I would love to take a Blue Origin space trip but it's roughly $17, 990,000 out of my price range based on the winning auction bid of $18M.

Don’t sweat it @Mark. The company up in first-class isn’t usually that great anyway. Suggest you save your $$ and wait until they offer “tourist class” or “coach” seating.
ISTM ….. The entire trip is only about 15 minutes. Imagine the “buyer’s remorse” you’d feel the next morning having spent your whole wad on a 15 minute ride?

I’ve thought for awhile that commodities have gotten ahead of themselves. I’m guessing the Robinhood crowd has latched on to NYMEX futures, which have seemed to defy gravity recently.
Most commodities - notably copper and lumber - have turned sharply lower in recent days. WSJ reports that China is unloading stockpiles of aluminum, copper and other metals in an attempt to drive down commodity prices which threaten their economy.
Gold’s getting clocked today, off about $30, and silver doing worse off about 5%. The gold bugs are relentless. I kind of feel for them as it’s almost a religion with them. In the long run I think they’ll be right. But their portfolios must be suffering - unless they’re better market timers than I suppose.
The Fed was “out of character” yesterday in hinting at rising rates and their seeming recognition of greater inflation now than welcome. I suspect it’s more bluster than anything. But bonds retreated a bit on the news. (And the dollar strengthened dramatically). My very short-term TIPS fund (TLDTX) lost .50% yesterday - biggest swing I can remember. I suspect folks may be waking up to the fact that TIPS are wildly overbought.
Recently added a small amount of FXF as a play on a weakening dollar longer term. Fits well into my real assets sleeve. But getting dinged a bit in wake of the Fed’s latest shot over the bow. Overall, I’ve been lightening up on the natural resource / commodities sectors most of the year - some of those type funds up in excess of 50-60% year-over-year.
(Above constitutes MHO, and not intended to be investment advice.)

A little European thinking about the appropriate relationship between potential central bank digital currencies and the private sector:

Benoit Coeure, the head of the Bank for International Settlement’s Innovation Hub,....said the most likely setup will be a two-tier model, whereby digital currencies would be issued by central banks but distributed by commercial lenders.
Cecilia Skingsley, the first deputy governor of Sweden’s Riksbank, said central banks will play a “focused and narrow role” in providing the infrastructure on which the private sector can build, “and that’s where we are going to stay.”

Central Bankers Talk Down Concerns Over Digital Currency Risks

I understand that neither DFA nor Adventis ETFs are index based funds. Some elements of factor based are used, and thus they are considered actively managed. Just want to learn more information on their strategies.

Loaded terminology, "index based".
Vanguard used to be adamant that its tax managed funds were not index funds. For example, in this 2015 paper, Vanguard meticulously represents broad-market index funds and tax-managed funds as separate albeit similar groups of funds.
Yet it was pure marketing. Vanguard created VEA as a share class of then Tax-Managed International VTMGX. At the time, ETFs were required to be index funds. Still Vanguard insisted that this tax-managed fund when marketed in its OEF form was not an index fund.
DFA has similarly tried to have its cake and eat it too. It promoted its funds as actively managed index funds. By this it meant that active management was layered on top of its proprietary indexes to do better. For example, it is flexible on when it sells shares of a company removed from an index and when it buys shares of a company newly added to an index.
As M*'s John Rekenthaler wrote earlier this year: Once considered an index provider, DFA now describes itself as an active manager because of the changes that it makes to its theoretical indexes when converting them into portfolios. To coin a phrase, I will call such a practice "selective indexing."
He went on to observe: Most of the [outperformance of DFA relative to cap-weighted funds] likely owes to differences in index construction--DFA uses its own proprietary benchmarks, rather than those of outside parties--than to the use of selective indexing.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1017351/what-to-know-indexing-with-a-twist
All of which gets us back to index-based. DFA funds are not based on cap-weighted indexes. But they are based on DFA indexes. I would call them index-based. Others may hot. In the end, as the Bard wrote, what's in a name?

I should have said: the magnitude of the relative underperformance of value with respect to growth in the past three years is unprecedented. This is clear from DFA's bar chart reproduced above. Also evident from that chart is value's relative but much smaller underperformance in the preceeding seven years.
For completeness, here's exactly what DFA wrote:

This three-year run [2017-2020] warrants further inspection—just how uncommon was this value premium magnitude? Literally unprecedented, as illustrated by the rolling three-year value premiums in Exhibit 2. Of the 1,093 rolling observations in US history, the three years ending in June 2020 ranked dead last. This is the very definition of an outlier.

