No regrets. I like ideas. What people may do with information is their own responsibility. FR/BL funds have taken a breather. We shall see if they resume their gains. My interest in them is as you stated, a transitionary move, as a cash sub.
I am late to both BL funds and EM/INTL this year. No worries though, I haven't lost a cent, yet.

Great Article from T. Rowe Price:
Insights:

— There are alternatives to the conventional strategy of drawing on a taxable
account first, followed by tax-deferred accounts (e.g., Traditional individual retirement
accounts) and then Roth accounts.
— A variety of strategies can be employed at different phases of retirement, such as
filling low tax brackets, taking tax-free capital gains, and executing Roth conversions.
— Coordinating a withdrawal strategy and a Social Security claiming strategy can
drive even more tax efficiency than either approach alone.
— If planning to leave an estate to heirs, consider which assets will ultimately
maximize their after-tax value.

Link to Full Article:
how-to-get-more-out-your-retirement-account-withdrawals.pdf
Video on the subject from Rob Berger:

@WABAC, if you look at Tether quotes for ALL times at CNBC, Tether got badly un-tethered in 2014, but has been quite stable around 1.00 since 2020.
Unfortunately, some other stablecoins didn't fare as well in the unregulated environment and many people lost money. But now, the prices will matter only after the effective date of the GENIUS Act - 120 days after final regulations are issued, or 1/18/27 (18 months after 7/18/25), whichever is earlier.
IMO, with major stablecoins such as Tether ($162 billion market-cap), USDC ($65 billion market-cap), etc, may be as good as the true effective date after 7/18/25.
Those who travel a lot may appreciate the value of a stablecoin account that can be accessed anytime (24/7) from anywhere in the world, rather than carrying around cash $s or global ATM cards (Schwab or Fido - no ATM fees).
Note the 24/7 aspect - bank account access is limited to bank business days, and money-market fund access is limited to market business days (some may remember that, technically, the money-market funds were unavailable for almost a week after 9/11 until the Fed told the banks that it was OK to fly blind for a week for good customers). Credit cards overseas can be hit with up to 4% transaction fees plus 3% currency exchange fee - that's 7% hole right at the start. BTW, even cash $ isn't accepted in many countries now (I know about India) UNLESS one goes to a central bank branch (not any bank) to exchange it.
https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/USDT.CM=

For a firm that prides itself on penny-pinching and low-cost indexing, Vanguard’s leaders sure seem to be stuffing their bank accounts with a lot more than pennies."
Vanguard employees, including its CEO, are just that - employees. If you believe in an efficient market, then you either pay market rate to get good employees or you provide some other compensating incentive. For example, many people work for lower pay in government or in teaching or at a variety of other places because the difference they feel they can make has value to them. Others may stay with a company even though they can get more elsewhere because they are comfortable with "the familiar".
Vanguard has been falling behind the industry in ease of use, quality of service, and cash management features. I'm sure others can construct a long list of additional areas for improvement. That suggests a need to turn more actively toward the outside for "new blood".
Which is what Vanguard has been doing lately. That means paying "near" market rate wages. As Bloomberg reports: "Insiders say Vanguard is offering pay packages that, while not quite New York-level, nonetheless amount to big money in Malvern. "
Just because Vanguard is private doesn’t mean it can’t disclose compensation details.
Just because Fidelity is private doesn't mean it can't disclose Abigail Johnson's compensation details.
Let's look at that compensation. Vanguard's Partnership Plan was created decades ago by John Bogle.

When Bogle founded Vanguard in 1975, he said he set out to be "the world's lowest cost provider of mutual funds." As the firm grew, however, he found that some of his employees were afraid their wages would be kept down to achieve this goal. By 1984, he felt Vanguard was successful enough that he could find a solution to that problem, and it's how he ended up with the Partnership Plan.

https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-bogle-vanguard-partnership-plan-career-landmark-2019-1
As at other companies, the higher the level the employee, the greater the percentage of compensation that comes from "profit sharing". (The BI piece describes how Bogle created the Partnership Plan to approximate profit sharing at for-profit companies. See below.) The amount of these bonuses wax and wane. The same IVA writer (Jeff DeMaso) who this month complained about "Vanguard’s Partnership Plan: Big Profits ..." last year reported "Vanguard’s Profit-Sharing Stalls Out". Does he have a point or is he filling column inches?
DeMaso says that " It’s Vanguard’s asset growth—not fund performance—that matters." That sounds like it's just sales that are getting rewarded. It also sounds different from what Bogle wrote (see cited BI piece): What matters is "the difference between Vanguard's expense ratios (the percentage of a fund's earnings that go toward operational expenses) and those of their largest competitors applied to Vanguard's assets under management, combined with the extra returns due to funds' performance.
I don't know whether Vanguard will turn itself around. Its metaphor for itself used to be a ship. It's a large tanker that can't turn on a dime. I hope it succeeds.

