@Crash: "Just how is it that Main Street and Wall Street are so very divorced from one another?"
Is this a new thing? It's going on for decades. It's actually got better for main street because indexes + doing nothing worked so well. Wall St + other investment pros used to take more
Wall St and many companies have been playing with the numbers for many years. Example: how come the new earnings beat the estimates at 70+% every time?
What other choice do you have? Stay in cash/MM?
BTW, I don't follow my generic advice, I'm a trader and retired. When I see elevated risk (VIX > 35 + others) I sell a big % of my portfolio but I don't recommend it to anybody.
Another exception: I think the US market is the best long term market so just enjoy and invest. Many investors don't understand markets and think there is a high correlation between markets NOW to the economy, unemployment and others.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1548609/000089418920007697/brownadvisoryfundsstrategi.htm
497 1 brownadvisoryfundsstrategi.htm 497
BROWN ADVISORY FUNDS
Brown Advisory Strategic Bond Fund
(the “Fund”)
Institutional Shares (BIABX)
Investor Shares (BATBX)
Advisor Shares (Not Available for Sale)
Supplement dated September 14, 2020
to the Prospectus, the Summary Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information
dated October 31, 2019
The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of Brown Advisory Funds (the “Trust”), based upon the recommendation of Brown Advisory LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to the Fund, has determined to close and liquidate the Fund. The Board concluded that it would be in the best interest of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund be closed and liquidated as a series of the Trust effective as of the close of business on October 14, 2020. Accordingly, the Board approved a Plan of Liquidation and Termination (the “Plan”) that sets forth the manner in which the Fund will be liquidated.
The Board has determined to waive any applicable redemption fees and exchange fees for shares redeemed on or after September 14, 2020.
Effective September 15, 2020, in anticipation of the liquidation, the Fund is no longer accepting purchases into the Fund. In addition, the Adviser will begin an orderly transition of the portfolio to cash and cash equivalents and the Fund will no longer be pursuing its stated investment objective. Shareholders of the Fund may redeem their investments as described in the Fund’s Prospectus.
If you hold your shares in an IRA account, you have 60 days from the date you receive your proceeds to reinvest or “rollover” your proceeds into another IRA and maintain their tax-deferred status. You must notify the Fund’s transfer agent by telephone at 800-540-6807 (toll free) or 414-203-9064 prior to October 14, 2020, of your intent to rollover your IRA account to avoid withholding deductions from your proceeds.
Pursuant to the Plan, if the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction prior to October 14, 2020, your shares will be redeemed on October 14, 2020, and you will receive your proceeds from the Fund, subject to any required withholding. These proceeds will generally be subject to federal and possibly state and local income taxes if the redeemed shares are held in a taxable account, and the 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 redemption proceeds may not be subject to current income taxation. You should consult with your tax advisor on the consequences of this redemption to you.
Shareholder inquiries should be directed to the Fund at 800-540-6807 (toll free) or 414-203-9064.
Please retain this supplement for your reference.

"the stock market and the economy is two very different thing" = correct
"A reckoning is coming" investing based on predictions isn't recommended.
Over the years we heard the following:
1) US stocks are over value, the rest of the world is undervalue. US stocks did better in the last 10 years.
2) The GMO team and Arnott have been wrong for 10 years.
3) Gundlach was way wrong when he predicted the 10 year will be at 6% in 2021
4) Bogle was wrong when he predicted stocks/bonds performance based on the past and averages.
5) Inflation and interest rates can only go up. Both wrong for years.
6) inverted yield signals recession = wrong. High PE, PE10 signal the end of the bull market...wrong again for years.
7) There is no way stocks will have a V recovery in March 2020 based on blah, blah, whatever...and they did.
8) The economy is bad, unemployment is high, the debt is huge = bad future stock market. The reality? Stocks are still up.
9) If Trump will be elected, it will be a disaster. Reality? stocks were up
10) New predictions a) The new president will be XXXX so do something now b) Covid-19 cases will be up c) China-US relations got worse
The Fed successfully managed to do all the above and why many "experts" were wrong
If you didn't get the message already, most investors should do nothing to very little. Predictions are a flipping coin. Some will be correct just because markets go sometimes down.

