@LewisBraham
At least in Southwestern Connecticut, Electric Boat is desperate to hire "blue collar" technically trained industrial workers to build subs. They subsidize the training programs in high school and guarantee a job if student finishes program. Unlike the Cape, where you can charge $350 to put in a toilet ( personal experience) people can afford to live in SW CT.
A lot of the CHIPS act and Inflation Reduction Act is directed exactly at building those training programs in Red States
https://www.brookings.edu/research/with-high-tech-manufacturing-plants-promising-good-jobs-in-ohio-workforce-developers-race-to-get-ready/
How US compares to the rest of the world in College expenses
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/09/why-is-college-so-expensive-in-america/569884/
"All told, including the contributions of individual families and the government (in the form of student loans, grants, and other assistance), Americans spend about $30,000 per student a year—nearly twice as much as the average developed country. “The U.S. is in a class of its own,” says Andreas Schleicher, the director for education and skills at the OECD, and he does not mean this as a compliment. “Spending per student is exorbitant, and it has virtually no relationship to the value that students could possibly get in exchange.”
For example, U.S. colleges spend, relative to other countries, a startling amount of money on their nonteaching staff, according to the OECD data."
That doesn't include the climbing gyms, hot tubs and locally sourced organic food the students demand!

@Yogibearbull. Yes.. There’s a lot in the current Barron’s about “illiquid securities” and “private equity,” and “leveraging”. Several panelists in the “Roundtable” sounded alarms. They view the issue as potentially affecting the entire 2023 investment landscape.
ISTM folks who bought into these instruments should have understood the risks they were undertaking. Outsized gains generally entail additional risk on the part of participants. Hedge funds, for example, typically limit redemptions. One reason they’re not available to small retail investors. Not disagreeing with anything you said.
Re: My OP - A lot of water has passed under the bridge in the year since I initially posted the story. The Fed has “tossed out” its initial assessment of “transient” inflation and has been aggressively / rapidly pushing up interest rates. Real estate values & REITS have fallen sharply in response. I have to believe all this is somehow related to the higher requests for redemptions and the restrictions (gates) put in place to slow redemptions - from a shrinking pot. It’s hard to discuss one facet of the problem without at least touching on the other.

"Did his opponent never think about checking out his claimed credentials? Lots of blame all around on that one."
@Junkster- Man, are you ever right. Next we'll find out that he isn't even a US citizen, and is a jail escapee from Bangladesh.

I read in NYT or WaPo that the opponent in the general knew about it and did raise the issue, but that it never got traction. Probably the constituency thought he was ideal and wouldn't hear anything to the contrary, especially from his opponent.

"Did his opponent never think about checking out his claimed credentials? Lots of blame all around on that one."
@Junkster- Man, are you ever right. Next we'll find out that he isn't even a US citizen, and is a jail escapee from Bangladesh.

Because it will gradually matter more and more to the investment landscape no matter what the climate science deniers think:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/01/10/world/eight-warmest-years-climate-copernicus-intl/index.html
https://nytimes.com/interactive/2023/climate/earth-hottest-years.html
It has for instance huge implications for the insurance industry, for the food industry, real estate, the military, textiles, globalization, shipping, tech waste and power consumption, and of course fossil fuels. There will be economic winners and losers here, and of course a number of species will go extinct. Some already have. Given the conversations we’ve been having about asset classes, a forward looking analyst of them will have to take the shifting climate into account, and how it might impact the expected performance of each asset class over the next fifty years instead of just taking how they did in the last fifty as gospel.

I'm going to repeat something here that I posted over in an Off-Topic thread:
The Democrats are going to be the very least of McCarthy's problems. For a truly somber overview of the legislative minefield laying ahead, I highly recommend pulling up last night's Brooks and Capehart segment of the PBS NewsHour. I was very impressed with the reportorial exchanges between Amna Nawaz, David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart. A very professional crew indeed. NewsHour has certainly landed on it's feet with the transition from Judy Woodruff.