For the curious. The information is presumed accurate.
Investing in private equity through a 401(k) plan is a relatively new and evolving concept that has generated discussion among investors and industry professionals.
Here's what to know:
Potential Benefits:
Higher Returns: Private equity has historically shown the potential for higher returns compared to public markets, according to SmartAsset. Private equity funds have delivered an average annual return of 13.1% over the previous 25 years, compared to the S&P 500's average return of 8.6% during the same period. This outperformance is often attributed to private equity's focus on undervalued companies, real estate, and infrastructure, which may be less exposed to market volatility.
Diversification: Adding private equity to a 401(k) can provide diversification beyond traditional stocks and bonds, potentially mitigating risk and offering exposure to assets less correlated with public markets.
Access to previously inaccessible assets: For individual investors, private equity investments have traditionally been limited to institutional and high-net-worth investors due to high entry barriers and complexity. Expanding 401(k) options could provide access to these alternative investment vehicles.
Potential Risks:
Illiquidity: Private equity investments are illiquid, meaning they are difficult to sell quickly or easily, often requiring capital lock-ups for several years. This can be a concern for individuals needing quick access to their retirement savings.
High Fees: Private equity funds typically charge higher fees compared to traditional mutual funds and ETFs. These fees can erode returns, especially over the long term. Private equity funds often charge a management fee (around 2%) plus a share of the profits (around 20%).
Complexity and Lack of Transparency: Private equity involves complex investment strategies and less regulatory oversight and transparency compared to publicly traded assets, making it harder to assess and value these investments.
Volatility: While long-term returns may be higher, short-term fluctuations in private equity valuations can be significant.
Regulatory Landscape and Future Outlook:
The Department of Labor (DOL) has issued guidance regarding private equity investments in 401(k) plans, allowing their inclusion within professionally managed funds like target-date funds.
However, the DOL also emphasizes the need for fiduciaries to carefully consider the risks and ensure appropriate safeguards, including disclosure, valuations, and addressing liquidity concerns.
Recent reports suggest potential further loosening of regulations, potentially allowing more direct access to private equity within 401(k)s. This has generated debate about the appropriate balance between expanding access to potentially higher returns and protecting retirement savers from undue risks.
Some major investment firms, including BlackRock and Empower, are already planning to offer private equity options within target-date funds or other professionally managed 401(k) options in the near future. BlackRock estimates that adding private assets could boost returns by approximately 50 basis points per year and increase the total value of a 401(k) by 15% over 40 years.
Important Considerations for Investors:
Consult a Financial Advisor: It is crucial to seek advice from a qualified financial advisor to understand the complexities and risks involved before considering private equity investments in your 401(k).
Risk Tolerance and Time Horizon: Private equity is generally suited for younger investors with a longer time horizon and a higher risk tolerance, as it involves greater volatility and illiquidity.
Fees and Liquidity: Carefully evaluate the fee structure and liquidity terms of any private equity fund before investing.
Diversification and Allocation: Consider a limited, strategic allocation to private equity within a diversified retirement portfolio, as advised by financial professionals. Some experts suggest limiting private market exposure to 5-10% for most investors.
AI responses may include mistakes. For financial advice, consult a professional.

As we all know, as has been stated here many times, there are a lot of variables affecting a portfolio mix.
I offer this 19 year old real world example for a 529 for a view over time.
This is a self-directed account started at 50/50 equity/bond with a mandatory rebalance every September. The funds currently used are VITPX and VBMPX. These institutional tickers have changed a few time over the years, but still remain as TOTAL U.S. for holdings for each fund.
The included GFC period is: 2006-2009 (4 years).
VITPX was -3% for the period (max drawdown was about -43% for a brief period)
VBMPX was +23% for the period
---A blended annualized of +5% for this period.

YTD     3yr        5yr     10yr     15 yr
5.40%    10.55%    7.2%    7.2%     8.3%

For the full period, 7.65%. Definitely acceptable.
A true LAZY portfolio. But, this was fashioned for capital protection; as portfolio changes were limited to 1 per year initially, and now 2 per year. This was not an account we wanted to play 'cowboy' with.
Well, anyway; have a nice evening.
Catch

For some reason, CGXU, Capital Group’s older international ETF, has been a bit sluggish. Compared to the relative performance of the other ETFs CG brought out in the first batch, like CGDV, GGGR, and CGGO, CGXU has not been great. I currently own BINV. I think that DIVI is also a good choice.