---

ᴇxʜɪʙɪᴛ 2

Back of the Pack
Rolling 3-year annualized return differences for value versus growth,
US market, June 1929–June 2020

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/916622/000110465921081939/tm2119846-1_497.htm
497 1 tm2119846-1_497.htm 497
TIFF Investment Program (“TIP”)
Supplement dated June 16, 2021
to the TIP Prospectus dated April 30, 2021,
the TIFF Short-Term Fund Summary Prospectus Dated April 30, 2021
and the TIP Statement of Additional Information Dated April 30, 2021,
each as supplemented April 30, 2021
This supplement provides new and additional information to the TIP prospectus dated April 30, 2021, the TIFF Short-Term Fund Summary Prospectus dated April 30, 2021 (collectively, the “Prospectus”) and the TIP statement of additional information dated April 30, 2021 (the “SAI”), each as supplemented April 30, 2021.
The TIFF Short-Term Fund (the “Fund”) was liquidated on June 15, 2021 pursuant to a Plan of Liquidation and Dissolution for the Fund approved by TIP’s Board of Trustees. All references to the Fund are hereby removed from the Prospectus and the SAI.
If you have any questions, please contact Members Services at 1-610-684-8200.
Please keep this supplement for future reference.

Not to be too picky, but ISTM anything less than a .25% daily move (up or down) is pretty insignificant. A matter of which way the wind blows. I tried to find some type of chart online displaying a hierarchy of daily investment change. But (perhaps understandably) nobody’s bothered to publish one.
Maybe …
Hierarchy of Daily Portfolio Loss
0% - .09% essentially unchanged
.10% - 24% slight
.25% - .49% minor
.50% - .99% moderate
1% - 1.49% significant
1.5% - 1.99% large
2% - 2.99% very large
3% - 4.99% serious
More than 5% - Lord help me