I'm married. So, I never know what the Big Picture actually looks like. It morphs and changes, with items added to it, always along the way. Rather than panic and try to respond with a huge, total makeover, I adjust.
In order to cover the spouse-person's most recently communicated priority, I'll be starting a TIPS account, while their landscape looks quite positive. Looks like that $$$ will get slud into SCHP.
Dizzy Dean: "He shoulda slud into 3rd, but he didn't, and he was out by a heifer's step."
******************
Otherwise, I'll keep things rather the same. I'll add to equities if/when things go south. Our investing time-horizon is lengthy. If one or two single-stocks on my watchlist falls far enough to look attractive, I'll start a position there. (FNLC. CMTV. TGH. BBVA. WFG. SCHN.) But growing the TIPS will be at the top of the list, until that puppy rolls over. We do not need to obtain that newest priority-item for several years, at least--- the item that the TIPS account is intended to address. I don't want to be so spread out that I'm actually "de-worse-ifying."
PRISX will be held at a greatly-reduced level. (DAWG!)
PRNEX will remain in the portfolio.
Here's hoping PRFDX will do as well for me in '23 as it did in '22.
PRWCX and PRCPX and TUHYX round out the mutual fund section of the portfolio.
Today is the first trading day of 2023. My holdings which bucked the fall in the Indices are the ones I own the least of: PSTL. JRSH. The others, I still think, are worth keeping: BHB. NHYDY. ET.

@Old_Joe -
Yup - It’s complicated. My reported comparison was just a rough sample. Results may vary. Knowing how short in supply labor is I have to believe that’s a big factor for airlines / airports because of the intensive use of manual labor for baggage handling, fueling, maintenance, security, etc. Heck, around here if you can walk and chew gum you’ve got a job - labor’s so tight.
The attached article mentions one factor that escaped me at first. While oil prices have generally fallen in recent months, that may not be the case for aviation fuel. Diesel has rocketed higher. I’d expect the fuel for jets is more closely related to that than to what we buy at the gas pump.
The article mentions cut-backs in flights. Seems to be the case from some searching I did last night looking for other travel. A distinct shortage of direct flights from what I could see. If it costs the same to go from “Point A” to “Point B” but takes twice as long because of added connections … that in itself is a form of inflation. The product may cost the same, but it is an inferior product.

Here's KPMG's description of every section of Secure Act 2.0 that made it into the omnibus bill (19 pages).
https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/us/pdf/2022/12/tnf-secure-act-section-by-section-dec20-2022.pdf
Full text of bill: https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/JRQ121922.PDF
Since Forbes offered opinions about some of the sections, I'll try to explain Kiplinger's observation that "other [supporters of the legislation] have expressed concern that some provisions in the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 primarily benefit high-income earners."
https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/bipartisan-retirement-savings-package-in-massive-budget-bill
Section 107: raising retirement age. This is a tax break for high earners; Forbes notes: "This provision mostly impacts people with wealth who don’t need their RMD and can leave the money to grow."
It might have made more sense to treat IRAs and 401(k)s the same - don't require RMDs so long as you are working. Otherwise, you are retired and thus should be drawing from retirement accounts.
Wonder why increasing the age to 75 won't happen for a decade? It's because these laws only have to look ten years out when considering budget impact. This change in RMD age is said to be the most costly provision of the SECURE Act, but most of that cost escapes scrutiny. Accounting gimmick. (See also JCT analysis of SECURE 2.0 Act.)
Sections 108, 109: increasing catch up amounts. According to a current Vanguard study, only 2%-3% of those earning under $100K max out even with the limits already in place. 37% of those earning over $100K max out.
Section 202: raising QLAC limits. Currently $145K (inflation indexed) up to 25% of account balance, will be raised to $200K (inflation indexed), with no percentage cap. QLACs are basically insurance policies against living "too long". There is a strong correlation between income and longevity.
Section 325: No more RMD for Roth 401(k)s. This section comes under Title III - Simplification and Clarification of Retirement Plan Rules. There's a lot of good cleanup in this Title. Section 325 makes the RMD treatment of Roth 401(k)s and Roth IRAs the same. Complete simplification would have made the treatment of RMDs the same for everything - Roths and Traditionals, employer plans and IRAs.
Being able to leave more money in tax-sheltered accounts mostly benefits those who do not need to take money from those accounts. So while this section doesn't add benefits for the better off, it doesn't address this disparity of benefits either.
Sections 603 and 604 come under Title VI - revenue provisions. They are more accounting gimmicks to make it look like tax revenue is being increased. By moving some contributions (high wage earner catch ups and some employer matches) from traditional to Roth, these provisions increase immediate revenue while moving the costs largely outside the 10 year budget window. At best, the present value of those costs is break even; more likely these changes are revenue losers.
Analysis of earlier but similar Senate Bill (EARN):
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/senate-retirement-bill-would-cost-84-billion-without-gimmicks
Section 603: High earner catch up provisions must be Roth. Since this doesn't affect anyone earning $145K (inflation adjusted) or more and rhus constitutes a new restriction on high earners, simple logic says this is not a change that benefits high earners. But it's not the onerous provision that Forbes suggests. Effectively it is a forced Roth conversion.
Higher wage earners rejoiced when they were finally permitted to do Roth conversions starting in 2010. While those conversions were not forced, converting some savings was generally regarded as a positive. Especially since pre-paying taxes enables one to enhance the post-tax value of tax-sheltered accounts.
https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2010/jan/20091743.html
This legislation has much to commend it, including changes that encourage participation and make it easier to participate. Though in terms of dollars and cents, it is skewed toward those who are already contributing and can afford to contribute more.

