Still letting this quote sink in....
"CHILDS: Pharma companies spent $6 billion on TV drug ads in 2016, but they spent $20 billion advertising directly to doctors, pushing drugs that we don't see on TV, like the addictive ones."

.... which is why patients with various conditions might pay $25 or $50 at the pharmacy and see their receipt proudly saying "your insurance saved you $1103.95!" (or more) ..... cut out the D2C marketing and I bet 40-70% of drug price will evaporate. But everyone's got their grubby little fingers in the pie, because $$$$.
Relatedly, I have a friend who did some research on carparal tunnel remedies and saw that in India injections of saline were providing proven relief. It's not an FDA-approved treatment in the US, though... her doctor says it's probably because saline is essentially salt water and salt water is practically free, so there's no profit in it for anyone if it gets approved. I don't think their doc was far off....

All you see on TV nowadays are commercials about drugs.
The US and New Zealand are the only two countries that permit prescription drugs to be advertised on TV.
For how this all started, here's a 2021 Planet Money piece, "This Is Your Brain On Drug Ads"
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1035147636

[Sara] GONZALEZ [host]: Another big question - do ads drive up prices? 'Cause, like, if drug companies are spending billions of dollars on TV ads, are we the ones paying for those ads every time we get a prescription?
...
[Mary] CHILDS [host]: Drug companies don't just blow a ton of money on advertising and then pass the cost to consumers. It's more subtle. It's more us. When we see an ad for some brand-name drug, the ad makes us value that brand name. And when we value something, we will pay more for it - or at least we will ask our insurance company to pay more for it.
...
GONZALEZ: And if you think about it, in the rest of the world, where these prescription drug ads are banned, consumers do not hear drug names every time they turn on the TV. So brands don't have the same power to get consumers to pay more.
...
CHILDS: Pharma companies spent $6 billion on TV drug ads in 2016, but they spent $20 billion advertising directly to doctors, pushing drugs that we don't see on TV, like the addictive ones. This is how those drugs get sold.

Morningstar Legacy Portf. Mngr:
I can still see it. I got it back after trying a couple of steps, a week or so ago. As was mentioned here at MFO, apparently, M* was doing something internally, and I was involuntarily logged out. On a logged-out basis, the default switched to the "Investor" flavor. I much prefer Legacy to the "new and improved" "Investor" version.
But bear in mind, everyone: numbers at M* get updated when they feel like doing it. And it must be asked, whether or not the updates are even accurate.
Example:
In X-Ray, I'm looking at some ridiculous discrepancies, when compared to the chart display:
X-Ray says BHB is down YTD by -25.16%. The chart shows -15.54.
NHYDY X-Ray = down -16.41. Chart shows -15.37.
ET on X-Ray: +13%. But the chart shows +11.63.
PSTL on X-Ray: +4.1. Chart says +3.23.
When M* actually offers ACCURATE info, it is extremely useful. But it's a hit or miss proposition.
And I did not check to compare FUNDS in the same way.

There are many imperfections/flaws that have existed for years and years with M*. Their "evaluations", star ratings, categorization, etc. became virtually useless to me. About the only things I found useful were their data on funds, and their portfolio watchlists, where I could compare selected funds using selected data measures. I focused on TR performance measures, and risk management measures. I was only interested funds that met my "momentum" criteria, with a risk adjusted measure I chose. When M* quits allowing the free access to the watchlists and data components, it appers I will be forced to consider paying them a subscription fee, which I have NOT done in years--I have not decided i I think it is worth paying them a subscription fee with the many warts that exist with M*.

See current Barron's for a feature on pharma (just 1 segment of healthcare), LINK1 LINK2
The PHARMA industry (MRK, JNJ, BMY, ALPMY, etc) is launching legal wars against Medicare/CMS on its new DRUG PRICING negotiation authority. The pharma industry is hoping to delay, slow or reverse the implementation by winning a national injunction in SOME court and then eventually fighting it before the SUPREMES. The US Chamber of Commerce has also asked a federal court for injunction against Medicare/CMS. CONGRESS passed the related law as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and since then, the pharma index has lagged. (The current system is that private PBMs and healthcare systems negotiate drug prices, and then the Medicare/CMS just goes along. This system was seriously broken by Biogen’s/BIIB greedy pricing of its 1st Alzheimer drug that was approved by the FDA. Eventually, that drug failed in the marketplace due to resistance from Medicare/CMS. Biogen’s 2nd Alzheimer drug has done better.)

Big Pharma pig-farts.

Morningstar Legacy Portf. Mngr:
I can still see it. I got it back after trying a couple of steps, a week or so ago. As was mentioned here at MFO, apparently, M* was doing something internally, and I was involuntarily logged out. On a logged-out basis, the default switched to the "Investor" flavor. I much prefer Legacy to the "new and improved" "Investor" version.
But bear in mind, everyone: numbers at M* get updated when they feel like doing it. And it must be asked, whether or not the updates are even accurate.
Example:
In X-Ray, I'm looking at some ridiculous discrepancies, when compared to the chart display:
X-Ray says BHB is down YTD by -25.16%. The chart shows -15.54.
NHYDY X-Ray = down -16.41. Chart shows -15.37.
ET on X-Ray: +13%. But the chart shows +11.63.
PSTL on X-Ray: +4.1. Chart says +3.23.
When M* actually offers ACCURATE info, it is extremely useful. But it's a hit or miss proposition.
And I did not check to compare FUNDS in the same way.

