I am overweight CD’s and loving it. As an older middle aged dude it’s great not to think of the next 50% correction. The only thing I worry about is when to go out longer to lock in a living, risk free return. I think that life is cool at 5.5% and I have no FOMO at all.

Yep, I am also weighing my options of at least devoting part of my portfolio for longer CDs--maybe 2 or 3 year CDs. 2 year CDs have been the longest I have previously invested in, but with 3 year CDs over 5% now, it at least deserves some consideration. With my taxable account, I prefer limiting my CD terms to shorter options of 6 months to a yearfor liquidity purposes, but with my traditional IRA CDs, I am looking closely at longer terms. A 3 year laddering approach looks interesting to me in my IRA account.
For most of my retirement years, I had a target objective of 4 to 6% TR, using low risk bond oefs. It is a little strange to be able to get that so easily with CDs these days.

I am overweight CD’s and loving it. As an older middle aged dude it’s great not to think of the next 50% correction. The only thing I worry about is when to go out longer to lock in a living, risk free return. I think that life is cool at 5.5% and I have no FOMO at all.

I've bought a couple 1 year CDs from JP Morgan at 5.65% the past 2 weeks.

I was pleased with CDs I bought for 5.3% about a month ago. At Schwab Brokerage today, CDs are now at 5.5% at 3/6/9/12/18 month. 2 year CDs are at 5.3%, 3 year at 5.1%. About the time I thought CDs were likely flattening, they continue to go up, both on a short term and longer term basis. You have to wonder how much higher those CDs could rise!

3 years, top 2% of category.
5,10, 15 years: top 1% of category.
OK by me. If additions to my account would not be non-deductible, I'd be adding.

Thanks for doing the math @msf. None better.
I also appreciate that no one has slammed me for being sacrilegious re this great fund. Like I said, it’s fun to slice and dice the numbers in a variety of ways. I suspect most who were heavy into equities at the start of ‘22 would be happy to be back to break-even, or to 99% of the original amount at this time. BTW - The 1-year return is much better as it’s measured from a low point in ‘22.

@hank, FWIW, I believe Giroux's stated goal for PRWCX is to obtain S&P 500 like returns with lower volatility over a market cycle.

Sounds right Mike. I’ve heard him allude to both 3 and 5 year time horizons in various interviews. He’s also very good at discussing this in his semi & annual reports as well. I’ve stopped reading them, however, since exiting the fund maybe 18 months ago.

To get compound interest (or cumulative returns) - multiply by each period's (1 + rate).
Here: (1 - 11.94%) x (1 + 12.55%) = 99.11153%, meaning that an investor's got "just" 99% of what they started with at the beginning of 2022.

Nothing yet. The original registration filing indicated an offering date as of 10/1, but that may change.
From the SEC concerning the Capital Appreciation and Income Fund:
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?CIK=C000245159&action=getcompany&scd=filings

@hank, FWIW, I believe Giroux's stated goal for PRWCX is to obtain S&P 500 like returns with lower volatility over a market cycle.

PRWCX has an absolutely incredible long term record under Giroux. Looking nearer term, the M* numbers say the fund lost 11.94% in 2022 and is up about 12.55% so far in 2023. Since it takes a larger % increase to make up a loss, this would mean that investors in the fund are roughly back to where they were at the beginning of 2022?
That’s more of a question than an assertion. As I said, long term there is no disputing the manager’s success. I know 20.5 months is a very short term in investing. Just find it interesting to pick apart numbers in various ways. (And investors’ investment horizons appear to be getting shorter. Giroux has mentioned in the past that 3 years is a reasonable “break-even” point for this fund. There’s little doubt he has exceeded that.

M* Performance tab shows that the new TCAF (6/14/23- ) had inflows of about $70 million/mo. Its $222.4 million AUM (M*) is decent for a new ETF. A survivable ETF typically has $50+ million AUM. True, there have been hot ETFs from other hot managers that ran up the AUM to billion soon after inception. Some new funds may be seeded by the sponsoring firms (with $50-100 million) but Price didn't do that for TCAF. Also be aware that the stocks haven't done much since mid-June as the rally has stalled.

Giroux made his rep on a low-volatility balanced fund. Now he is on a different playing field. And it's crowded.
MFO premium says you can screen for top-ten holdings, but really only allows five. As it is, Giroux is competing with 98 funds that charge .50 or less, and feature the same top five holdings. If you knock out the index funds, that still leaves 27 active competitors. Ten of those competitors charge less than .31 cents.
Just looking at the etf's from those ten funds, his competitors from least to most expensive are: DFUS, PLRG, JUSA, and DFSU.