I came across this article.
https://news.yahoo.com/wisconsin-sets-coronavirus-record-cases-150054772.html
Stay Safe, Derf

In case anyone still gives a hoot about FAIRX
POSITIONS

Sometimes things weren't quite as we remember them. Stein Roe was acquired by Liberty (now Columbia), not by Strong. Dick Weiss did move from Stein Roe to Strong, but by switching funds, not by acquisition.

Former Stein Roe employees say that when Richard Weiss, well-known manager of the Special Fund, failed to win support in 1991 for a new institutional equity product that would have capitalized on his existing fund's strong record, he jumped to Milwaukee-based Strong Funds and gathered nearly $2 billion in two years. Mr. Weiss was soon joined at Strong by promising Stein Roe manager Carlene Murphy Ziegler.

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/19951021/ISSUE01/10008554/how-stein-roe-blew-it-once-a-big-name-now-an-also-ran
FWIW, here's a post of mine on the convoluted path of acquisitions that ultimately led to Columbia Threadneedle. Stein Roe was acquired by Liberty, which was acquired by Fleet Boston, which already owned Columbia and rebranded some acquired funds; Fleet Boston (Columbia) was acquired by Bank of America, which sold its funds to Ameriprise.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/51510/#Comment_51510

@WABAC
Depends on the size of the house. I've seen many homes cut up six ways from Sunday. Typically in college towns. But it probably happens elsewhere too.
Interesting interpretation. Though if that's what's meant by the number of units "in single-family buildings with between one and four units", then wouldn't this count exclude buildings that were originally built as small multi-unit dwellings?
Subdividing houses has been going on, if not forever, at least since the 50s. Here's an old (1995) paper on The Subdivision of the Single-Family House in the United States
http://arkitekturforskning.net/na/article/download/687/633

In the 1950's most [maturing original suburban locations] experienced an economic downturn: the new middle classes were moving away from the city, leaving behind an aging population which was slowly being replaced by lower-income owners and even tenants. Houses were subdivided into two or more apartments which could be afforded by the lower economic brackets of the population. Since the 70's [there was gentrification]. In these so-called gentrified areas, subdivided houses have remained so because they respond to a need for smaller units by smaller households ...

To its credit, CNBC notes that "About 12% of landlords surveyed went into this mortgage forbearance program." If you go digging into its source, you find that it's 15% of owners of landlords owning 2-4 units. No other breakdown info.
It looks like these are percentages of all landlords surveyed, not just the ones with mortgages. So one can reasonably infer that the percentage of landlords with mortgages that are able to defer payments is larger than these figures. In any case, this does show that contrary to what Politico wrote, not all landlords with mortgages still have to make payments now.
This fuzziness in the data - what it means, where it comes from, how large the error bars are (except for Census data which is higher quality) - is what makes understanding the numbers, let alone verifying them, so difficult.
Thanks for identifying the "The Hill" piece as opinion. I'm fine with opinion pieces so long as the facts can be verified, and this piece does a fine job in linking to its sources. It's hard to describe as controversial statements like: "All can be protected — at least over the near term — by continued government support". Not when even Mnuchin is supporting some form of government support.
Though I do think the writer is being kind in saying that "the HEROES Act [is] now being debated in Congress." Not when the latest action is dated July 23: "Senate. Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Hearings held."
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6800/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs

thanks OS current barometer is 135 which indicates overbought market.

@msf

"single-family buildings with between one and four units".
How do you legally get four units into a single-family building?

Depends on the size of the house. I've seen many homes cut up six ways from Sunday. Typically in college towns. But it probably happens elsewhere too.
I suspect that the reporting will get better on this as more outlets take a whack at it. I don't think of Politico when I think about strong financial reporting.
But even at 42-43% of those four units holding a mortgage there is the potential for some serious pain.
Here's CNBC taking a whack.

