Any fresh thoughts re investing a few bucks here?
A number of companies package up variable rate demand notes into bank account-like accounts. Features may vary slightly (e.g. min required, check writing ability, min transaction amount) but the underlying investments are similar as are the way these accounts work.
Companies that offer these accounts seem to be rated BBB or A and are using these accounts as a relatively cheap way to get cash. Some BBBs: Duke, Dominion, GM, and Ford. Some As: Toyota, Mercedes-Benz (only accredited investors), and Caterpillar
A couple of webpages from 2021 on these types of investments:
MyMoneyBlog: https://www.mymoneyblog.com/big-list-of-car-demand-notes-non-fdic.html
Bogleheads thread: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=340088
And a 2021 WSJ article cited in the Bogleheads thread (subscription or library card required):
https://www.wsj.com/articles/car-maker-notes-attract-investors-seeking-short-term-yield-11605781801

Called "variable denomination floating rate demand notes," the securities are basically unsecured bonds, paid by the company's cash from operations. There is no public market and investors can typically withdraw their money at will. Rates can be changed at any time by the company, which can call the securities at its discretion.

What's the risk?
For my money (pun intended), I'd rather go with a Treasury MMF yielding around 5.1%; since it's state tax exempt that's not much different from 5.5% fully taxable and a whole lot safer.
https://olui2.fs.ml.com/Publish/Content/application/pdf/GWMOL/ICCRateSheet.pdf
If I had to go with a single issuer, I'd look at the A rated companies.
A nuclear accident that bankrupts the company?
Not likely.

[The] Price-Anderson [Act has since 1957 freed] nuclear plant operators and all firms involved in nuclear construction and maintenance of any liability for offsite accident damage. The only chance for additional compensation lies in the act’s declaration that if accident damages exceed the legal limit “Congress will thoroughly review the particular incident” and will “take whatever action is determined to be necessary” to provide full compensation to the public. In short, a Fukushima-level accident would toss the costs of compensation and cleanup unto the lap of Congress.

https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/the-us-government-insurance-scheme-for-nuclear-power-plant-accidents-no-longer-makes-sense/
This was recently extended (for another 40 years) and expanded with little publicity. It's a sizeable and relatively unknown industry subsidy.
What was publicized were billions of dollars allocated in the Inflation Reduction Act for maintaining existing nuclear plants and building new ones.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/inflation-reduction-act-keeps-momentum-building-nuclear-power

Any fresh thoughts re investing a few bucks here?
Interest rates are pretty sharp
What's the risk? A nuclear accident that bankrupts the company?
Thoughts?

Bumping the thread.
Why is everything Nuclear I follow getting hammered today? Renewable energy stocks are doing well today. No middle ground for this market?
Good to see Bitcoin diverge from equities and from tech equities in particular.

