerging Markets Value Equity, which also appears to be a quarter-billion dollar SMA strategy. That strategy earned three stars from Morningstar. Like the Ariel funds, it's a value strategy which substantially trails its (non-value) peer group since inception. The gap is about 200 bps. But it's not evident that he's ever run a mutual fund before.
I've reached out to her via LinkedIn to see if she'll chat, now or after September 1, about her plans.

@msf @observant1
Thanks for the advice. The article is especially interesting with the link to the eMoney discussion.
Has anyone used eMoney at Fido?

One hurdle has yet to overcome, but I think it can be solved.

There is one issue that could hamper the production of solid-state batteries though — lithium supply. Solid-state batteries could end up using a lot more lithium than traditional batteries. Some research suggests that solid-state batteries could use five to 10 times as much lithium as current-gen batteries. There’s already a lithium shortage, so that’s a major issue.
So what’s the solution? Right now it’s hard to say. EV battery recycling could play an important role, but even then it’s unlikely we’ll be able to recycle enough lithium to supply materials for new battery tech.

https://digitaltrends.com/cars/toyota-solid-state-battery-technology-explained/
Toyota is very good of bring quality products to the market. Hopefully they will find other less expensive metals for these solid state batteries in 2027. That is one of the reason that Toyota Motors is one of the top holding in my oversea investing.

@FD1000,
Your GE, Lucent experience resonates with me...I was a young buck in 87' when the schmeissing occured in the markets...the 50-something year old engineers were walking around shell shocked in the office with that far away gaze....looking back at the aftermath of 01'....was in many business meetings with said 50-something year olds who retired due to the run up in the stonk market in the mid-late 90's...I have no idea why they were hired back, they weren't into it, stilll were thinking of the golf course and what happened...then recently with the Covid bullshit....guys were walking around like someone ran their dog over...work buddy came back from a week in Vegas right before everything shut down, portfolio down -10%...in a week...guys lost a third of their portfolio in a month...now they are walking around with no care in the world, wonder if they done learnt anything from their experiences....
What is the most concerning is that when you look behind the bullshit numbers that the govt and their media shills put out you would have no idea that inflation could easily get even worse, many layoffs starting to happen, many companies going bankrupt, crime is out of control....I think we are headed towards a Germany kind of investing climate...folks there have very little in the markets, maybe the average portfolio is 10-15% exposed to stocks...a lot of insurance type of products (Allianz etc)...rental property if you are a baller....
Just buy Nivida though right?

Sometimes you just get lucky. I wouldn't have known about the Internal Revenue rule except that it was in the news just last month. The NASDAQ 100 was "rebalanced" ostensibly to be more diversified. Since this was triggered by large holdings approaching 50% of the total value, I checked into what was magical about 50%.
See also John Rekenthaler's piece, Why the Nasdaq-100 is Not an Index
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/nasdaq-100-is-not-an-index

Romick was certainly engaging and smart. Makes a helluva lotta sense. I just wanna steer clear of the very big cash stash. That part does not work for me. Still 21% cash.
Consuelo reiterated his contrarian emphasis at the end. i try not to follow the crowd, either. If the names I own are not instantly recognizable, that's ok with me. No one bats 1.000, but I hate it when I pick a stinker. As mentioned elsewhere, I unloaded a stinker just the other day. I did it despite the "Strong Buy" still in place from the two Analysts which cover the stock. JRSH. Then I bought TS and it went DOWN for 2 days. Kiss of death: I buy. That's all it takes. ORK.

Sometimes I browse Advisor perspectives. Today I ran into this piece by Nir Kaissar of Bloomber News.
The writer starts off with a reminder of the good old days, when Peter Lynch could figure out the PEG ratio on the back of a napkin, add a few billion simoleans, and call it a day.
These days most people are invested in stock funds. So Kaisar suggests a new way to evaluate them:
My fair-use ration:

There’s an investment case for both groups — buying cheap stocks has been a winning strategy historically, and so has buying shares of highly profitable companies. Still, differences in valuation and profitability make stock funds difficult to compare. One way to solve that is with a variation of Lynch’s PEG ratio that substitutes profitability for growth. This PEP ratio, let’s call it, compares funds’ P/E ratio with their profitability, and like the PEG ratio, the lower the PEP ratio, the better.

