+1. ditto.

Hi sir crash
Remind me bought a tsla put last month strike price 740...i was aiming to close the put since that price maybe called, but after look at tsla chart appears uptrend, I remember cancelled that put buy to close order but never got confirmation....computer somehow halted after I punch the order...so busy w work and forgot to check later if orders indeed did got through (this is most important steps w any stock investment orders)
Two days later the stock skyrocketed, and they *buy* me the Put because it reached the strike price premium even though i thought i cancelled it....ended up cost me 1.7k!!! I realized the order was closed not cancelled/ still f**king open...
I will be sure to remember from now to make sure the orders are confirmed before leaving vanguard or any other trading apps/firms ...
Thx for sharing

+1

+1 Mark / 17.5% here. (5 or 6 different ones)
But I think it all depends on the particular stocks and also achieving some balance between the sectors so they don’t all move in the same direction. I’m just a novice on that front, but I’m sure I have a few mutual funds - especially in the mining sector - that are way more volatile than most of the individual equities held.

Yes, that's a good way to put it! With so much already in Financials, I'm looking for a good pick in a different industry. Marine Shipping, or clothing manufacturing, or what have you. ... JRSH. PCFBY. GRIN. SBLK DAC. I need to save up some cash, at the moment, however. RGR fell like a stone after latest Earnings Report disappointed... TRP tells me my personal Rate of Return in RGR is now DOWN -10%. Sucks. But it is a tiny amount of money. That might well be the one I "flip," after the 31st Aug. dividend shows up. Not too far away. Others I'm eyeballing: QAT (ETF.) PSTL (RE.). DBSDY (Singapore Bank ADR.). CLF (but no dividend!)

Sorry. Getting very far afield, here. The early years were a muddled mess for the infant new country. Lots of veterans just plain got SCREWED:
"...In 1797, Knox's claim was upheld. Martin's 100-acre farm was valued by three commissioners: one appointed by the settlers, one by the Proprietors and the third by the first two. Martin's was appraised for the sum of $170, payable over six years in three installments either in cash or in farm products. He could not raise the money and begged Knox to allow him to keep the land. There is no evidence that Knox even acknowledged his plaintive letters and appeared to let him remain on the land. Plumb Martin farmed only eight(8) acres of the original 100 he opted for. Knox died in 1806, never demanding payment from Plumb Martin. By 1811, his farmland was cut by half, and by 1818, when he appeared in the Massachusetts General Court with other Revolutionary War veterans to claim a war pension, he owned nothing.[7]
In 1818, Martin's war pension was approved and he received $96 a year for the rest of his life.[6] Still, other war veterans were fighting for what they were properly owed and, in an effort to further the cause of the veterans, Martin published his memoirs anonymously in 1830. It was not considered a success and mainly fell to the wayside, apparently lost to history.
In 1836, a platoon of United States Light Infantry was marching through Prospect and discovered that Plumb Martin resided there. The platoon stopped outside of his house and fired a salute in honor of the Revolutionary War Hero.
*** So, not only did he fight and win, but afterwards, the Sec. of War first attempted to evict him, but then tacitly relented. "Thanks a lot, that's awfully white of you!"
After all he had been through, JP Martin's gravestone simply states: "A Solder of the Revolution." (Stockton Springs, Maine.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Plumb_Martin

@mcq, I have the SEC Form N-1A link bookmarked and the same link has been working for YEARS. The Form just keeps getting revised and updated. I didn't bother to save paper copies of the older versions. May be the SEC can provide older versions on request.
There are Laws/Acts and then the regulatory agencies are charged with preparing the implementation materials. I think that this Form falls in that category. There is lots of stuff in there now that didn't even exist at the time of the ICA 1940 but funds just follow whatever the Form requires now.

That was very helpful, yogibearbull (gives new meaning to the phrase "regulatory burden"). It makes clear that at present, a comparison of fund performance to a broad-based index is an SEC requirement. I wasn't sure.
But this version of the form mentions exchange traded funds, hence, can't be too old. Do you happen to know whether an agency like the SEC would keep a trailing history of the text of prior versions of a key form like N-1A? Or would those be buried in some paper archive, like pre-1994 EDGAR submissions, and only apparent by unearthing an old 1950 filing for some fund?

