PostMeds, dba TruePill Pharmacy, agreed to a settlement of $7.5M for a data breach that "contain[ed] information such as names, medication types, and, for certain patients, demographic information and prescribing physician names."
https://www.hipaajournal.com/postmeds-truepill-sued-over-2-3-million-record-data-breach/
I must have selected a cash payment in lieu of compensation for losses or free credit monitoring. Yesterday I received around $100 as my cut of the settlement. Yea. Sometimes one does get more than a few pennies out of these settlements.
https://truepillsettlement.com/
Still, these days that might barely cover a dinner for two, or perhaps just a lunch.
TruePill is the first of two pharmacies that Mark Cuban CostPlus Drugs contracted with to dispense drugs. It got overwhelmed by the volume and Cost Plus then contracted with a second pharmacy, HealthDyne. It looks like CostPlus recently dropped TruePill (see FAQ who fills my prescription).
I don't know if the massive number of orders was related to the data breach. I do know that CostPlus messed up my records (saying that my prescription could not be found).
CostPlus seems to have worked out most of its kinks since then. I can't say much about its backend pharmacies.

@WABAC, Think we are on the same page on that. Majority of our bonds are on the shorter end. Our small moves to 5-7 years bonds have been gradually as we monitor the inflation data and employment number. Going to long duration is pre-mature at this point.
What has not been talk about in the press is stagflation. Political pressure is mounting for September FOMC meeting.

Some unconventional thoughts on your allocation/drawdown plans, FWIW:
1. If all the money in your (future) RMDs will be taxed at the same rate, and if your RMDs will (along with other income including SS) will be less than your cash flow needs, then there doesn't seem to be much value in managing T-IRA and T-401(k) differently.
Reasoning: if RMDs are more than you need, then it is better to keep them down (and more assets tax-sheltered) by keeping slower growth assets in traditional accounts and faster growth assets in Roths, as you are doing. You don't want to be forced to draw more out of any sheltered account than you need. But this justification vanishes if RMDs are not sufficient for cash flow needs.
By "all RMD money taxed at the same rate" I mean: Suppose that you add up all your other ordinary income (SS, taxable interest, etc.) .and find that you're, say, in the 22% bracket. Then when you add in your RMD, you find that you're still in the same 22% bracket. Not higher. If this is true then it doesn't matter how you split investments between T's and Roths.
Say you've got $100K in your traditional accounts and $78K in your Roths. After tax, they're each worth $78K. Suppose you allocate assets so that your Roth accounts double and your traditional accounts stagnate. Then your Roth will be worth $156K after tax and your traditionals will be worth $78K after tax for a total of $234K after tax.
If you flip the allocations, then the traditional accounts will double to $200K pre-tax, or $156K after tax. The Roth will be sitting at $78K, for a total of $23KK after tax.
The trick is to keep after tax values in mind when allocating investments. Are there any portfolio trackers that can handle this?
2. Since cap gains don't (for the most part) affect what rate your ordinary income is taxed at, you might be better off holding onto your long term positions in taxable accounts (that are pseudo-tax-sheltered by deferring gain recognition) and instead sheltering cash by using it to pay the taxes on Roth conversions.
Suppose you have $22 in cash (taxable) and $100 in a traditional IRA (worth $78 post tax). That's worth a total of $100 after tax. Convert and you've got $100 in a Roth, also worth $100 after tax.
If you convert, then instead of having to pay tax on the cash as it generates income, you've fully sheltered that $22 in the Roth. As for the securities that you could have sold instead of converting, they'll continue to appreciate, tax-deferred, until you recognize the gain.
3. If you're planning on working past RMD age (currently 73), then you can defer RMDs longer in your 401(k) with your current employer. If that's the case, that may militate for keeping higher growth assets in the 401(k). Otherwise, allocation between T-IRA and T-401(k) doesn't seem to matter. Though the choice of investments available to you in your employer plan(s) could tilt the scales one way or the other.
4. Throwing a money wrench into all of this are oddballs like IRMAA and the 3.8% Medicare surtax. And Trump's $6K above-the-line (sort of) extra deduction for seniors in 2025-2028 that is also income-dependent.
In addition, your state may exempt some or all of retirement income from state taxes. Your state may also give other tax breaks that are income dependent (e.g. property tax reductions). And there's no certainty with respect to future tax rates.
I've been doing incremental Roth conversions since 2010 when the income limit on conversions was eliminated. So when I finally get to being subject to RMDs, their size will be closer to what I want to contribute to charities. And by identifying them as QCDs, I won't have to worry much about tax consequences of my RMDs.

