RPSIX. 1-year +7.95%
YTD. +2.42
yield 2.55%
my own performance since investing in the fund, according to TRP: +5.12%
PRSNX. 1-year: 3.77%
ytd: 0.71%
yield: 2.87%
account performance since inception: 4.71%
PTIAX. 1-year: 3.29
ytd: 0.95%
yield: 3.47%
I can't complain..... yet.
...And if someone can either increase income or decrease spending, inflation is not as big a monster... unless we're talking late '70s/early '80s-style inflation: outa control. Yes, the current inflation headline statistic is +5.9%. But the way the gov't measures inflation is.... bullshit. It's higher that 5.9%, for sure. SOME things we CAN control, to protect and assist ourselves. But I'm preaching to the choir: we who are regular contributors to this message-board are among the luckiest, most fortunate. The country is being hollowed-out from within. We are in a long, slow decline, the way all empires eventually go through.

>> owing to political and statistical issues
This is silly, or at best tendentious. Why should rare years-apart purchases be included in widely impacting run-of-the-mill inflation calcs? Go read the many articles posted here about what the 'official' rates comprise, and why.

Do you disagree with the BLS for including the prices of new and used motor vehicles in its CPI calculations?
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/new-vehicles.htm

It's a continuum, arguable, debated, as you know despite your automatic contrariness and as (I think) you may have written about; see this from a half-year ago:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/16/opinion/economy-inflation-retail-sales.amp.html
embedded inflation, which is the kind of inflation we really need to worry about, is inflation in prices that don’t change very often.

etc.

The Economist: “House prices were included in America's CPI between 1953 and 1983 before being removed. This was partly because indexing benefits and pensions to inflation had become expensive and some politicians wanted to bring measured inflation down”
Source:

Here's a Monthly Labor Review (MLR) piece written contemporaneously (June 1982) with the announcement (late 1981) of the change in how housing costs would be included in the CPI.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1982/06/art2full.pdf
Government expenditures, though not mentioned in the paper, could have been part of the reason for the change. As stated in The Economist, that would be strictly a data driven decision, i.e. based simply on the fact that housing prices were rising rapidly.
The MLR piece notes that there had been a recent statutory change in how government revenue would be affected by inflation. That change called for a more accurate CPI calculation:

In addition to problems of data adequacy, impetus to change the homeownership component stems from an important new use of the index. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-34) requires use of the CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for escalation of income tax brackets and the personal exemption amount. The law requires announcement of the new tax brackets in December 1984 based on CPI-U data for the prior 2 years. This is a major new use of the index which will have a broad effect on total Federal Government revenues, and this new use underscores the importance of action to ensure that the CPI reflects consumption cost experience of consumers to the fullest extent possible.

I thought reading the article that Forsyth was saying (in roundabout fashion) that if housing was still included in the CPI today (as it was until 1983), than today’s inflation would be approaching the level of the 80s.
The Economist: “House prices were included in America's CPI between 1953 and 1983 before being removed. This was partly because indexing benefits and pensions to inflation had become expensive and some politicians wanted to bring measured inflation down”
Source:

Here’s a colorful (albeit slanted) blurb from this week’s Barron’s under the title “The Striking Price: A Smart Trade for Heady Times” - by Steven Sears
“Now, almost 100 years later, the market construct has seemingly changed. The shoeshine boy's figurative heirs have grown rich buying stocks, digital currencies, and other risk assets … The S&P 500 index just hit another record high, and activity has reached a fever pitch. The options market, which enables investors to magnify their stock bets at relatively low cost, has seen daily trading volumes rise to about 40 million contracts a day, up from maybe a million in 2000.”
Barron’s 10/25/2021
* Represents the views of one contributor. The publication contains both “bull” and “bear” case analyses.

Yes, that's it. Fidelity's EV and Future Transportation ETF. You can find the its daily holdings here (click on the Daily Holdings Report tab).
Though we don't quite know what's in the index it tracks, since the index is proprietary and the fund "Normally invest[s] at least 80% of assets in securities included in the Fidelity Electric Vehicles and Future Transportation Index℠ and in depositary receipts representing securities included in the index."

"Risk / reward seems out-of-whack. " +1

I read on one of the treads that those that started buying dips at the market top in 1929 did not see the bottom until 1932 and that the 1929 top was not seen again until 1952/3. Why compare the current equity market to the 1920s market? What are the similarities?