First of all….sorry @hank…..I oftentimes get you and @Crash mixed up in my brain for some reason reason. It was Crash’s post that he since deleted. So sorry!!! @Crash, your post DID have some good investing stuff in it, you’re right.
Second of all, I think many of us can be disappointed that the parties we have so long known no longer exist, as they have been taken over by individuals or families and dominated (Clinton’s and Obamas of Democratic Party, and Bush’s and now Trump’s of Republican Party). Most of us vote for the party that upholds the core handful of things that we believe in, with the other stuff that we DONT believe in being not enough to make us vote for “the other guy” (and hopefully, “girl” someday soon!). Last piece of politicking, I promise :)
I don’t know how de-globalization, stopping the mass border crossings (a supply of cheap, “pay under the table,” labor) and “making things with that beautiful ‘Made in America’ stamp” aren’t inflationary. Combined with pressure put on the Fed to lower interest rates, where will that leave our economy?
I watch way too much CNBC (it’s usually on as background noise), but Cramer was saying how the Russell 2K can’t handle billions and trillions rotating out of tech/growth because the market cap of the entire index is a mere percentage of a single Mag 7 stock. So they cannot be market leaders by themselves. LC value could be….maybe betting on the next trillion dollar market cap stock? LLY, BRK, JPM are close (above $500 billion).
@BaluBalu, what do you mean “Energy Services” stocks? SLB and HAL (sorry for the ignorance), or pipelines/drilling stocks? Good point that increased supply will mean lower prices (good for consumer, arguably, but less good for energy stocks). Maybe energy transportation stocks, as the US would likely be exporting more energy (especially LNG). I have held in the past OKE (but sold about $20 lower price! *face palm*), ENB, WMB, KMI. Pipeline companies trade more correlated to oil than they probably should. But these are NOT K-1 issuing companies.
I think defense stocks would do ok, even with the ending of war, as munition stocks would be replenished from the drawdowns from supplying Ukraine, and continued high military spending; maybe an increase in supplying Israel with military “stuff.”
Utilities have been a mixed bag the last week or so, as the winners of the AI-linked energy supply, such as VST or CEG (and NEE, but that’s more green energy) have gone down as much or more than big tech. And I believe these are some of the more nuclear utility companies; you would think the new administration would be ok with nuclear power (maybe it’s “down with everything that’s considered alternative energy”).
As far as fixed income, I’m not playing a drop in rates yet (as the market moves interest rates more than the Fed does anyways), other than potentially getting out of money markets. I continue to use preferreds (several that are floating rate, such as mREIT preferreds) and baby bonds, CLO ETFs (JAAA, JBBB, CLOZ…..thanks to multiple posters here for teaching me about them), and the low volatility mutual funds that @junkster and @FD1000 and others like (RSIVX, RCRFX/RCRIX, and a few others) that either don’t move or go up a penny every 5-10 days or so. I have been burned by income CEFs too many times to count; their yield is great, and if they traded like their NAV, then they would be amazing investments, but alas, their prices swing wildly. If I want to lose money, I would be better off swing trading the 3x tech ETPs hahaha. So I’m staying mostly away from bond CEFs and core/core-plus/multisector bond OEFs too.
For my wife’s 401(a) she DCAs into once a month, her two biggest holdings are DODGX and HACAX (Harbor’s LCG). They’re about an equal allocation, and they take turns going up (or down) more than the other. I got her out of her small cap value holding there about 2 weeks before the meteoric rise over the last 7-10 days (“I’m an excellent market timer”), and I also have a workplace retirement account from my current employer that I cant add to, and is limited to OEFs only. In that account I am WAY overweight LC growth and tech (I am 47, though so I can be, hopefully?) and only hold a tracking amount of @stillers favorite AUERX as my only SC holding. I WILL talk up a fund that MFO has talked about in the past: FAMEX, a MC blend/value fund that is a long term winner, and is the number 2 holding in that account (a distant 2nd to PRWCX; can’t believe my good fortune that I got into that fund before it closed!).
Apologies for the last paragraph: it went off topic for this thread.
I will continue to favor big tech for longer term returns, and the high quality of the companies. Most even pay a dividend now (even if a pittance). Maybe an equal weight in both LC growth and LC value would be a good way to play the next several months, rather than holding the S&P 500 index (which is basically LCG)? Or a quality fund, like @davidrmoran and several others like (including me; I own GQEPX and some accounts I manage have QLTY).
Apologies for the length of my post….sheesh. And apologies for the kerfluffle from my earlier post (AND FOR MISTAKEN IDENTITY!)!!

I agree with the general notion of industrials being favored.
China will be put in the penalty box. But a lot of Asian businesses are run by Chinese and so our suppliers in those other countries can easily be China proxies, except in India, Korea, and Japan. Are we going to impose Tariffs on stuff imported from Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, etc.? I will have to see how far we are willing to go to bring manufacturing back to the US.
I only see deficits till the end of the horizon, which means long end of the curve is going to stay elevated. So, again, I agree with @WABAC to sit in the short end of the curve for now.
Short end of the curve likely will be kept low artificially, which will benefit a lot of small businesses / caps and low end consumers.
Two track regulations / laws: one for Big businesses and another for small businesses.
Big businesses will be subject to a lot of regulation (I think @Graust mentioned this). Cap weighted indices can come under pressure. Active funds may take back some business lost to cap weighted passive investing.
With a good term premium, financials should do well. Big financials may be required to bear some of the burden of rebuilding America, which may dent some of the profits they would otherwise make from steeper curve.
So, all in all, Big caps likely to lose some, small caps likely to gain some - @Graust thesis! I see Lina Khan coming back and winning more cases in a Republican Govt - no respite for Big caps.
I do not see Energy producers and midstream benefitting because oil prices are likely to stay low from excessive drilling or when Nuclear comes into vogue. I would rather invest in Energy services companies.
I am surprised why defense contractors are doing well if we are less likely to engage in wars. I was going to fade defense contractors but need to watch.
I would like some discussion on what happens to inflation. I am not able to imagine ever getting back to 2% without tanking the economy.