15th June, '21: down -0.03%. Only PRWCX was up.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/935015/000119312521191702/d192552d497.htm
497 1 d192552d497.htm ARTISAN PARTNERS FUNDS INC
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
File Nos. 033-88316 and 811-08932
ARTISAN PARTNERS FUNDS, INC.
Artisan International Value Fund (the “Fund”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED 16 JUNE 2021 TO THE
FUND’S PROSPECTUS
CURRENT AS OF THE DATE HEREOF
Effective after the close of business on 30 June 2021, the Fund is closed to most new investors. The Fund will accept new accounts from certain investors who satisfy new account eligibility requirements. Eligibility requirements are described in Artisan Partners Funds’ prospectus under the heading “Investing with Artisan Partners Funds—Who is Eligible to Invest in a Closed Fund?”
Accordingly, effective 30 June 2021, the following changes will take effect:
1.The following paragraph is added under the heading “Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” on page 46 of Artisan Partners Funds’ prospectus:
The Fund is closed to most new investors. See “Investing with Artisan Partners Funds—Who is Eligible to Invest in a Closed Fund?” in the Fund’s statutory prospectus for new account eligibility criteria.
2.The following replaces the text under the heading “Who is Eligible to Invest in a Closed Fund?” on pages 101-102 of Artisan Partners Funds’ prospectus in its entirety:
Artisan High Income Fund and Artisan International Value Fund are each closed to most new investors. From time to time, other Funds may also be closed to most new investors. The Funds do not permit investors to pool their investments in order to meet the eligibility requirements, except as otherwise noted below.
If you have been a shareholder in a Fund continuously since it closed, you may make additional investments in that Fund and reinvest your dividends and capital gain distributions in that Fund, even though the Fund has closed, unless Artisan Partners considers such additional purchases to not be in the best interests of the Fund and its other shareholders. An employee benefit plan that is a Fund shareholder may continue to buy shares in the ordinary course of the plan’s operations, even for new plan participants.
You may open a new account in a closed Fund only if that account meets the Fund’s other criteria (for example, minimum initial investment) and:
∎ you beneficially own shares of the closed Fund at the time of your application;
∎ you beneficially own shares in the Funds with combined balances of $250,000;
∎ you receive shares of the closed Fund as a gift from an existing shareholder of the Fund (additional investments generally are not permitted unless you are otherwise eligible to open an account under one of the other criteria listed);
∎ you are transferring or “rolling over” into a Fund IRA account from an employee benefit plan through which you held shares of the Fund (if your plan doesn’t qualify for rollovers you may still open a new account with all or part of the proceeds of a distribution from the plan);
∎ you are purchasing Fund shares through a sponsored fee-based program and shares of the Fund are made available to that program pursuant to an agreement with the Funds or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC and the Funds or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC has notified the sponsor of that program in writing that shares may be offered through such program and has not withdrawn that notification;
∎ you are an employee benefit plan and the Funds or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC has notified the plan in writing that the plan may invest in the Fund and has not withdrawn that notification;
∎ you are an employee benefit plan or other type of corporate, charitable or governmental account sponsored by or affiliated with an organization that also sponsors or is affiliated with (or is related to an organization that sponsors or is affiliated with) another employee benefit plan or corporate, charitable or governmental account that is a shareholder of the Fund at the time of application;
∎ you are a client, employee or associate of an institutional consultant or financial intermediary and the Funds or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC has notified that consultant or financial intermediary in writing that you may invest in the Fund and has not withdrawn that notification;
∎ you are a client of a financial advisor or a financial planner, or an affiliate of a financial advisor or financial planner, who has at least:
○$2,500,000 of client assets invested with the closed Fund at the time of your application; or
○$5,000,000 of client assets invested with the Funds or under Artisan Partners’ management at the time of your application and, with respect to Artisan International Value Fund only, the Funds or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC has notified such financial advisor or financial planner, or affiliate of such financial advisor or financial planner, in writing, that you may invest in the Fund and has not withdrawn that notification;
∎ you are an institutional investor that is investing at least $5,000,000 in the Fund and the Fund or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC has notified you in writing that you may invest in the Fund and has not withdrawn that notification (available for investments in Artisan International Value Fund only);
∎ you are a client of Artisan Partners or are an investor in a product managed by Artisan Partners, or you have an existing business relationship with Artisan Partners, and in the judgment of Artisan Partners, your investment in a closed Fund would not adversely affect Artisan Partners’ ability to manage the Fund effectively; or
∎ you are a director or officer of the Funds, or a partner or employee of Artisan Partners or its affiliates, or a member of the immediate family of any of those persons.
A Fund may ask you to verify that you meet one of the guidelines above prior to permitting you to open a new account in a closed Fund. A Fund may permit you to open a new account if the Fund reasonably believes that you are eligible. A Fund also may decline to permit you to open a new account if the Fund believes that doing so would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders, even if you would be eligible to open a new account under these guidelines.
The Funds’ ability to impose the guidelines above with respect to accounts held by financial intermediaries may vary depending on the systems capabilities of those intermediaries, applicable contractual and legal restrictions and cooperation of those intermediaries.
Call us at 800.344.1770 if you have questions about your ability to invest in a closed Fund.
https://www.artisanpartners.com/individual-investors/news-insights/news/press-releases/2021/artisan-partners-announces-closing-of-the-artisan-international-value-strategy.html
or
https://www.artisanpartners.com/content/dam/documents/press-releases/mf/Artisan-International-Value-Fund-Closing-16-June-2021-vR.pdf

DFA's value proposition, no pun intended, is that value performs better over the long term. Further, that the relative underperformance of value with respect to growth in the past three years is unprecedented.
https://www.dimensional.com/us-en/insights/an-exceptional-value-premium

Of the ten largest EM funds (per M* screener), two are DFA funds. They are the only two classified as value funds. The more value leaning (nearly off the chart) of the two, DFEVX, has done the worst. The other DFA fund DFCEX, still a value fund, has outperformed VEIEX (another of the 10 largest) over 1, 5, 10, and 15 years.
Given all three funds' relatively poor showings this might suggest (if one can factor out the value effect) that EM is one category where funds can do better by not following an index.
With respect to AVUV, a cursory look shows this to be a (relatively) high beta fund that has outperformed as the market rotated into value. I'll watch how it does over a whole cycle.
https://www.etf.com/AVUV#fit

Also, even if the Fed decides development and installation of CBDC technology is adviseable, it appears that additional authority will need to be provided by Congress (See Link 1, Link 2, and Link 3).

The BPI write ups are quite informative, but may not be entirely persuasive.
The BPI discussion presents two principal points:
1. The Fed is authorized to issue only coin and currency (two different things) as they existed in 1913;
2. Even if the Fed could issue CBDC it might need additional Treasury approval.
As to whether additional Congressional authority would be needed, we can dismiss #2. Since the Treasury is part of the executive branch, not of the legislative branch, seeking its approval would not involve Congress.
Note that Powell (Link 1) said only the the Fed would not act without Congressional authorization, not that it could not. The former is a political statement, the latter a legal one.

U.S. officials would only consider issuing a digital dollar if they believed there was a clear use and if the idea had widespread public and political buy-in.