“What if the discount rate is higher or we lower the assumed yield to reflect the uncertainty surrounding buybacks? Today’s market would appear overvalued. On the other hand, perhaps the pandemic has temporarily depressed dividends and buybacks—and the buyback yield will jump sharply in the year ahead, making stocks seem relatively cheap.”
Reminds one of the line about “a one-handed economist.”
That’s a very thoughtful piece overall. And Yikes - Mentions that the S&P fell 34% in early 2020. I’d sure like another crack at those prices.
@Old_Joe - What you say is true. But inflation’s probably averaged 5-7% annually in recent years. Equity prices seem way out ahead of that (by S&P and other averages). If inflation were to catch up to the market gains of recent years we’d be looking at much worse than present level.
-
One thought …
I’ve been taught that in investing there exists a rough correlation between risk and reward. So how does one reconcile 1-2% returns on “safe” bonds now for several years along with double-digit gains in equities over many of those same years? Do today’s investors in the S&P index (or similar fund) really feel like they’re taking 5 or 10 times the amount of risk that’s inherent in an AAA rated corporate or government bond? That’s where I’m having some trouble reconciling all this. Risk / reward seems out-of-whack.

In the same issue: "These Pros Aren’t Worried About Inflation and Stagflation. Where to Invest Next." https://barrons.com/articles/these-pros-arent-worried-about-inflation-and-stagflation-where-to-invest-next-51634953101?mod=read_next

But Milken is an investor conference, and the current economic environment was still top of mind. Inflation concerns were discussed, if only to be dismissed. People are feeling the sting in their wallets now, but many of the recent price surges are in goods and services that were crushed at the onset of the pandemic, such as air travel and hospitality. Scott Minerd, global chief investment officer at Guggenheim Partners, and David Hunt, CEO of PGIM, agreed that there are more deflationary forces at work, thanks in part to the rise of technology.
Stagflation—the mix of inflation and slow economic growth—was even less of a concern to panelists. Hunt called it a “bogeyman.” What worries him more is that nearly two decades of accommodative monetary policies mean there’s a generation of investors that doesn’t understand credit risk.

Admittedly, housing could be in a bubble now. Different strokes.

I lately moved about 11 miles. Housing cost for me is up 100%. Granted, it is Oahu, and the new place is a step up. And this city is allegedly one of the safest in the USA. Gas is $4.24. My wife uses the car. This is no typo: the annual cost of an unlimited senior bus pass here is just $35.00. THAT'S what I do, to get around. Beautiful views here, but we are just up from street-level. The noise is nuts. I got drafted by a hookah-smoking caterpillar for this stint. He had given me the call. It's true. Go ask Alice. When she's 10 feet tall. ...
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=5aeWicwy7fA&list=RDAMVM5aeWicwy7fA

Um, yeah, and I'm kinda thinking EVs and Future Transportation are a wee bit more than just the next "hot" investment idea. I'm kinda thinkin' EV's (and whatever else comes next/with them) are gonna be a HUGE part of the LT future of transportation. To wit, CA and 2035 legislation.

I don't doubt that. What I question is how green it is (which is the topic of this thread). Adding lots of cars, regardless of their source of power, is an inefficient way to transport people. The second largest equity holding (4.88%) is Uber. Lyft is not far behind at 2.59%.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, ride-hailing trips today result in an estimated 69 percent more climate pollution on average than the trips they displace. In cities, ride-hailing trips typically displace low-carbon trips, such as public transportation, biking, or walking. Uber and Lyft could reduce these emissions with a more concerted effort to electrify its fleet of vehicles or by incentivizing customers to take pooled rides, the group recommends.
“However, those strategies alone will address neither the increases in vehicle miles traveled nor rising congestion concerns,” the report says. “For ride-hailing to contribute to better climate and congestion outcomes, trips must be pooled and electric, displace single-occupancy car trips more often, and encourage low-emissions modes such as mass transit, biking, and walking.”
...
A more systemic effort to address climate pollution has yet to emerge from either Uber or Lyft. And the solutions they’ve proposed so far are unlikely to address the core problem with ride-hailing: it is often more convenient and less expensive than other, less-polluting transportation options.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/25/21152512/uber-lyft-climate-change-emissions-pollution-ucs-study
Here's an October 2021 op-ed piece going though the myriad of broken green "pledges" by Uber and Lyft: NYTimes original (with embedded links), SF Examiner reprint (free w/o links)
Aside from their green failures, the piece also notes:

Lyft’s president, John Zimmer, once claimed the majority of rides would be in autonomous vehicles by 2021, but the company has largely backed away from its self-driving efforts, including selling its developmental unit to a Toyota subsidiary this year. Uber, which once characterized robot cars as “existential” to its future, sold off its autonomous vehicle division last year after mounting safety and cost concerns.