Excerpt from The Long View podcast episode (published 12/14/2021) featuring Mr. Bengen.
Benz: How about the reverse of that where you believe that equity valuations are notably scary? Would it be advisable to potentially take the equity weighting way down with the assumption that you would ramp it up later on?
Bengen: Yes. And essentially, that's what I'm doing in my portfolio. I'm only about 20% equities right now, because I think evaluations are ridiculous. And if you look at the chart of the CAPE, you'll see that when it reaches these peaks, in 1929, and it did so in the mid-60s, and then around 2000, that there was a sharp decline from that. It may take a number of years for it to happen. But it has always happened historically, and I don't know why this would be any different, the current environment. I just can't predict when it will happen. It will be six months, two years, who knows. But I'm a believer that the mean reversion--if we don't have mean reversion, it means we're in a whole new era and that the historical data doesn't mean really that much. So, I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Link

Excerpts from @BaseballFan’s OP …
”I believe inflation will be sticky” - Agree
”balance sheet tightening continues”- You mean the Fed? One pundit I follow thinks this will be so “until something breaks” (leading to reversal of Fed tightening). I tend to agree.
”Ukraine/Russia war continues” - Hard to say
housing market muddles along, does not collapse - That’s the Achilles Heel that threatens to bring down the entire economy. However, there will always be some assets that do well. And note that economy and stock market are not synonymous.
”economy slows down but also muddles along” - That’s as good a guess as any.
”I'll leave my political thoughts off this post” … We all should. A good investor ought to be able to make money regardless of whether Ds or Rs are in control. One’s skill at money management ought not be contingent on the vicissitudes of the ever changing political landscape.

PIMCO recently launched a new interval fund, the PIMCO Flexible Real Estate Income Fund (REFLX).
Q: Why is PIMCO launching REFLX now?
Donner: Private real estate markets are repricing and yields have risen, amplifying opportunities for both income and total return. Asset repricing has not been uniform across the real estate asset landscape: Valuations in public real estate markets have tumbled, while private market assets are in earlier stages of repricing. Flexible real estate funds like REFLX can capitalize on this dislocation, focusing on segments of the market that offer the most attractive return profile. As a new portfolio, REFLX does not have the burden of legacy holdings weighing on its earnings and return potential, providing the managers even more investment flexibility.
Link
Note: This should not be construed as a recommendation.

@dtconroe - I appreciate your sharing your thoughts. There is indeed a risk/reward tradeoff. I tend to view RPHIX as something between a MMF and a CD, in that I expect it to have a higher total return, even quarter by quarter, than a MMF, but without the certainty (or commitment) of a CD.
(I don't view MMF returns as guaranteed since they are not locked in. Though it is hard to imagine a scenario where their yields decline in the short term.)
Because of the (short term) volatility in RPHIX I wouldn't put 100% of my cash there, but would still consider holding a sizeable position. I likely place a higher value on liquidity than you, as I'm more hesitant to lock money into a CD without a reasonable escape clause (not just a thinly traded market). Two reasons for my interest in liquidity: helping out relatives (which has been erratic) and potentially higher returns in the near term (opportunity cost).
As you wrote, each person can decide for themselves.

Maybe SBF gave someone a master key to steal some funds for him while he was planning his escape to Argentina?

https://earlyretirementnow.com/2022/10/12/dynamic-withdrawal-rates-based-on-the-shiller-cape-swr-series-part-54/
plus the comments
site is in need of proofing, also dummies' summaries, plus fixes of what appears to be some sketchy java/html (?) coding; but possibly of interest to crunchers here

Near the end of that song: “When the air becomes Urania …” - I was waiting for him to rhyme that with “Crimea” which would have worked lyrically. Missed opportunity.