Nearly a third of renters who live in single-family or small multifamily properties owned by individual landlords were unable to pay their August rent, according to a survey by Avail, a technology and marketing platform for small landlords. That is up from just under 25% in July. Avail received responses from 2,225 landlords and almost 3,000 renters.
[ellipses]
Individual landlords make up the majority of single-family rental owners. Nearly 23 million units in 17 million properties are owned by individual investors, according to the most recent count by the U.S. Census Bureau. Just under a third of these investors are retirees.
Nearly 54% of the income from a typical rental unit normally goes toward fixed costs associated with property ownership, according to an analysis by Zillow. These expenses include mortgage payments, property taxes, maintenance, insurance and capital improvements. Without the rent, landlords still have to cover shortfall.
“Our data show that 42% of renters and 35% of landlords are digging into their emergency funds and savings to cover everyday expenses,” said Ryan Coon, CEO of Avail.

Here is an opinion piece in The Hill taking on mortgages in general, as well as renters. The opiner calls for more relief. And I wonder where that ends, whether it's to the renters, the landlord, or both.

According to the most recent Federal Reserve data, the top 1 percent of U.S. households by wealth own 39 percent of equities and mutual fund shares, and the top 10 percent own 83 percent . Also, the top 1 percent of U.S. households by income own 41 percent of equities and mutual fund shares, and the top 20 percent own 87 percent.
https://federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/#quarter:122;series:Corporate%20equities%20and%20mutual%20fund%20shares;demographic:networth;population:1,3,5,7;units:shares;range:1989.3,2020.1
This data suggests the need to sell shares to fund retirement needs is likely to have a fairly small impact on stock market behavior. (I just noticed @Mark posted some of this data on another post earlier this morning.)
The quote already pasted to this thread about valuation and TINA speaks to the PE ratio question. That's a daily marketplace decision. But, that decision takes into account the knowledge that central banks are active participants and that fiscal policy is also playing an active role in supporting the economy. The quote suggests it will be difficult for valuation concerns to gain traction in this environment. I suspect if the upward creep in the P/E ratio is gradual the marketplace will continue to accept it assuming the economy can return to a pattern of growth (but I am certainly not betting the farm that is the case). But, what happens if (when?) inflation takes hold? That will presumably force central banks to modify their behavior. The limits of MMT tie in with this too. But, it appears the marketplace views those issues as distant concerns for another day.

Just noticed RCTIX yield is actually increasing a bit. About 4.6%. Dennis championed this fund.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2019/05/river-canyon-total-return-bond-fund-institutional-class-rctix/

While I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of mom-and-pop landlords, the thesis of the article is not well supported by the facts presented. The thesis being that it is the ban on evictions that is "threatening the livelihood of millions of landlords".

One in three tenants failed to make their September rent payment on time, according to the latest Apartment List survey. And a little over 25 percent said they had slight or no confidence in their ability to pay their rent this month, according to Census data published Wednesday, with another 22 percent expressing only moderate confidence.

With a large swath of renters being unable to make timely payments, would landlords be better off evicting tenants who may be paying some money in the hope of finding new renters able to pay more during a pandemic? Is it really the eviction ban creating this threat to landlords?
From another, slightly earlier (and somewhat less conclusory) Politico piece:

A ban without assistance, [ National Low Income Housing Coalition CEO and President] Yentel said, is a “half-measure that extends a financial cliff for renters to fall off of when the moratorium expires and back rent is owed.” ...
“Without direct rental assistance, rents cannot be paid, and owners face a financial crisis of their own by not being able to maintain properties and pay their mortgages or property taxes, ”NAA President & CEO Bob Pinnegar said. ...
Mnuchin also supports rental assistance, he told lawmakers: "Our first choice is to have bipartisan legislation that allocates specific rental assistance to people hardest hit."