(Not relevant to the question of green investing, but it is relevant to the ETF's stated strategy of investing in companies "engaged in the production of electric and/or autonomous vehicles".)
Since others here have mentioned ESG, and you suggested looking at California statutes, one can hardly mention Uber and Lyft without also mentioning Prop 22. IMHO fortunately the courts just overturned it (thus moving closer to restoring employee rights and protections to Uber and Lyft drivers).
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/10/can-anyone-stop-the-uberization-of-the-economy.html

@OJ
the second figure shows what you are pointing out
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/15/opinion/us-economy-inflation.html

PAWZ lost less than SPY XLP and XLU in 1Q 2020-so could it be classified as a consumer staples etf ?

“Home prices are up a record 19.5% in the past year, according to Case-Shiller data, writes Joseph Carson, former chief economist at AllianceBernstein, in his blog. However, they were removed from the official price indexes owing to political and statistical issues. If they were still included, inflation would be running at a 10% clip, rivaling the 1980s, he adds.”
Barron’s, October 25, 2021
Hmm … I thought my money wasn’t going as far this year … Did an awful lot of renovation and maintenance work on the house. Likely the high costs were related to overall housing inflation.
Teaser - Another provocative sounding article in this week’s issue (which I haven’t yet read): “Parallels Between Now and the Roaring ‘20s”

That said, fund sponsors also tend to focus on what's currently hot. Like electric, self-driving cars, "FDV ... Fidelity Electric Vehicles & Future Transportation ETF, one of four new ETFs launched in October 2021."
Um, yeah, and I'm kinda thinking EVs and Future Transportation are a wee bit more than just the next "hot" investment idea. I'm kinda thinkin' EV's (and whatever else comes next/with them) are gonna be a HUGE part of the LT future of transportation. To wit, CA and 2035 legislation.
Regardless, it's the play we've made and a green idea for others to consider. Take it or leave it.

And you certainly do not want to mis this article:
The ESG Movement: The 'Goodness' Gravy Train Rolls On

I agree with the given caveat, not only in this context but generally, "For any variable, no matter how intuitive and obvious its connection to value might be, to generate 'excess' returns, you have to consider whether it has been priced in already."
I strongly disagree with the statement that "Milton Friedman, the bête noire of ESG advocates, would stand vindicated, and companies would do good, because it made them more profitable and valuable." Friedman, like most economists, ignored behavioral economics and started with the assumption that actors are rational. If businesses acted rationally there would be no need for anti-discrimination laws.
If businesses were focused on long term results and not quarterly profits, they would invest in producing less waste (saving material costs). They would plan better for having to pay for the pollution that they emitted in the past "for free".
That said, fund sponsors also tend to focus on what's currently hot. Like electric, self-driving cars, "FDV ... Fidelity Electric Vehicles & Future Transportation ETF, one of four new ETFs launched in October 2021."
Vehicles, Future Transportation - that's not just cars, though you wouldn't know it from this fund. Efficient transportation? That's mass transit.

while EVs do decrease emissions compared with conventional vehicles, we should be comparing them to buses, trains and bikes. When we do, their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions disappears because of their life cycle emissions and the limited number of people they carry at one time.

https://theconversation.com/the-myth-of-electric-cars-why-we-also-need-to-focus-on-buses-and-trains-147827
Where are the investments in electric rail, in fully automated (GoA level 4) systems? For example,

“[Siemens Mobility's] state of the art CBTC signaling at GoA 4 [for the Bangalore Metro] will allow trains to operate driverless, as they will be automatically controlled and supervised without any onboard intervention. This will deliver a truly modern system featuring superior availability, reliability and passenger experience.”

https://railway-news.com/siemens-mobility-wins-bangalore-metro-contract/

GoA 4 is also termed as an Unattended Train Operation (UTO) system. Therefore, the safe departure of the train from a station, including door closing, must be done automatically. The UTO system can detect and manage the hazardous conditions and emergency conditions by introducing guideway intrusion detection, platform, and onboard CCTV, etc. UTO is only possible for systems with GoA 4.

Global Automatic Train Control (GoA 1, GoA 2, GoA 3, GoA 4) Market Forecast to 2023 - ResearchAndMarkets.com (2019)
https://apnews.com/press-release/pr-businesswire/7dd0aca732d347389a6ab8d383ff18ff
Here's the updated report:
https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5300830/global-autonomous-trains-market-2020-2030-by

clements smart article on intrinsic value:
https://humbledollar.com/2021/10/calculated-courage/

a good and cheap idea in several respects:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/21/opinion/corporate-taxes-deficit-spending.html