Invesco tells me the P/E for SPGP is 15.21, and the ROE is 42.08 for a PEP ratio of .361. Given SPGP's thesis, the final number isn't too surprising.
Something called Market Chameleon (MC) tells me that TDV is at 21.39 P/E and ROE at 24.9, for a PEP of .85.
And SPY comes in at 23.72 and 17.9 for 1.325. If Kaissar is eating his own cooking, he's not buying the 500.
I don't recommend this as a way to pick and choose funds. But stuff like this amuses me the way baseballreference.com's player similarity scores do--not to mention WAR.

TRBCX has 7.49% of its assets invested in Alphabet stock (6.192% in class C, 1.297% in class A).
This matters because in order to be taxed as a passthrough entity (i.e. the fund itself doesn't pay taxes), it must limit the size of its positions in companies (not share classes). Add up all the companies where it has more than 5% invested and this must total not more than 50% of the fund's assets.
https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2020/3/asset-diversification-test-a-timely-refresher
TRBCX comes fairly close:
13.998% (Microsoft) + 11.298% (Apple) + 7.695% (Amazon) + 7.489% (Alphabet) + 5.917% (Nvidia) = 46.497%.
https://individual.troweprice.com/staticFiles/gcFiles/pdf/phbcgq2.pdf
Meta is at 4.961%. If it goes over 5% (so that it is added in) and these other percentages don't shift, TRBCX might be in violation of the 50% limit (depending on how it got there).

@Roy, both of your examples are for LC-growth.
A problem with this category is that the LC-growth index has become nondiversified. Fund companies are handling this in two ways: i) ignore the index and be diversified as per ICA 1940. Active funds can do this. ii) File with the SEC to reclassify the fund as nondiversified. This is what MANY active and passive LC-growth funds are doing.
DIVERSIFICATION 75-5-10 rule (ICA 1940) refers to the requirement that 75% of the fund assets have less than 5% of fund assets in each holding and less than 10% of the outstanding shares of any holding.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/59731/many-lc-growth-funds-are-nondiversified

This is interesting given that the aforementioned fund companies (Fidelity and TRP) allow some of their fund managers to hold more than 5% positions in companies.
As an example for a couple of widely held funds from these investment shops;
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth, FBGRX
Apple, 10.03, NVIDIA, 9.68, Microsoft, 9.13, Amazon, 7.54, Alphabet, 5.37
TRP Blue Chip Growth, TRBCX
Microsoft, 14.00, Apple, 11.3, Amazon, 7.69, Alphabet, 6.19, NVIDIA, 5.92
Portfolio info from M*.

See October 2022 press release from the SEC requiring "concise and visually engaging" fund reports. Of course, the SEC formal documents on the right panel is only 350 pages! There is an 18-month transition period but funds can do this earlier.
Mutual funds/OEFs must still provide paper copies; others can just sent a link on the website.
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-193

With all due respect to Romick, his clients made a lot less than other allocation funds in the last 10 years because Romick was too cautious and used a high % in cash.
PRWCX,FBALX and even rigid and conservative Wellington had a higher performance.
See 10 year chart(https://schrts.co/BTmdEvwt)
In 03/2020, a black swan event, FPACX wasn't great either. It lost a similar or more % and was slower to recover (https://schrts.co/pRegXfdG).
FPACX/Romick charges a higher ER>1% than many other funds in this category.

Aug 25th Episode:

Discover insights from renowned investor Steven Romick, Co-Portfolio Manager of the FPA Crescent Fund, which celebrates its 30th anniversary this year. Unlike most funds, FPA Crescent has not only survived but thrived for three decades, delivering almost 10% annualized returns with lower volatility than the S&P 500.

You far-right hard-liners love to complain about “the "crazy political rantings that have infested every thread on here”, "mostly the commie liberal snowflake variety". That's a direct quote. ✲
Yet it is manifestly true and factual that the great majority of those rants are initiated by right-wing ideologues such as yourself, as evidenced by this very thread.
You people start this crap, then whine when someone responds with factual information.
✲ rsorden and Baseball_Fan, 8/23/23.