If I thought is would do any good, I would post a line by line refutation of @Baseball_Fan long list of "fake news" above.
Clearly, as he has already decided that the falling major crime statistics in a lot of cities are due to intentional underreporting, any data I post will written off.
A response to two: The Iran nuclear deal was reducing Iran's uranium enrichment until Trump canceled it. The Department of Education completely failed to rein in predatory for profit colleges ( one owned by Betsy Devoes who tried to pass a law that would have dramatically increased it's profit) who saddled many poor students with ridiculous loans, promising unbelievable future salaries.
Doesn't our government have some responsibility for this failure?
In the distant past the GOP and right wing had a few "derangement syndromes" (Commies taking over the state department for example) but in general they were thoughtful and principled conservatives who could and would engage in intellectual debate. Not anymore.
The quotes from McConnell and others above show how far the GOP has sunk even in their support of the rule of law since January 6th.
I have relatives who suffer from "Wokeism" and who also refuse to listen to any facts or figures that indicate high taxes stifle growth, the government should not be eliminating ICEs or gas stoves etc. But the left has always felt government is the only thing that can accomplish anything, so you expect that I guess.
What is mind boggling is how quickly the GOP and conservatives have changed their minds about "Big Government" and are now willing to use it to clobber all of their opponents by banning books, freedom of choice, and enabling a man with no moral compass to do anything he wants etc.

@junkster,
In my universe of watch lists, managed futures ETFs, MMM, SNAP, HC, and utilities are doing alright today. Even nuclear based stuff is seeing big red.
Two years ago, I would not have expected floating rate stuff to do well for this long. JBBB and JAAA are green today.

Putin has threatened nuclear war if NATO cross the line into Urkaine. This is a “Churchill versus Chamberlain “ monument where the west must unite to support Ukraine. One must not under-estimate Iran’s military capabilities, especially with support from Russia, China and South Korea.

@msf
Thanks for the Parnassus stuff.
I don't think most individuals spend much time analysing the funds they own, other than maybe reading the title, or following the advice of an advisor.
The prospectuses of the "ESG" funds I have read are usually so vague as to meaningless. At least some of the older "social impact" funds specifically said they would not invest in guns, nuclear power, etc. Then at least you sorta knew what you were getting.
Even funds labeled "climate change" have such variety it is impossible predict what they will consist of. Fidelity's "Climate Action" fund FCAEX is 36% pure tech, mostly chip companies (so green they are) and the big Seven. Vanguard's new fund VEOIX is much more focused on industrial firms that are working on grid development, solar, wind power etc.
But Fido is up 23% since the VEOIX start date in November. VEOIX is up 2%. Guess who is going to get the dollars?

GRID is great!.... 20% Utilities. Tracks an opaque index NASDAQ OMX Clean Edge Smart Grid Infrastructure QGRD, which has beaten global equities recently
https://cleanedge.com/data-dive-charts/Smart-Grid-Infrastructure-vs-Nasdaq-Global-0
NLR "nuclear power" is 50% Utilities based on another opaque index MVIS® Global Uranium & Nuclear Energy Index. Supposedly these companies have to get 50% of revenue from nuclear power related activities, but I think they fudge it saying "expected to get"
Uranium is on fire in the last year or so
Of course now it has hit the headlines, it will all fall apart
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/03/07/ai-data-centers-power/
Has anyone looked to see if any active mangers missed Utilities with significant exposure to wildfires?
I read the pole that started the fire in Texas was so rotten it had a sign on it that said "Do not Climb" Utilities will have to get a lot quicker a in repairing their stuff, or smarter in turning off the power with high winds. A switch that cuts power automatically with high winds or when line falls would be a great idea

I don’t particularly like the arbitrariness of defining what is an emerging or a developed market. Wouldn’t it make more sense for money managers simply to go where they think the best opportunities are. But slicing and dicing is a fact of life, and is to some degree necessary. Owning all US equity, or avoiding EM, is indeed a “slice and dice” decision in itself.
Having said that, I think EM funds can be useful at certain times. Right now (as exemplified in this discussion) there is antipathy for EM investments. And yet, China has recently started up the world’s first Gen-IV nuclear reactor, and designed a battery that lasts 50 years. They also expect to launch a revolutionary space-based telescope next year to make discoveries concerning dark energy and dark matter, and they’ve invented a pair of eyeglasses that allows blind people to navigate their way around. Yeah I know about the political risks and communist party, but I still don’t think this is your grandparents’ China.
Just an example.