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/01/trump-administration-block-evictions-backlash-407060
BTW, I linked to the "Census data published Wednesday" in my post here.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/131148/#Comment_131148
The original article also includes some statements and figures that seem at best a bit flaky:
"single-family buildings with between one and four units".
How do you legally get four units into a single-family building?
"In a four-unit building, if one person can’t pay rent you’ve just lost 25 percent of your income."
That may have seemed obvious to the person quoted, but it's not necessarily correct (the situation can be much worse):

About 40 percent of seniors who live in and own two-to-four-unit buildings have a mortgage. If these older landlords with a mortgage do not receive rental payments, not only are they likely to lose their single source of income, but some may lose their homes.

https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/owners-and-renters-62-million-units-small-buildings-are-particularly-vulnerable-during-pandemic
Small landlords often live in multi-unit buildings they own. So in a four-unit building, if one person doesn't pay rent, they've lost 33% of their rental income. Aside from losing a larger percentage of their rental income than the article says, these owners are themselves at risk of eviction (post-foreclosure).
"And most of those buildings have a mortgage — meaning the property owners themselves still need to make their own monthly payments."
According to the Urban Institute's presentation of RHFS data, 42% of 1-4 unit buildings have a mortgage, not most. The RHFS data itself (click the "apply" button on the linked page for this table) says about 43%. Just 3/7, not "most of these buildings".
As far as "property owners themselves still need[ing] to make their own monthly payments", many will need to, some won't. "[T]though Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have established multifamily forbearance plans, small-building landlords are less likely to hold federally backed mortgages". Urban Institute, ibid.
"Fannie Mae today [June 29, 2020] announced updated renter protections and forbearance extensions for borrowers."
https://www.fanniemae.com/newsroom/fannie-mae-news/fannie-mae-announces-updated-protections-renters-impacted-covid-19

Yes, capitalism is the only game in town. Yes, presumably, we are all investors here, or people wanting to learn how to be smart about it.
But Bernie is not an extremist. He wants universal health care.

Contrary to common misconceptions, universal health coverage (UHC), socialized medicine and single-payer systems are not interchangeable terms. ... UHC is an umbrella term that socialized medicine and single-payer fall under; socialized medicine and single-payer systems may be implemented in an effort to achieve UHC

https://healthforce.ucsf.edu/blog-article/healthcare-policy/health-care-systems-101-how-does-us-compare-other-countries
This is an excellent, relatively short read on the different health care models: Beveridge (socialized, UK), Bismark (private insurance; Germany, France), hybrid (Canada). See also:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/18/upshot/best-health-care-system-country-bracket.html
Bernie's model of UHC is generally regarded as closest to Canada's. His "Medicare for All plan would leave intact the current infrastructure of doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, but nationalize the health insurance industry."
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/03/politics/medicare-for-all-annotated/
Capitalism is not the only game in town. In most respects, Bernie is no socialist, regardless of how much he may say otherwise. But here at least, he is advocating nationalizing an industry. Though he is not suggesting that the health delivery industry be nationalized, and thus falls short of the existing US model where the government runs the VHA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Health_Administration#VHA_Nationalized_Healthcare_System
Such considerations bear directly on funds like FSHCX (top 3: 25% United Healthcare, 9% Cigna, 8% Humana) and IHF (top 3: 23% United Healthcare, 12% CVS Health (owns Aetna), 7% Cigna).

"Wealthy investors and the Fed have been propping up large companies. It can’t last."
"If the stock market doesn’t reflect the health of our economy, what does it measure? Most directly, it indicates the financial health of the richest among us. Overall, about 55 percent of Americans own stocks, according to Gallup, but ownership is heavily skewed toward the wealthy. According to Federal Reserve data, the top 1 percent of U.S. households own 39 percent of equities and mutual fund shares, and the top 10 percent own 83 percent — which leaves workers in the bottom 90 percent owning just 17 percent."
Article Here

per Politico:
I read that the stock market isn't the economy, but after a while . . .