Summertime, and the living is easy.

@hank - you left off ARKK up 55% YTD

The article is a brief overview but read the Health Affairs article linked in the article for a better legal analysis. These authors think it is unlikely to succeed, as doctors, and hospitals voluntarily accept Medicare prices.
It would appear to me ( as a retired MD who had to participate in Medicare for my career if I wanted any patients) that no one is forcing Pharma to sell it's drugs, only that Medicare should be able to determine what price it will pay, just like it does for hospitals and physicians and all other services it has covered since 1965.
This is not a "taking" which seems especially true if Pharma is willing to sell these same drugs to veterinarians ( see Baron's article last week on dog vs people allergy med costs) and in Europe for far far cheaper prices.
If in fact this cases are successful, it will mean the end of Medicare, and probably health care in general, as the proposed costs for the Alzheimer's and Obesity drugs alone may bankrupt it.
Every hospital chain and doctor's group (even the "non-profits" like Ascension with it's billion dollar plus hedge fund
https://www.statnews.com/2021/11/16/ascension-running-wall-street-style-private-equity-fund/) will sue Medicare and Medicaid to force them to pay them what they think they are worth.
This will eventually come back to bite Big Pharma, when citizens see the absolutely unaffordable prices for life saving drugs that will result, and health insurance companies go bankrupt, and patients stop all but life saving operations and procedures, even then people die.

Just a quick ”sobriety check” …
Some YTD numbers for the first 7 months of 2023 along with the annualized rate of increase …
NASDAQ +36.79% YTD (Annualized= +63%)
S&P 500 +19.34% YTD (Annualized = +33.15%)
DOW +6.98% YTD (Annualized = +12%)
STOXX (Europe) +17.74% (Annualized = +30.4%)
Nikkei 225 (Japan) +25.54% YTD (Annualized = +43.80%)
Most EM markets have done well. Argentina sports a +126% YTD increase, which corresponds to an annualized rate of +216%
(Data from Bloomberg)
Than there’s this from January 2 : ”2023 to be a tough year: IMF”
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/158208/#Comment_158208

See current Barron's for a feature on pharma (just 1 segment of healthcare), LINK1 LINK2
The PHARMA industry (MRK, JNJ, BMY, ALPMY, etc) is launching legal wars against Medicare/CMS on its new DRUG PRICING negotiation authority. The pharma industry is hoping to delay, slow or reverse the implementation by winning a national injunction in SOME court and then eventually fighting it before the SUPREMES. The US Chamber of Commerce has also asked a federal court for injunction against Medicare/CMS. CONGRESS passed the related law as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and since then, the pharma index has lagged. (The current system is that private PBMs and healthcare systems negotiate drug prices, and then the Medicare/CMS just goes along. This system was seriously broken by Biogen’s/BIIB greedy pricing of its 1st Alzheimer drug that was approved by the FDA. Eventually, that drug failed in the marketplace due to resistance from Medicare/CMS. Biogen’s 2nd Alzheimer drug has done better.)

Has VUSXX been less state tax exempt than VMFXX in recent memory?
What matters is whether VUSXX returns more, after tax, than VMFXX.
Typically it yields less than VMFXX on a pre-tax basis. In a tax sheltered account, that's all that matters. In a taxable account, what matters is whether the tax savings are enough to compensate for the (typically) lower yield. Sometimes the answer is yes, often it is no.
I'm confident that Yogi is fully aware of all of this. My comments are addressed to everyone else. Especially since it is likely that VUSXX will be only 55% - 70% state exempt this year.
See also:
https://www.mymoneyblog.com/money-market-mutual-funds-repurchase-agreements-state-taxes.html

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1096344/000119312523197702/d486209d497.htm
FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC.
The Fairholme Allocation Fund
(the “Fund”)
Supplement to Prospectus and Summary Prospectus
Dated March 30, 2023
Supplement dated July 28, 2023 to the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus of the Fund dated March 30, 2023.
On July 27, 2023, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Fairholme Funds, Inc., at the recommendation of Fairholme Capital Management, L.L.C., the investment adviser to the Fund, approved the liquidation and termination of the Fund. Effective at market close on July 28, 2023, the Fund will suspend the offering and sale of its shares. The Fund expects to make the final liquidating distribution on or about August 31, 2023 (the “Liquidation Date”).
At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may redeem shares of the Fund, or exchange shares of the Fund for shares of the Fairholme Fund or the Fairholme Focused Income Fund, both of which will remain open to investors, in the manner described in the Fund’s Prospectus. In connection with the liquidation, the Board has approved the waiver of the redemption fee of 2.00% imposed on Fund shares redeemed or exchanged within 60 calendar days of their purchase.
Shareholders should be aware that the Fund may convert assets to cash and/or cash equivalents before the liquidating distribution is made to shareholders. Accordingly, the Fund will no longer pursue its stated investment objective or engage in any business activities except for the purposes of winding up its business and affairs, paying its liabilities and distributing its remaining assets to shareholders. If a shareholder has not redeemed his or her Fund shares prior to the Liquidation Date, the shareholder’s account will be automatically redeemed and an amount equal to the shareholder’s proportionate interest in the Fund’s assets will be distributed to the shareholder on the Liquidation Date.
The redemption, sale, exchange or liquidation of Fund shares may be a taxable event to the extent a shareholder’s tax basis in the shares is lower than the liquidation proceeds per share that the shareholder receives. Shareholders should consult with their personal tax advisers concerning their particular tax situation.
If you hold Fund shares in a tax-deferred retirement account, you should consult with your personal tax adviser or account custodian to determine how to reinvest your liquidation proceeds on a tax-deferred basis.
* * * * * *
YOU SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT WITH YOUR PROSPECTUS AND SUMMARY PROSPECTUS FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.