Semi-relatedly, AMZN just bought a nuclear-powered data center in PA to power some of its AWS farm...
https://electrek.co/2024/03/05/amazon-just-bought-a-100-nuclear-powered-data-center/
... and GOOG is saying its data center water consumption is proprietary data, asking government to inform them about any public information requests.
https://www.postandcourier.com/business/charleston-google-data-center-public-records-oregon-portland/article_c5f00fd8-d6f9-11ee-b3c1-f3f5e0012225.html
The latter is not surprising, but goes to show how far big companies will go to conceal its activities from the general public while also exploiting the same resources available to the general public.

Why is that? It does with nuclear power plants- true, some of the water would be lost to evaporation, but surely not all??

Good questions, Andy, and that's kind of my point: There are a lot of moving parts here; as well as multiple considerations being conflated. First of all, there are benign energy stores on Earth; whose energy is only accessed through burning. Though already present, these energy stores do not present any concerns. Burning them, however, introduces concerns; not the least of which is increased CO2 emission and heat release into the environment.
We already have energy supplied 'in house', so to speak; as a result of nuclear decay in the core. That's there regardless of what we do or don't do, and the Earth gains in thermal energy every minute of the day as a result.
We also gain in thermal energy, minute by minute, as a result of insolation. We can tap into that energy and use it for our own purposes through the use of solar cells, but making those cells requires energy to mine, refine, and manufacture. Either way, we end up adding to the heat content of the Earth.
As yogi noted, recycling reduces the stuff we have to relegate to trash; which is an entirely different concern. Recycling helps to reduce trash... But, you extract energy from lithium by binding the lithium atoms and releasing energy. Recycling takes that same amount of energy and adds it to unbind the lithium atoms. How do you produce that energy, and what does that 'cost' you (in terms of energy)?
Finally, you mentioned recycling as an "alternative" to "mining new metals", but the fact is that this isn't an alternative; it's in addition to. We're going to mine and refine regardless; ostensibly for convenience and reducing carbon footprint by reducing 'burning'. Does it? I confess I don't know the answer after everything is considered. What I DO know is that it is likely to add to the heat content of the Earth. The only question in my mind is whether it exceeds what we'd normally garner from insolation itself.
And of course, there is monetary 'cost' which is yet another consideration. Does it promote or reduce jobs? Raise prices? Produce more trash? Pollute? Generate GHG? Promote global warming (note on this last: if we absorb external energy and use it; however that is done, or burn stuff to produce energy, or cause more energy to be absorbed from the Sun; this is a certainty)?

@yogi great story to read today given the recent runup in stocks that pose an existential threat equal to nuclear war.

The cite given in the article, gunfreefunds.org, is under the As You Sow Invest Your Values umbrella that I've suggested before.
In calling out Lockheed Martin (LMT), it seems the writer is conflating two different though related issues: military weapons manufacturing and civilian firearms manufacturing. If your concern is about companies involved with the leading cause of death of children in the US, then look at the list of gun free funds.
According to Money Magazine, there are only two publicly traded US companies that manufacture (civilian guns): Smith & Wesson (SWBI) and Sturm, Ruger & Co. (RGR), though American Outdoor Brands (AOUT) is the parent company of Smith & Wesson.
https://money.com/avoid-gun-stocks-investing-advice/
There are many other gun manufacturers, but they tend to be private. Here's a list of the top 25 firearm manufacturers. It includes familiar names like Colt (Colt CZ Group SE, traded on the Prague stock exchange), Beretta (privately owned, Italian parent), and Glock Ges.m.b.H (privately owned).
https://orchidadvisors.com/top-25-largest-firearm-manufacturers-of-2021/
GunFreeFunds takes ownership a step further (as noted in the Kiplinger piece) by considering parent companies of privately owned manufacturers. For example, it looks out for ownership of Colt CZ Groupe SE (CZG). Here's its whole list of companies it looks for:
https://gunfreefunds.org/how-it-works
M* has an article similar to Kiplingers.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1133372/how-to-find-gun-stocks-in-your-fund-portfolios
It offers its own sampling of gun free funds

If you're interested in avoiding companies involved in weapons of war (military contractors, munitions manufacturers, nuclear arms manufacturers, etc.), Invest Your Values provides the site weaponsfreefunds.org.