Just posted all ratings updates to MFO Premium site using Refinitiv data drop through Friday, 29 August 2025. Was able to use month-to-date numbers to get head-start on full data drop, which comes next Saturday.

Federal judges have lifetime appointments. They cannot be fired. They can only be impeached and convicted - a political process.
Count me among the skeptics about Trump firing federal judges. Attempting, sure. But firing, no way.
Still, it used to be that, given a scandal or two, even a SC justice could be pressured into resigning (see Abe Fortas). These days, they won't let go of a court position until it is pried from their cold dead hands (see Clarence Thomas).
Regarding CIT - since it went out of its way to justify the injunction after issuing its ruling, it seems likely to again justify the injunction. Though in accordance with CASA (the ruling on birthright citizenship), CIT may find issuing an injunction across all 50 states problematic. Only a handful of states were plaintiffs and CASA tends to restrict relief to actual plaintiffs (though it does permit class actions).
Perhaps products imported into Georgia could be subjected to tariffs while products passing through New York would be shielded (NY is one of the plaintiffs). Yes, that sounds absurd.
A discussion of CASA's implications for universal (nationwide) injunctions is here:
https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2025/07/supreme-court-substantially-limits-universal-injunctions

Appreciated the detailed elucidation from all involved.

ISTM the court has made a wise decision not to adopt the concurrence as the court opinion. That would serve as an invitation for the current Supreme Court to rule on further expanding presidential power. Instead, we have a somewhat narrow ruling on the specifics of this case, of these particular tariffs. While the SC can always broaden the issue on its own, it will have to push that door open; it has not yet been opened.

If so, it is good to know that in legal terms this was, perhaps, the right avenue for the court to follow. Unfortunately, in this case, what is good for the (judicial) goose is not good for the (market) gander. Imo, the way it came out adds even more uncertainty for the already rattled business community.
I guess, we will see how things unfold next week. As that CNBC article had put it:

The ruling injects a heavy dose of uncertainty into a central tenet of Trump’s economic agenda, which has rattled the global economy since April.

and, worse,

The Trump administration is reportedly planning to expand its sector-specific tariffs, including those on steel and aluminum, as a way of skirting the looming legal battles, according to The Wall Street Journal.

On a side note, could any of the jurists here shed some light on whether CIT will now take up the vacated and remanded injunction issue - potentially, reinstating it on review - or will everyone simply wait for the SCOTUS appeal of this decision to resolve the matter?

29 Aug, early Labor Day week-end this year, in 2025:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2025-08-29/real-yield-8-29-2025-video
Katie Griefeld hosts.
Priya Misra. George Bory. Winnie Cisar. Jeff Peskind.
Inflation is sticky, a bit short of the Fed's 2% goal. The Fed's independence and credibility are at stake re: Orange One's interference and threats to fire Lisa Cook, but the market did not react strongly to it, as if the markets trust that the guardrails will prevail. Upcoming Labor stats will be key. Generally, markets are mixed.
Rate cut? Crucial element = the pace of cuts. They ought to be very measured.... Junk bond yields are the lowest in 3 years! The spread between Junk and Treasuries/Investment Grade is extremely tight. Some read that as a reason to go with the safer beast; others continue to hold or even grow their Junk, but should keep duration short.