More than 22 million rental units, a little over half the rental housing in the country, are in single-family buildings with between one and four units, according to data compiled by the Urban Institute. And most of those buildings have a mortgage — meaning the property owners themselves still need to make their own monthly payments.
“In a four-unit building, if one person can’t pay rent you’ve just lost 25 percent of your income,” Pinnegar said.
Most of the units are owned by mom-and-pop landlords, many of whom invested in property to save for retirement. Now they’re dealing with a dramatic drop in income, facing the prospect of either trying to sell their property or going into debt to meet financial obligations including mortgage and insurance payments, property taxes, utilities and maintenance costs. If enough landlords can no longer make those payments, it would threaten everything from the school budgets funded by property taxes to the stability of the $11 trillion U.S. mortgage market itself.
Six months into the crisis, millions of tenants can no longer meet their rent — and the situation is only getting worse. Tenants already owe some $25 billion in back rent and will owe nearly $70 billion by the end of the year, according to an estimate last month by Moody’s Analytics.

Dick Weiss. Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time. In the 90s (and somewhat beyond), he managed Strong Opportunity, a good midcap value fund. It became Wells Opportunity when Wells Fargo acquired Strong Funds.
Here's a 1999 M* Fund Spy column with a few paragraphs in the middle about Weiss and the management of Strong Opportunity.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1402/morningstar-fund-spy
The industry pulls so many sleights of hand that one has to wonder about reorganizations that include some oddities. All the Litman Gregory Masters funds changed names just seven weeks ago to PartnerSelect. This reorganization is supposedly due in part to small size ($18.9M) but is a merger into an even smaller fund PFSVX ($9.9M).
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1020425/000168386320012117/f6483d1.htm
That latter fund was formed just after the name change, and unlike the "Masters" funds, has only one submanagement company. It looks like it could be a shell fund designed for various purposes, including the stated purpose of carrying over losses from MSSFX and an unstated purpose of burying that fund's performance history.
Perhaps Litman Gregory is moving away from the multi-manager concept (and poor records) and this is just the first step. MSEFX is a large cap fund with just $230M, a high ER (1.21%), and a miserable bottom 10% record over all time spans (from 1 month up to 15 years). Further, Dick Weiss, who is retiring, is this fund's only remaining original manager.

For example, G52, you recently responded about Strzok on RMS,
\\\ I missed it. Did he tell the truth about the fake dossier?
which is sheer trolling. (Also, bullshit, also a lie, also misleading, also lots of other rightwingnut things.) Go away unless you got better than such automatic laziness.
This latest post from you above has the guise of seriosity and earnestness. Give it a try. No cheap shit. Go watch the Strzok episode. Or not, I don't care. That guy is a worthier and more patriotic career lawman with more integrity than any of us know.

Interesting that off-topic is still being discussed in a non off-topic forum.
davidmoran:"important to remember Old_Skeet's and then FD1000's goal was to silence political discussions by trolling the site with ones from dubious rightwing sources. So effectively they've won".
So as long as the direction of the topic meets your approval it is OK? There have never been dubious left-wing sources? So I think you have won by keeping the right-wing comments quieted. I do far more reading here than posting. But FD1000 and Old-Skeet added worthwhile content. Calling them trolls is only because you didn't want to hear what they had to say.

You are quoting Braham, though I altogether concur in his take.
There are lots of sketchy leftwing sources, sure, of course, but you know that, and seem to be just trolling again. You do know, this is not leftwing vs rightwing --- try and stay on content and on target and on substance. FD1k had some content, a little, occasionally, and OS too, when he was not throwing up ZH stuff to see what stuck to the wall. The definition of trolling others have made is accurate here. If you have something substantive to say, with solid sources, go for it. I love to read other takes. Probably even yours. But it better be good. You know, not trivially easy to refute.

@Gary1952 This is a quote from Old_Skeet

This is an Investment Board ... So, shutdown "Off Topic" and Ban Political Post.
I am, Old_Skeet

His express goal for barraging the site with rightwing posts was because he wanted to shut down political conversation altogether. He said so himself, that until political discussion was silenced he would continue what he saw as tit for tat posts. So trolling was a tactic for him to silence everyone else, not to have any real discussion of these political issues which he hates. He has now succeeded in that goal.