Portfolio is at 57 stocks. 34 bonds 6 cash 3 other.
Just added a tiny bit to SCHP. TIPs and BHB. (BHB recent report: EPS beat, but revenue missed. I'm still going to hang onto this one. It will be a long-term hold, unless the bottom falls out and the planet vaporizes by nuclear attack or else the sun becomes a supernova prematurely.)

So much depends on your perspective. These types of investments aren’t intended for everyone. Think of gold as “a hedge against the unexpected.” Almost by definition, “the unexpected” is that which is very unlikely to occur (political chaos, hyperinflation, asteroid strike, nuclear war).
@Jan is correct. Long term, gold shouldn’t perform as well as investments in solid growth companies. That said, precious metals tend to run to the extremes on both the up-side and down-side. As fertile ground for speculators they might be attractive if you have the stomach. If you are unable to find even a 3%-5% spot in your portfolio for that kind of hedge or speculative gambit, no problem. Life goes on.
Yes, I agree, there are obstacles to owning / trading physical gold. I’d not want that hassle. But there are, as I’m sure you are aware, funds that invest in it in various ways. Just $50 on a grocery store visit? I rarely escape for under $150. A halfway decent bottle of single malt runs $40-50 alone.
BTW - The OP was by @rono who has tracked the precious metals forever. Rono’s forgotten more about the metals than most of us ever knew. I tend to agree with his point of view. However, making such predictions about gold involves looking at the technical charts as well as trying to anticipate correctly things like geopolitics, inflation, Federal Reserve policies and how other asset classes that vie for assets will perform going forward. And, Oh I almost forgot …. the herd instincts and behavior of investors.

I do think the debt ceiling’s worthy of discussion and I recall a rather lengthy discussion of it earlier this year. But I wonder if from an investor’s perspective it falls into the fat-tail category of an unlikely but extreme risk completely outside our control.
About the best you can do if you think a default is probable is go to gold, foreign currency or cash. There is something people can do from a political perspective—vote, canvass, call your representatives, organize and protest to make sure these kinds of financial terrorists don’t remain in power or ever get elected again. In some respects, finding an investment solution to this problem for your portfolio is like asking how to prep your portfolio for a nuclear war. We’ve always known the nuclear warheads are there as the ultimate fat tail, but what can you really do to insulate yourself from that risk? The only solution is a mass political one not an individual investment one— throw the bums out of office.

Mr. Braham:
Thanks for your insightful comments.
You are quite correct that nothing in life is riskless, least of all in investing.
"Riskless" is a financial term of art that can mean several things, most commonly that if these vehicles fail to deliver, which they well might, then you've got far bigger problems than your investment portfolio. In other words, financial economists use the term in the same way that a physicist might use the term "spherical cow." Trust me, the AdvisorPerspectives audience well understands these usages, and I doubt that any of them regard any human operation, investing or otherwise, as "riskless" as defined by the OED or Merriam Webster.
As long as you've got me going: Yes, my backgound is in the sciences, but I view investing as half math and half Shakespeare, and if you only master the former, the latter will surely get you. (See "Long-Term Capital Management.")
I'm also fond of pointing out that if we take the half-millennium survival of the Roman Empire as a starting point, that gives the average person about a one in six (Russian Roulette) chance of falling victim to such an event during their lifetime.
And that's before we consider that several times in the past half century mankind came withing a hair's breadth of nuclear annihilation.
Not to pile on here, but I don't write that much about the sciences, and David might tell you that I have been known to write about history.
So, just to reassure you, I don't view any investment activity, or even tying my own shoelaces, as "riskless" in the literal sense you're using it.
Take care,
William Bernstein