According to Perplexity, there are "at least" five cases going: Dinky linky.
This got me thinking about Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer: YADL.
In particular I was thinking about Justice Robert Jackson's opinion and found the following:

Jackson's opinion took a similarly flexible approach to the issue by eschewing any fixed boundaries between the powers of Congress and the President. His framework would influence future Supreme Court cases on the president's powers and the relation between Congress and the presidency.[5] He divided Presidential authority towards Congress into three categories (in descending order of legitimacy):
When the President acts with Congressional authorization, express or implied authority from Congress, "his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.”[6]
When the President acts "in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain.”[7]
Cases in which the President was defying congressional orders "his power is at its lowest ebb." The Court can sustain his actions “only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject.”[8]
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings that the "familiar tripartite scheme" above has since been called "the accepted framework for evaluating executive action" by the Supreme Court.[9]

This link expands on Justice Jackson's second point as quoted above:

When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measure on independent responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.

I expect this Supreme Court to drive a truck through the "imponderables."

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/30/trump-trade-tariffs-appeals.html
* The ruling on Friday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit throws a wrench in President Donald Trump’s trade agenda, and leaves his “reciprocal tariffs” in limbo.
* Trump has said that he will appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
* Trump’s sector-specific tariffs, including on copper and steel, remain safe from the ruling, potentially foreshadowing a new trade playbook Trump could use if his “reciprocal tariffs” are blocked.

Thats interesting history. You motivated me to look a little further. American Beacon's acquisition of Sound Point Floating Rate Fund was a true fund adoption. The acquiring fund was "newly created" for this purpose.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/809593/000089843215001344/a485bpos.htm
Looking into American Beacon - I knew that it had started out as American AAdvantage Funds before a renaming in 2005. Those funds were an outgrowth in 1987 of American Airlines pension investing. What I didn't realize was that just three years after the rebranding AMR sold American Beacon It was subsequently sold again and rebranded again.
http://www.mfwire.com/fundprofile.asp?fund=19415&bhcp=1
AAdvantage had some decent funds, but American Beacon seems to have gone downhill.
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/16/business/investing-buying-airlines-mutual-funds-is-it-the-return-or-the-miles.html
Current fees are high, stars are below par. It is bleeding assets. Over the past twelve months it has lost almost 14% of AUM, down to $18B (per M*). That's down from the $22B it had in 2000, according to the NYTimes article above.
https://www.morningstar.com/asset-management-companies/american-beacon-BN000007X6
I wonder when this decline started - with AMR's sale of the company, with the later sale, or perhaps American Beacon never did as well as the earlier AAdvantage funds.

Friday, start of Labor Day week-end, 29th Aug: SWVXX is giving a 7-day yield of 4.15%
but don't count on that holding for too long.

Agreed--just took money out of SWVXX, in a taxable account, to buy a 12 month CD at 4.2%. In my IRA at Schwab, I have a large position in SNAXX that has been paying 4.3%, and it is more difficult to invest outside of Schwab in a CD.

@msf,
When I ran across this filing, I thought of the Bridgeway Large Cap Growth and Large Cap Value funds also.
I used to have the Sound Point Floating Rate Income fund (SPFRX which is now as American Beacon DoubleLine Floating Rate Income fund) for many years, even after it was acquired by American Beacon. I unloaded it last year as the fund has not performed like it used to as well as undergoing significant asset erosion under management.
Tocqueville International Value fund was also acquired by American Beacon.
Sound Point Floating Rate Income fund acquisition by American Beacon:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1261788/000089418915005215/sndpt-tap_497e.htm
Name change of Sound Point Floating Rate Income fund:
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/809593/000113322822008078/abspfrif-html5857_497.htm
Sound Point Floating Rate Income fund investor class converted into A class:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/809593/000113322823006031/abfeacfrif-html6974_497.htm