If by "need" additional Congressional authority you mean from a pragmatic perspective, I would tend to agree. Reading "need" as legally necessary, I'm not yet convinced.
BPI rationale #1 harkens back to 1913, when the Fed was tasked with "furnish[ing] an elastic currency". BPI goes on to observe that "Further, the statute provides that '[a]ny Federal Reserve bank may make application to the local Federal Reserve agent for such amount of the Federal Reserve notes herein before provided for as it may require,' which appears to suggest physical cash."
Fair enough. But is that a literal restriction, or rather simply descriptive of the technology of the time? In 1791, the 4th amendment protected you against illegal seizure of physical papers. It didn't protect you against wiretaps because they didn't exist and weren't conceived of at the time. It protects you now. Time marches on.
Rather than wonder about whether the Fed has the authority to issue digital currency to provide elasticity, we can go to the horse's mouth:

PELLEY [60 Minutes]: Where does it come from? Do you just print it?
POWELL: We print it digitally. So as a central bank, we have the ability to create money digitally.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/full-transcript-fed-chair-jerome-powell-60-minutes-interview-economic-recovery-from-coronavirus-pandemic/
True he was talking about digitally "printing" dollars rather than printing "digital dollars". But since this argument for needing Congressional authorization is that the Fed can only print physical money, it doesn't seem to hold water.

Markets down across the board , but Chuck shows me up .03 % How did your accounts turn out ?
6/15/21, Derf

As a loyal customer and (reasonably successful) Amazon reviewer for near 20 years, I agree with Lewis and the article. When push comes to shove they treat you like c***. I can only sympathize with the workers. I’ll never write them another review. I avoid buying there when possible.
Prime delivery has become a joke as I think @Mark alludes to. The movies alone are worth $120 a year (to me anyways), so I keep the membership. That, however, does not encumber me to purchase their products. Hell, I’ll gladly drive 15-20 miles to the nearest Walmart just to avoid having to buy from Amazon. I know some Wal Mart employees. Generally, they like working there.
BTW - Many will recall some years ago when Amazon allowed non-profits like MFO to receive a thin slice of the sale proceeds if purchased thru a link on that non-profit’s website. (And, MFO participated.) We all know how that went. Right? Basically, that’s what they do - use you until you no longer serve their interests. Corporate conscience? …

https://www.2ndvotefunds.com/
EGIS etf
Basket Holdings: 40
Symbol Company Weight

GS Goldman Sachs Group Inc 4.25
TXN Texas Instruments Inc 4.18
NOW ServiceNow Inc 4.02
CMG Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc 4.00
LRCX Lam Research Corp 3.81
HON Honeywell International Inc 3.55
FTNT Fortinet Inc 3.45
FOXA Fox Corp Class A 3.29
ORCL Oracle Corp 3.27
ADBE Adobe Inc 3.18
ORLY O'Reilly Automotive Inc 3.11
BLK BlackRock Inc 3.00
REGN Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc 2.98
ABBV AbbVie Inc 2.67
DISCK Discovery Inc C 2.58
AN AutoNation Inc 2.56
IIVI II-VI Inc 2.48
FANG Diamondback Energy Inc 2.40
REG Regency Centers Corp 2.40
ZBRA Zebra Technologies Corp 2.27
CAT Caterpillar Inc 2.16
LYB LyondellBasell Industries NV 2.13
BK Bank of New York Mellon Corp 2.09
PHM PulteGroup Inc 2.06
CVS CVS Health Corp 2.03
LHX L3Harris Technologies Inc 1.99
RTX Raytheon Technologies Corp 1.98
UNH UnitedHealth Group Inc 1.87
MDT Medtronic PLC 1.87
HSY The Hershey Co 1.79
CB Chubb Ltd 1.78
FGXXX First American Government Obligs X 1.78
D Dominion Energy Inc 1.74
FAST Fastenal Co 1.73
SYK Stryker Corp 1.71
TJX TJX Companies Inc 1.69
DLTR Dollar Tree Inc 1.62
PSX Phillips 66 1.59
HRL Hormel Foods Corp 1.50
KMB Kimberly-Clark Corp 1.43

The adviser selects companies based on their policies toward the Second Amendment, favoring "non-woke companies." They "strive to reverse the ESG investing and stakeholder capitalism trends, and give investors who are not progressives a voice." Companies are ranked from 1(very liberal) to 5(very conservative). Their founders and advisory board are made up of CPAC and AEI types. These proposed etfs look like they should be the foundation of any investor's portfolio. (massive snark!)

