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.

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.

https://www.advisorhub.com/vanguard-to-pay-19-5-million-for-failing-to-disclose-advisor-conflicts/
SEC order:
https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2025/ia-6912.pdf

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1537140/000158064225005639/issachar_497.htm
497 1 issachar_497.htm 497
Lionx-Logo
Class N Shares (LIONX)
Class I Shares (LIOTX)
(a series of Northern Lights Fund Trust III)
Supplement dated August 29, 2025 to
the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated February 1, 2025
The Board of Trustees of Northern Lights Fund Trust III (the “Board”) has concluded that it is in the best interests of the Issachar Fund (the “Fund”) and its shareholders that the Fund cease operations. The Board has determined to close the Fund and redeem all outstanding shares on or about September 29, 2025 (“Redemption Date”).
Effective immediately, the Fund will not accept any new investments, will no longer pursue its stated investment objective, and will begin liquidating its portfolio and will invest in cash equivalents such as money market funds until all shares have been redeemed. Any required distributions of income and capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders and reinvested in additional shares, unless you have previously requested payment in cash.
Prior to or on the Redemption Date, you may redeem your shares, including reinvested distributions, in accordance with the “How to Redeem Shares” section in the Prospectus. Unless your investment in the Fund is through a tax-deferred retirement account, a redemption is subject to tax on any taxable gains. Please refer to the “Tax Status, Dividends and Distributions” section in the Prospectus for general information. You may wish to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO THE REDEMPTION DATE WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THAT DATE, AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OF RECORD. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact your financial advisor directly or the Fund at 1-866-787-8355.
This Supplement, and the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated February 1, 2025, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. Both the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference and can be obtained without charge by calling the Fund at 1-866-787-8355.

DoubleLine Income Fund
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1480207/000119312525192863/d43174d497.htm
DoubleLine Infrastructure Income Fund
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1480207/000119312525192865/d937446d497.htm

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1480207/000119312525192866/d21840d497.htm
497 1 d21840d497.htm 497
DOUBLELINE FUNDS TRUST
DoubleLine Floating Rate Fund (the “Fund”)
Supplement dated August 29, 2025 to the Fund’s Summary Prospectus
(the “Summary Prospectus”), Prospectus (the “Prospectus”) and
Statement of Additional Information (the “SAI”), each dated July 31, 2025,
as supplemented from time to time
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI and should be read in conjunction with the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI.
The Board of Trustees of DoubleLine Funds Trust (the “Board”) approved a proposal under which, subject to shareholder approval, the Fund would be merged with and into the American Beacon DoubleLine Floating Rate Income Fund (the “Acquiring Fund”), a series of the American Beacon Funds (the “Transaction”). The Fund and Acquiring Fund have substantially similar principal investment strategies and have the same portfolio management team. DoubleLine Capital LP, the adviser to the Fund, serves as the sub-adviser to the Acquiring Fund. American Beacon Advisors, Inc. serves as the investment adviser to the Acquiring Fund. Completion of the proposed Transaction, often called a “fund adoption,” is subject to, among other things, approval by the shareholders of the Fund.
If approved by the Fund’s shareholders, the proposed Transaction is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2026, although this timeline is subject to adjustment. A Combined Proxy Statement and Prospectus related to a special meeting of shareholders of the Fund is expected to be sent to shareholders of the Fund in the fourth quarter of 2025. Those materials will describe the Transaction in more detail and the reasons for the Board’s approval of the proposed Transaction. Shareholders of the Fund should watch for the arrival of these important materials. This supplement is not a proxy and is not soliciting any proxy, which can only be done by means of a proxy statement.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

Here the Reuters link:
https://reuters.com/legal/government/most-trump-tariffs-are-not-legal-us-appeals-court-rules-2025-08-29/