Funds follow the current SEC Form N-1A that has been revised over the years. This Form includes what the SEC thinks should be included by the funds now and probably doesn't include anything that would violate/contradict the letter or spirit of the ICA 1940.
https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formn-1a.pdf

Funds follow the current SEC Form N-1A that has been revised over the years. This Form includes what the SEC thinks should be included by the funds now and probably doesn't include anything that would violate/contradict the letter or spirit of the ICA 1940.
https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formn-1a.pdf

Today in their SEC filings all mutual funds report fund performance relative to a benchmark, historically the S&P 500 or a total market index. But was it always that way?
General reporting requirements date to the 1940 Act. Did that act explicitly specify comparison of fund performance to a benchmark, or did that habit begin later? Easy to imagine the marketing department at some fund on a hot streak coming up with the bright idea to show how much the fund outperformed. Also easy to imagine that comparison to a benchmark was something that John Bogle started doing in the 1960s or 1970s, to suit his purposes.
OTOH, the SEC report that laid the foundation for the 1940 Act benchmarked fund performance against the Standard Statistics index. So maybe it is in the Act.
Anybody know? Or anybody have a mutual fund annual report from the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s? I’d love to know whether a benchmark was customary in fund reports even back then.

There is some story behind this.
So, John Hancock (with Canadian parent MFC) was surprised/blindsighted when its fund JCUAX / JCUIX's (AUM $571 million) subadvisor First Quadrant was acquired by Systematica, and big AMG has stakes in both advisory firms. So, somebody forgot to loop in John Hancock/MFC, or for some reason, John Hancock/MFC doesn't like this move but the parties decided to go ahead.
https://citywireusa.com/professional-buyer/news/hancock-gatekeepers-place-quant-shop-under-review-ahead-of-acquisition/a2390473

He left out the 5th, or first one, which occurred toward the end of the War of 1812. Lenders in New England were issued short term bills toward the end of the war. It was not possible to redeem them at the time the war ended, and for some years thereafter; there was nothing in the till (the notes had to be paid in gold and there wasn't any).
IIRC, the notes weren't paid until 1820 or so, and by awarding shares in the newly formed 2nd Bank of the US, not gold.
History buffs can read the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury for those years; look on FRASER or hathitrust.org

STORY
Yuppers! The package pictured in the linked story is actually a decent product when you’re in a hurry and just want to pop something in the microwave. And chicken tends to be lower in calories than beef. However, been passing it up on trips to the grocery. A year ago the 22-ounce package could be had for between 6 and 7 dollars. Now it’s around $11 for same product. Expensive bird!
I do know that table corn, which usually sells for 25 cents a cob this time of year, has been going for as much as $1 apiece this summer. And ISTM chicks like to eat corn (the cheaper “field corn“ variety). Why we invest - To maintain the purchasing power of our money over time.
(It appears both Barron’s and the WSJ have more extensive coverage on Tyson. However, am unable to link them.)
Related Story: Wacky Reason Price of Chicken is on the Rise

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1331971/000113322822005289/jhfiiarcf-html5301_497.htm
497 1 jhfiiarcf-html5301_497.htm JHF II ABSOLUTE RETURN CURRENCY FUND_497
Prospectus Supplement
John Hancock Funds II
John Hancock Absolute Return Currency Fund (the Fund)
Supplement dated August 8, 2022 to all current Prospectuses, the Summary Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information (SAI), as may be supplemented
The following information supplements and supersedes any information to the contrary relating to all classes of shares offered by the Fund contained in the Prospectuses, Summary Prospectus and SAI.
First Quadrant, LLC (First Quadrant), the subadvisor to the Fund, announced on June 16, 2022 that it has entered into an agreement with Systematica Investments Limited (Systematica), under which Systematica would acquire First Quadrant. The transaction is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2022. Announcement of the transaction and the impending change in ownership at First Quadrant triggered an extensive due diligence review process by John Hancock Investment Management LLC, the Fund’s investment adviser, to understand the potential impact of the transaction on the Fund and the Fund’s ability to meet its investment objective. In connection with this process, effective after the close of business on September 6, 2022, shares of all classes of the Fund may no longer be purchased by new investors, except as noted below.
1. Existing shareholders of the Fund as of the close of business on September 6, 2022 may continue to purchase additional shares of the Fund in their existing Fund accounts, and may continue to reinvest dividends or capital gains distributions received from the Fund.
2. New accounts established with existing shares of the Fund by transfer, such as transfers because of a change in broker, transfer-in-kind, divorce, or death, will be permitted.
3. Participants in group employer retirement plans, including 401(k), 403(b) and 457 plans, non-qualified deferred compensation, and health savings account programs (and their successor plans) (a “plan”) may establish an account in the Fund if the Fund has been approved by September 6, 2022 as an investment option under the plan (or under another plan sponsored by the same employer).
4. Group retirement models or broker-dealer discretionary programs that include the Fund as an investment option, or have approved the Fund as an investment option as of September 6, 2022, may continue to make Fund shares available to new and existing accounts.
If a shareholder redeems all Fund shares in his or her account, the shareholder will not be able to buy additional Fund shares or reopen his or her account.
The Fund reserves the right to change or make exceptions to these policies at any time and may permit new accounts in the Fund to be opened by certain investors, including investors not identified above.
You should read this Supplement in conjunction with the Fund’s Prospectuses, Summary Prospectus and SAI and retain it for your future reference.
Manulife, Manulife Investment Management, Stylized M Design, and Manulife Investment Management & Stylized M Design are trademarks of The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company and are used by its affiliates under license.