May be nuclear attack by Russia.
That rich investor may be Elon Musk> Elon Musk supports Russia keeping Crimea—because he’s worried about nuclear escalation and World War III ('Fortune.com'.)

Could be. Musk could than use his “winnings” to hasten completion of his Mars spaceship. With some incredibly good luck, he just might escape this planet in the nick o’ time.

Remember Arthur Andersen who was the auditing firm for Enron.
https://hg.org/legal-articles/the-fallout-of-arthur-andersen-and-enron-on-the-legal-landscape-of-american-accounting-31277
Will Ernst & Young face discipline from SEC?

And, with respect to energy, I just came across this:
Leading economies sliding into recession as Ukraine war cuts growth –

Impact of energy and inflation crises worse than forecast, with Europe most directly exposed to fallout of Russian invasion
Following are edited excerpts from an article in The Guardian:

The world’s leading economies are sliding into recession as the global energy and inflation crises sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine cuts growth by more than previously forecast, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
A heavy dependency on expensive gas for heavy industry and home heating will plunge Germany, Italy and the UK into a long period of recession after global growth was projected by the OECD to slow to 2.2% in 2023 from a forecast in June of 2.8%.
With the global economy needing to grow by about 4% to keep pace with rising populations, the OECD said incomes per head would be lower in many countries.
China’s growth rate is expected to drop this year to 3.2% – its lowest since the 1970s – causing a large decrease in trade with neighbours South Korea, Vietnam and Japan, dragging down their capacity to grow.
A recovery in China next year to 4.7% will be weaker than expected, the OECD said, as Beijing wrestles with a property market and banking sector weighed down by huge debts.
However, the Paris-based policy forum was most alarmed by the outlook across Europe, which is most directly exposed to the fallout from Russia’s war in Ukraine.

The OECD forecast a drop in growth in the eurozone from 3.1% this year to only 0.3% in 2023, meaning that many countries in the 19-member currency bloc will spend at least part of the year in recession. A recession is defined as two straight quarters of contraction.
France could escape a recession if it grows by 0.8% next year as predicted by the OECD, but will suffer along with other European countries after the downgrade in GDP growth since June of 1.3 percentage points.
Russia will shrink by at least 5.5% this year and 4.5% in 2023. Berlin’s dependence on Russian gas before the invasion means the German economy will shrink by 0.7% next year, down from a June estimate of 1.7% growth.
The OECD warned that further disruptions to energy supplies would hit growth and boost inflation, especially in Europe where they could knock activity back another 1.25 percentage points and increase inflation by 1.5 percentage points, pushing many countries into recession for the full year of 2023.
Global output next year is projected to be $2.8tn (£2.6tn) lower than the OECD forecast before Russia attacked Ukraine – a loss of global income equivalent to the UK economy.
“The global economy has lost momentum in the wake of Russia’s unprovoked, unjustifiable and illegal war of aggression against Ukraine. GDP growth has stalled in many economies and economic indicators point to an extended slowdown,” the organisation’s secretary-general, Mathias Cormann, said.
A review of the outlook for the US found that while it is likely to grow slowly this year and be in recession for part of 2023, it was less dependent than other countries on energy from Russia or other sources, allowing for a strong recovery in 2024.
The OECD forecast that the world’s biggest economy would slow from 1.5% growth this year to only 0.5% next year, down from June forecasts for 2.5% in 2022 and 1.2% in 2023.
World Bank officials have called on central banks to refrain from competitive rate hikes that will push the global economy into recession and harm the economies of developing world countries the most.
Nevertheless, the OECD said further rate hikes were needed to fight inflation, forecasting that most major central banks’ policy rates would reach at least 4% next year.

"It will be resolved at some point."
Yes, of course it will "be resolved at some point".
But with respect to investment at this time, it's not possible to determine when that future point might be, and even more importantly, what the eventual worldwide industrial configuration will look like when it is "resolved".

A while back I wondered how DoubleLine got the CAPE trading symbol away from Barclays. My guess now is that it was no great loss because Barclays had no future in mind for the ETN, and agreed to use the CAPD symbol for a short time. If I were a fund company, I'd want the more recognizable symbol. @lrwilliams: I no longer own either CAPE or CAPD.

Anyone else own iPath Shiller CAPE ETN (CAPD)? I got a notice that it is maturing on October 12, 2022. My choices are to sell now or wait and be cashed out (at the price on October 4). Is there any reason to prefer one option over the other?
Thanks for any advice.