The official reason for the abrupt departure is family issues back home in Toronto. That aside, the Bloomberg article mentions the difficulty recent CALPERS investment chiefs have had dealing with a sometimes obstinate, quarrelsome board of directors. Tenures have been brief in recent years.
Musicco had much success in running both public pensions and private investments in Canada before taking the CALPERS position in February, 2022. Her frequent absence from the office, related to commuting from Toronto, appeared to be one source of friction with co-workers. She emphasized direct investment over indirect ones through advisory firms to save on fees. Her attempts to buy professional sports teams was questioned by some at CALPERS. As the largest public pension fund in the country, CALPERS is seriously underfunded and needs to make up lost ground. Recent performance has been “underwhelming.”
Decent article from Yahoo: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/resigning-calpers-cio-led-private-050000716.html
”Calpers appointed Musicco to CIO in February 2022, during a period in which the pension fund set its focus on growing its exposure to the private markets. In late 2021, it had adopted an asset allocation plan to increase its PE investments from 8% to 13% and added a private debt allocation of 5%. Musicco brought private market investment expertise into her new role at Calpers, joining the fund from RedBird Capital Partners as head of the firm's Canadian unit. Prior to that, Musicco managed the private markets investment program at the Investment Management Corporation of Ontario and spent 16 years at the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, where she led both the PE and public equity teams.” (Credit to Yahoo Finance)
Excellent in-depth piece from Bloomberg (if you subscribe or can otherwise find a way to access):
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-18/biggest-us-pension-s-investment-boss-pushed-sports-deals-before-calling-it-quits
”Musicco’s attempt to import the so-called Canadian investment model, which emphasizes direct investments to reduce the fees paid to outside managers, didn’t sit well with key investing staff at Calpers, because there was no clear path communicated on how to do it, according to people close to the pension who were not authorized to speak publicly.” (Credit to Bloomberg)

Shares outstanding (as of Sept 15): 8,450,000
NAV (as of Sept 15): $25.66
=> AUM = $216.827,000
https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/tools/fund-research/etf/TCAF
There are people posting here who have or are running funds; they are much better positioned to say what is needed for viability, though one has to believe that $200M+ is more than enough. (Though how much of this is seed money, we don't know.)
It's about the same size as FAN, XTN, ICSB, FXY, WDIV, and PBJ (gotta like that ticker). Generally not the broadest based ETFs around, but all seem viable.
https://www.tipranks.com/etf/etfs-by-aum

Since the advent of the Credit Suisse Leveraged Loan Index (floating rate bank loans) in 1992 there have only been three down calendar years. 2008, 2015, and 2022. In each case the index bounced back sharply the following year more than making up for the losses.
With 2023 on track for the category’s second best year since 1992 some could argue we are in the later innings of this move. Investors are notorious for chasing what has been hot based on recent performance and then regretting it. And recent performance since we began discussing bank loans here over the past many months has been exceptionally robust.

Rather than the Fed "promising" rate changes, it "expects" or "predicts". That said, even before "early 2022", i.e. in December 2021, it "predicted" three interest rate hikes for 2022.
"The Federal Reserve said [on Dec 15, 2021] it would ... pave the way for three quarter-percentage-point interest rate hikes by the end of 2022".
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/fed-prepares-stiffen-inflation-response-post-transitory-world-2021-12-15/
BL have been doing well.
Eventually (read 2023).
But in 2022 following that "promise", bank loan funds lost an average of 2.49% (data from M*). If one wants to say that "doing well" is a relative statement, then sure, bank loan funds did well.
Except relative to ultrashort fixed rate funds. As a group, those went down "just" 0.14% in what has been described as the worst year ever for bonds.
Even worse was how bank loan funds performed in the first six months of 2022 right after the Fed press release. By July 8, 2022, bank loan funds were down 5.8%, underperforming not only ultrashort bond funds, but short term bond funds as well. (Graph from previously linked M* article.)

The point is that while bank loan funds tend to do better than other funds when interest rates go up, that's only one (albeit major) factor in how these funds actually perform in any given period of time.
Sometimes Fed predictions are wrong. It "predicted" 3 quarter-percent rate increases in 2022. It actually raised rates by a quarter point only once in 2022. But it raised rates by 1/2 or 3/4 percent six other times that year. Shouldn't bank loan funds have done even better as a result? Macroeconomics is hard.
2022-2023 rate hikes (table in Fortune article)

Just read in Reuters that oil is heading up to $100/barrel. The combined cut back from major oil producers including OPEC and Russia are affecting the supply side. Higher energy cost will boost inflation again.