Per @msf :

My point is simply that, to use your own words, we can create an "alternative type of bank account" without creating an alternative type of electronic cash. (Cash in a bank is already electronic.)
https://joinbankon.org/
A new type of currency is not necessary to provide such accounts. Nor does this new currency seem to hold any intrinsic advantage for these customers over traditional (dollar-based) digital currency. Rather, it appears to be an example of a purported benefit promulgated as a rationale for CBDCs.

The Fed is reviewing this specific issue within the framework of deciding if creating CBDC technology will be useful as a way to address the topics highlighted in my excerpt from the CFSAIS report (as well as other topics not mentioned). Deciding the new technology will probably be useful would lower the threshold the Fed would face when considering whether to extend that technology to include an alternative type of personal bank account.
Presumably the Feds review is in detail examining the potential costs and benefits of creating various public sector alternate versions of a commercial bank account. Assuming empire building is not the overarching goal, the Fed will have not want to implement a public sector solution to a problem that is currently being adequately addressed by the banking community -- especially since doing so will most likely create new challenges the Fed will need to resolve regarding their relationships with that community.
Also, even if the Fed decides development and installation of CBDC technology is adviseable, it appears that additional authority will need to be provided by Congress (See Link 1, Link 2, and Link 3). In that case, another layer of review and agreement would be required before CBDC rollout. Presumably that additional review would include examining and agreeing to details of the Feds proposal.

Just for comparison’s sake, here’s the daily average trading volume for the Avantis ETFs run by DFA alumni which have been around for just shy of two years and cover a similar space:
AVUV Avantis U.S. Small Cap Value 147,014
AVUS Avantis U.S. Equity 111,454
AVDE Avantis International Equity 62,698
AVDV Avantis International Small Cap Value 112,198
AVEM Avantis Emerging Markets Equity 67,246

I haven’t used it before (at least knowingly). But today one of my seldom used IOS devices displayed a warning that a password I use for a news site (a very weak one by choice) had appeared on a national data base of stolen passwords. The message even identified the news site where I use it. Apparently I’d left keychain switched on on that device and Apple had been monitoring that password.
Well, I changed the PW and a few others that were intentionally simple and easy to remember. Than I researched Apple’s keychain function to see what it’s all about.
Article
Here’s a snippet: “If you have iCloud Keychain set up as an option to auto-fill passwords into mobile and web apps, Safari will help out in the auditing so that it can warn you of compromised passwords whenever you log in to a website. So if you use iCloud Keychain to auto-fill your credentials into a website in Safari, after you sing in, Safari will give you a prompt to "Change Password on Website," like so: This password has appeared in a data leak, which puts this account at high risk of compromise. You should change your password immediately.
One problem with above: I don’t use Safari for sensitive sites. I use DuckGo instead.
Like most of you, I’m sure, I use some pretty tough passwords for financial sites, some extending to 15 characters. (And, most often 2-factor authentication is also used.) Each password is unique. So, I’m not particularly concerned. The one that may have been heisted is a simple one I’ve used for over 20 years where security isn’t much of a concern. On the other hand - If Russian hackers can shut down a major U.S. pipeline, how do you keep them from accessing your personal financial data - or worse?
So … Do you think trusting Apple to remember your passwords is a good idea? Or a bad idea?
Please forgive listing this as “Other Investing.” But ISTM security of financial records is pretty important.

Worth considering before investing: https://nytimes.com/2021/06/15/briefing/amazon-warehouse-investigation.html

In his drive to create the world’s most efficient company, Jeff Bezos discovered what he thought was another inefficiency worth eliminating: hourly employees who spent years working for the same company.
Longtime employees expected to receive raises. They also became less enthusiastic about the work, Amazon’s data suggested. And they were a potential source of internal discontent.
Bezos came to believe that an entrenched blue-collar work force represented “a march to mediocrity,” as David Niekerk, a former Amazon executive who built the company’s warehouse human resources operations, told The Times, as part of an investigative project being published this morning. “What he would say is that our nature as humans is to expend as little energy as possible to get what we want or need.”
In response, Amazon encouraged employee turnover. After three years on the job, hourly workers no longer received automatic raises, and the company offered bonuses to people who quit. It also offered limited upward mobility for hourly workers, preferring to hire managers from the outside.
As is often the case with one of Amazon’s business strategies, it worked.
Turnover at Amazon is much higher than at many other companies — with an annual rate of roughly 150 percent for warehouse workers, The Times’s story discloses, which means that the number who leave the company over a full year is larger than the level of total warehouse employment. The churn is so high that it’s visible in the government’s statistics on turnover in the entire warehouse industry: When Amazon opens a new fulfillment center, local turnover often surges....