Notable, sure ---- but how long did he have to hold the position to see that gain? IIRC that's been a dog stock for well over a decade and I suspect he's been underwater for most of it as their largest shareholder.

As a result of these promising developments [in 2021], Berkowitz commented that Charlie Munger (Trades, Portfolio) was correct when he said, “The big money is not in the buying or the selling, but in the waiting.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gurufocus/2021/08/02/berkowitzs-fairholme-fund-takes-a-spade-to-largest-holding-st-joe/
The fund has landed in the top 5% or the bottom 5% every year in the past nine. It seems not so much a matter of having to wait a decade for a big pop as it is a matter of having more losing years than winning ones.

But not the whole truth. The first quote continues: "This can be seen in its five-year alpha calculated relative to the category." The second quote continues: "lagging both the category benchmark and average peer over the past 10-year period."
Over the past YTD, 1,3, and 5 years, M* reports that FAIRX finished in the top 4% or better. Over the past 10 years, FAIRX finished in the bottom 5%.
This shows that time frames matter. That, and the fact that recent performance can skew figures for several years. FAIRX returned over 34% YTD vs. about 7% for the category. That supercharged performance is enough to make all the trailing results through five years look great, but not enough to make the 10 year performance look good.

It has been mentioned by others. BUT I have verified it in my Fido a/c.
I have a margin a/c at Fido. But Fido is very aggressive in sending margin notices even when those aren't really required. For example, if I sell $x in mutual fund/OEF (T+1) and right away buy about $x in ETF (T+2), OR if I put in a T-Bill auction order for Monday that will settle on Thursday with a maturing T-Bill, Fido will send margin alerts anyway. But everything will even out on the settle date. So, I just ignore Fido margin alerts in such cases - NOT a good idea generally.

Hi Yogi,
I am thinking of the up coming 52 wk auction. At Fidelity and Vanguard, do you by any chance know if I can enter my order for a Treasury Bill auction on the date of the auction, say before 10AM EST, or do I have to enter the order the prior day?

Well, that's one of those "Yeah buts" I was talking about :)
Annualized return for St. Joe over the past decade is 11.53%

I'll just plead ignorance - I really haven't thought of that stock since the mid-00s!

Well, that's one of those "Yeah buts" I was talking about :)
Annualized return for St. Joe over the past decade is 11.53%

I will answer my own question here. Based on a final value of $24.75 and Tuesday's close of $33.25, Yahoo is correct and Morningstar is wrong.
(update - Morningstar has corrected their number)

Steller earnings at St. Joe yesterday propelled the Fairholme Fund to a gain of 15.01%. That may be the largest single day advance for a mutual fund I have ever seen. This on top of a YTD gain of either 33.3% (Morningstar) OR 34.34% (Yahoo).
There are always a lot of "Yeah, but"s when talking about Fairholme's performance, but from inception it has done just fine, especially after this year, and especially after yesterday. One has to go cherry picking to choose time periods which cast it in a bad light.
"Sure it's done great this year, for the past year, for the past 3 years, the past 5 years and the past 20 years, and it's done okay for the past 15 years --- but what about that 10 year number???"
I think what Bruce Berkowitz has always talked about delivering was good but quite lumpy returns. Is that what we're now seeing?
And by the way, what about this discrepancy between Morningstar and Yahoo? Does this happen often? Which is correct?

If what makes you comfortable is the only (or main) criterion why are we spending so much time here?
Investing is all about performance...or...other investors are looking for better risk-adjusted performance.
I have a neighbor who is a multi-millionaire since the early 90s. He invested over 90% in Munies and the rest in stocks. So, he is very comfortable. Was that a great choice?
Actually, he could be all in MM and still would do great.
BTW, I have been discussing high-income investing since 2010. They look good for a while and then they don't.
First, it was VZ,ATT,IBM against SPY,QQQ or MSFT, AAPL
Second came MLP which got crushed.
Third came CEFs and they made so much less than SPY,QQQ in the last 5 years.
If you can prove that very high-income investing has better performance or even better risk-adjusted performance, I'm listening.