This case might be summed up simply as the government claiming that "IEEPA [statute] provid[es]ing the President power to impose unlimited tariffs" and the court responding, no it doesn't, not here. The concurrence went further and said in effect, "not anywhere".
A decision is a plurality decision when fewer than a majority of judges sign onto it. That's not the situation (dare I say "case"?) here. A majority of the judges completely agreed with the reasoning. That's not a compromise to "go along".
In cases in which one or more judges say they agree with the result but would go further (as here), a majority fails to exist only when the concurring judges give a different rationale for the outcome of the case. That disagreement manifests when the concurring judges fail to sign onto the court opinion.
A good discussion of majority vs concurrence can be found here:
https://dnmrs.com/articles/concurring_dissenting_opinions_court_appeals_0722.html
It goes into a case, Greene v. Esplanade Venture Partnerships, 36 N.Y.3d 513, 526-48 (2021),, where the concurring judges opine that “The Court has missed the moment” to expand a narrow ruling (quote is from Greene).
The concurring judges would have discarded the court reasoning and replaced it with a different, broader rationale. They agreed with the outcome but did not sign onto the court opinion.
In contrast, the concurring judges here agree with the reasoning applied. They state that in addition to the specifics of this case, they would apply the reasoning more broadly. The majority does not disagree with this; it just avoids the question as being unnecessary to resolve.
Simple logic. If one claims a universal fact, as the government here claimed that the president could impose unlimited tariffs, all that is needed to refute that claim is a single counterexample (the tariffs in question). One does not need to "prove" the inverse, viz. the government can never impose any tariffs unilaterally.
ISTM the court has made a wise decision not to adopt the concurrence as the court opinion. That would serve as an invitation for the current Supreme Court to rule on further expanding presidential power. Instead, we have a somewhat narrow ruling on the specifics of this case, of these particular tariffs. While the SC can always broaden the issue on its own, it will have to push that door open; it has not yet been opened.

Annual Returns: VFINX vs. 10-Year Treasury Fund (IEF)
| Year | VFINX Annual Return | IEF Annual Return |
|---|---|---|
| 2007 | +5.39% | +10.38% |
| 2008 | -37.02% | +17.92% |
| 2009 | +26.52% | -6.59% |
| 2010 | +14.91% | +9.36% |
| 2011 | +1.96% | +15.65% |
| 2012 | +15.82% | +3.66% |

Bonds did great during the dot com bust.

Year	S&P 500		10 year Treasuries	Baa Corporates
2000	 -9.03%			16.66%		 9.39%
2001	-11.85%			 5.57%		 8.54%
2002	-21.97%			15.12%		12.14%

https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html
(That table also shows real returns after inflation)

In the SEC order:

Respondent [Vanguard] shall distribute from the Fair Fund to each client that enrolled in PAS during the Relevant Period an amount representing that client’s pro rata share of advisory fees paid, plus reasonable interest from any remaining funds, pursuant to a disbursement calculation (the “Calculation”) that will be submitted to, reviewed, and approved by the Commission staff in accordance with this Subsection C.

Regarding your TDF claim, you'll get your money after the case is settled. Of course that assumes that you owned a retail TDF in a taxable account.
I posted in some other thread something like:

On May 19, 2025, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the “Court”) denied final approval of a $40 million proposed settlement in a major class action lawsuit against The Vanguard Group, Inc. (“Vanguard”) and related parties (“Defendants”).

https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2025/07/district-court-strikes-down-40-million-settlement-agreement-in-target-date-funds-case-based
Since then,

They [Vanguard and investors] plan by September 22 to seek preliminary approval of the settlement from U.S. District Judge John Murphy, who rejected a $40 million accord on May 19.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/vanguard-settles-litigation-over-inflated-mutual-fund-tax-bills-2025-08-07/

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. A link to the full court ruling is below. "We are not deciding" is not to be found. People, please provide links when you give quotes. It's darn hard to find a quote that doesn't exist.
This is the actual text, similar to, but not identical to, what was given as a verbatim quote:

We are not addressing whether the President’s actions should have been taken as a matter of policy. Nor are we deciding whether IEEPA authorizes any tariffs at all. Rather, the only issue we resolve on appeal is whether the Trafficking Tariffs and Reciprocal Tariffs imposed by the Challenged Executive Orders are authorized by IEEPA. We conclude they are not.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105.159.0_1.pdf
The court is not avoiding deciding the kind of tariffs that are permissible or impermissible. That was never in question. At issue were whether specific instances (not kinds) of tariffs imposed by particular executive orders were legal.
The court did what courts generally do: address specific question(s) raised and not make sweeping pronouncements.
All but the four dissenting judges signed on to the majority opinion. That is, seven judges approved the decision in full. See p. 4 for the names of the seven judges who joined in the opinion.
Then look at the concurrence by four of the judges (p. 47). It begins:
"We join the majority opinion in full." There is no split.
They go on to say:

While we agree with the majority that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., does not grant the President authority to impose the type of tariffs imposed by the Executive Orders, Maj. Op. at 26–42, we write separately to state our view that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose any tariffs.

Okay, there's the word "type". I read it broadly, not literally as "kind", but perhaps as "size" or "breadth of scope". The majority opinion says that "we discern no clear congressional authorization by IEEPA for tariffs of the magnitude of the Reciprocal Tariffs and Trafficking Tariffs. " Perhaps inconsequential, de minimis tariffs (of whatever kind) could slide through.

Completion of the proposed Transaction, often called a “fund adoption,” is subject to, among other things, approval by the shareholders of the Fund.
This does not appear to be a typical fund adoption.
(WSJ article from a dozen years ago, subscription required, on fund adoptions).
In a typical fund adoption, the adopting fund company creates a shell fund and the old (acquired) fund is merged into it. For example (this is given in the WSJ piece), Bridgeway Large Cap Value was adopted by American Beacon by merging it into the then shell fund BRLVX (at the time called American Beacon Bridgeway Large Cap Value).
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/1561/bridgeway-large-cap-value-fund-reorganized-into-american-beacon-bridgeway-large-cap-value-fund
But here, the acquiring American Beacon fund exists and already has around $63M AUM.
https://www.americanbeaconfunds.com/mutual_funds/FEACFloatingRateIncome.aspx
Until June 20, this fund was called the American Beacon FEAC Floating Rate Income Fund and was subadvised by First Eagle Alternative Credit, LLC (FEAC). American Beacon changed the subadvisor of this existing fund to DoubleLine. Since DoubleLine charges more than FEAC for its services, American Beacon reduced its management fee so that the total (its fee plus the subadviser's fee) remained the same.
I can't tell exactly what the effect will be on shareholders of DBFRX / DLFRX because a fund with I and N shares is being acquired by a fund with R5, Investor, Y, A, and C shares. They don't align. But it looks very possible that the DoubleLine shareholders' fees will go up.
It's easy to see why American Beacon wants this acquisition. Its fund is a small 1* fund. It is buying assets, reputation (" beneficial publicity" as stated in its filing; see link above) and better management.
What's in it for the shareholders of the larger ($112M AUM) DoubleLine fund?

This looks to have been more of a 4-3-4 decision that did not go exactly along the party lines as per appointees: [3x Dem, 1x Rep] - [3x Dem] - [1x Dem, 3x Rep]
Also, there is this bit [corrected per msf post below]:

We are not addressing whether the President’s actions should have been taken as a matter of policy. We are not Nor are we deciding whether IEEPA authorizes any tariffs at all. Rather, the only issue we resolve on appeal is whether the Trafficking Tariffs and Reciprocal Tariffs imposed by the Challenged Executive Orders are authorized by IEEPA. We conclude they are not.

So, it is not about "the tariffs", but what kind [or instances, per msf] of tariffs.
They are now going to argue about what kind sort of tariffs are or are not allowed. And, because this was not a straight party-line decision, it will make it that much harder to predict how and when the SCOTUS votes.
All of this means a lot more uncertainty for the market is coming... :(
At least they had the good sense to release this decision on Friday after market and before a holiday weekend. Else, with market tanking on today's announcement of core PCE rising 2.9% in July and highest since February, we might have had another 'Liberation Day'-scale week of fun... Not to say that next week will not be.