+1 Mark / 17.5% here. (5 or 6 different ones)
But I think it all depends on the particular stocks and also achieving some balance between the sectors so they don’t all move in the same direction. I’m just a novice on that front, but I’m sure I have a few mutual funds - especially in the mining sector - that are way more volatile than most of the individual equities held.

@Mav123 - I have not tried other tax software simply out of concerns (however irrational) over importing one software programs data/records into another. It's already annoying enough having to deal with tax return filings.
Actually, the K-1 information I receive tells me exactly how to file or fill in the information but TT does the same nearly effortlessly.
You also commented "Someone mentioned on another forum that individual names should not amount to more than 10% of your portfolios. However, if you held it for some time and know it very, why not." INDEED! I concede that it might not work for everybody but nearly 60% of my portfolio is in individual names.

+1.

Thank you @Crash. I am younger, but like you, I have the same thinking that I need much more money to own all of the names I like. By the way, I always liked RBC, but don't see it on your list. Any reason?

yes, it's there in my list with the others. :)
RY is the ticker.
ENB . Yes. Solid, well-established. Doesn't surprise me if they're into renewables now. I would hold it long-term, if you're going to buy it. It's an oil/gas giant. GIANT. Almost nothing compares, midstream. great div, too.
https://www.barchart.com/stocks/quotes/ENB/analyst-ratings
https://www.wallstreetzen.com/stocks/us/nyse/enb/stock-forecast
https://simplywall.st/stocks/us/energy/nyse-enb/enbridge
https://www.chartmill.com/stock/quote/ENB/analyst-ratings
https://www.stocktitan.net/news/ENB/pacific-energy-and-enbridge-announce-partnership-in-woodfibre-nh7rpdrvqd6m.html
https://www.stocktitan.net/news/ENB/enbridge-reports-second-quarter-2022-financial-results-and-announces-uob9i7uhntty.html
The P/E is rather rich these days, though. That might explain so many HOLD ratings, currently.
https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/ENB
https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/ENB/research-ratings

10m-old troll piece from the Hill, yawn
... penned by this lower-tier rightwinger:
https://www.rstreet.org/team/alex-j-pollock/
whose name I knew, sort of, from his mortgage-doc simplification initiative.
"His interests include ... the pursuit of clarity." Me too!
As for the content, much of it could be used as a strawman demo, or possibly, but that aside, the first two history examples are crisis-related (still horrible!!), the third is arguably not exactly a default, is it?, although I remember it because my then recently deceased grandfather used to give us kids silver dollars as presents. The last genuine crisis has to do with other govs, and lets Pollock give away his motive with the complaint "allowing the unlimited printing of dollars by the Federal Reserve today." (Horrible!)
Oh, well.
Weeds and more weeds, in excelsis, about 1971 (https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c6883/c6883.pdf, omg):
One reconciliation of these points may lie in the fact that what is critical for
the smooth operation of a system of stable exchange rates is not continual
policy convergence per se but a commitment to exchange rate stability with
sufficient credibility to reassure agents that policies will be consistent with
stable exchange rates over the long term. Monetary and fiscal policies could
and did diverge in the short run. But market participants were confident that
industrial countries pegging to the dollar would eventually adjust their policies so as to reconcile them with the maintenance of a pegged dollar rate. So
long as this remained the case, international capital movements stabilized
nominal rates, rather than destabilizing them, until those policy adjustments
took place. The relative stability of other variables followed.
PKrug draft, on contexts for such crises:
https://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/next generation.pdf
complete with a droll tagline.

Thank you, @Crash. Yes, those k-1s... They tend to have their special place in your taxes, kind of have to remember where to plug them in... It helps if you know where it needs to go on 1040. I tend to use software...Used to use TurboTax, but there were very slow updates during covid/2020, but HR Block released the tax forms updates faster, so now I am using HR Block.
By the way @Mark, have you tried other software besides TurboTax? Was TT easier to use?

Thank you, @rforno and @PRESSMuUP. Very different personal styles of investments. Someone mentioned on another forum that individual names should not amount to more than 10% of your portfolios. However, if you held it for some time and know it very, why not.