Both NYMEX & Brent crude are up about a percent today. The first is priced near $92 and the latter around $95. Of course, oil prices have always been very volatile. Hard to time. What irks me is Americans’ fondness for driving very large high riding gas powered vehicles for everyday use - often with a sole occupant. These vehicles go about 18-20 miles (give or take) on a gallon of fuel under everyday driving conditions. These drivers are paying double to get from “Point A” to “Point B” they would with a midsized or large sedan capable of transporting 4 or 5 occupants in comfort. OK - it’s a free country. Do as you will. But why than scream about the high price of fuel?
Bloomberg typically puts up prices for both NYMEX and Brent crude oil. Below is a excerpt from one source pointing out some of the differences.
”Brent is a waterborne crude. It is a basket comprised of five different North Sea crudes (Brent, Forties, Oseberg, Ekofisk, and Troll, commonly referred to as BFOET). As a waterborne crude, it can be put on a vessel and shipped anywhere. Because of this, Brent reflects global oil market fundamentals and the global economy. This is reinforced by the fact that approximately 80% of the world’s traded crude is priced relative to Brent, including Dubai, Urals, and West African crudes.
Brent can be shipped and stored globally, either on land or in floating storage. As it has much more flexibility than WTI in terms of logistics …
“NYMEX WTI
In contrast to Brent, WTI Cushing is a landlocked regional crude, which reflects market fundamentals in the midcontinent region of the US. It has storage and logistics constraints at a very specific location: Cushing, Oklahoma. There is limited pipeline capacity to get crude in and out of Cushing, and limited crude storage capacity there.”
https://www.ice.com/insights/market-pulse/what-are-the-differences-between-ice-brent-and-nymex-wti-futures
As an investment, I maintain a 10% weighting in a CEF that plays around in the energy, industrial metals & precious metals sectors. (To me, it’s all about broad diversification.) A good mutual fund would be more cost effective, and potentially more profitable, but wouldn’t allow for the frequent rebalancing I like to do (intended to reduce risk). For broader allocation purposes this exposure is included under my “equity holdings”, so that my contribution to BBF’s thread did not distinguish this energy / metals exposure from the broader equity eposure

The Week in Charts (09/17/23)
A tour of the markets covering the most important charts & themes, including...
00:00 Intro
00:29 A Second Wave of Inflation? (CPI Report)
08:44 The Long Pause? (Fed Policy Expectations)
15:04 All Is Calm (Market Volatility, Credit Spreads)
18:31 The Biggest IPO of the Year (Arm Holdings)
22:39 Big Demands (UAW Strike)
30:15 Retail Sales Slump
33:32 Tightening Lending Standards
34:49 Deficit Spending
38:33 Rising Real Wages
Video
Blog

I'm inclined to think that with respect to advisory services, there are two major axes: degree of assistance desired (ranging from DIY to fully discretionary accounts) and degree of financial complexity involved.
M* suggests that as a first approximation, portfolio size is a fair indicator of complexity. The more money you have, the you tend to have special needs (e.g. complex estate planning). To this end, Exhibit 1 shows basic robo advisors targeted at the mass market (up to $100K), hybrid robos targeted more toward mass affluent ($500K to $2M), and wealth managers useful for some investors with over $2M in assets.
Obviously these are fuzzy divisions with much overlap. A not-so-wealthy individual with a complex family situation may need more help than a wealthy senior with no heirs or other issues. As you said, YMMV.

According to M*, "Vanguard and Fidelity Go stood out as the best options, although [it] also assigned above-average scores to Schwab Intelligent Portfolios, Betterment, and Wealthfront." Vanguard scored 4.8 out of 5, Fidelity Go 4.0, Schwab 3.6, Betterment and Wealthfront 3.5, with a couple of others at 3.4. Then there's a big drop off.
As M* points out, one must take care when comparing "all in" costs. Fidelity Go costs 35 basis points, though that is the "all in" cost since it uses 0.00% bp ER Fidelity Flex funds in its portfolios.
Vanguard Digital Advisor costs 20 basis points including underlying fund fees (i.e. this is an "all in" figure), but its hybrid PAS service costs 30 basis points plus underlying fee expenses. (It has recently shifted from Admiral shares to ETF shares, shaving perhaps one basis point from its "all in" cost.)
Schwab doesn't charge a wrap fee (i.e. you pay just the cost of the underlying funds), though as Yogi notes there's a cash drag (opportunity) cost.
Services vary significantly between offerings. Some are pure robo, others are hybrid. A few, including Vanguard, build in a glidepath rather than sticking with a fixed allocation based on risk tolerance.
The full report is worth reading, if for nothing else, its dozen+ exhibits comparing in tabular form the availability of different features, services and investment options, as well as costs, of all the different offerings.
There's a link to the full report in the M* piece referenced in the OP. (You do have to inform M* that you're an individual investor and provide email address to gain access.)
Full report