I like funds with a => five year history so that I can look at performance from 2020 and 2022. With that in mind, DIVI, EPDIX, and EPVIX are at the top of the list for my IRA. The two OEF's are awfully expensive.

Anyone bought Capital Group International Core Equity ETF CGIC?
This is from Morningstar,
“The Best International-Stock Funds” by Tori Brovet
Jun 16, 2025
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/best-international-stock-funds

WABAC,
Ben states that research proves that you should be fully invested, use index funds and asset allocation to match risk profile. Of course I don’t listen to that after getting burned 45%, 50%, 25% in 2000, 2008, 2020, etc.

I've been known to post things to bump the conversation along. :) Plus, you find out who reads the links. ;)
Given the nature of his headline, I was surprised to read that he saw any virtue in dividends at all. But since he's Canadian, he has to deal with all the fans of their bank stocks.

WABAC,
Ben states that research proves that you should be fully invested, use index funds and asset allocation to match risk profile. Of course I don’t listen to that after getting burned 45%, 50%, 25% in 2000, 2008, 2020, etc.

@DrVenture. These funds have certainly held up the past few years. Since January 2022, beginning of the current Great Normalization market cycle, all returned about 6% annually despite drawdowns in 2022 from -3% to -6%. Since COVID in January 2020, most returned about 5% annually, but incurred drawdowns of -11% to -15%.
I expect Junkster (and FD1000), however, would exit once any of these rolled more than a percent or so, if that.

Hi @hank et al
A portion from my initial write above
--- As international investors, both retail and large houses continue to watch the machinations in this country. Many will have second thoughts about U.S. holdings,
as they watch the 'rule of law' disappear, as well as the unstable and ever changing monetary policies change at an hourly rate..........well, yes this affects our investments.
As the deterioration continues in this area, one finds the dollar whacks downward, and more future unwillingness to participate in Treasury holdings.---
I was not discussing moving accounts out of the U.S.; I'm attempting to determine how far the pendulum may swing away from some U.S. sectors. I won't chase international at this point, although this may be in error, not to.
I watch momentum, but too much of the monetary crazies are place; emanating from this country.
We haven't changed anything in the portfolio this year...yet. But, the healthcare section is damaged way beyond normal from the legislative changes. We'll stay for now. We won't abandon tech. IG bonds are still in place, as well as the MMKT's.
But, capital preservation is the highest priority.
The investing world is 'torn' and searching. And we can't and won't play the high risk, as in the earlier years.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1527428/000158064225004322/arrowdwatintletf497.htm
497 1 arrowdwatintletf497.htm 497
ARROW DWA TACTICAL: INTERNATIONAL ETF FUND
TICKER: DWCR
A series of Arrow Investments Trust
Shares of the Fund are listed and traded on CBOE BZX Exchange
Supplement dated July 17, 2025, to the
Prospectus, Summary Prospectus, and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) each dated December 1, 2024
The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of Arrow Investments Trust (the “Trust”) has determined that it is in the best interests of shareholders to liquidate the Arrow DWA Tactical: International ETF (the "Fund"), a series of the Trust, following a recommendation by the Fund's investment adviser, Arrow Investment Advisors, LLC, and the Board has authorized an orderly liquidation of the Fund.
The last day of trading of the Fund’s shares on CBOE BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange”) will be July 28, 2025 (the “Closing Date”), which will also be the last day the Fund will accept creation units from authorized participants. Shareholders should be aware that while the Fund is preparing to liquidate, it will not be pursuing its stated investment objective or engaging in any business activities except for the purposes of winding up its business and affairs, preserving the value of assets, paying its liabilities, and distributing its remaining assets to shareholders. Shareholders may sell their holdings in the Fund prior to the Closing Date and customary brokerage charges may apply to these transactions. Authorized Participants may redeem baskets of shares for a pro rata portion of the Fund’s portfolio on hand through the Closing Date.
The Fund is expected to cease operations, liquidate its assets, and distribute the liquidation proceeds to shareholders on or about July 30, 2025 (the “Liquidation Date”). From the Closing Date through the Liquidation Date, shareholders may only be able to sell their shares to certain broker-dealers and there is no assurance that there will be a market for the Fund’s shares during this time period.
Shareholders remaining on the Liquidation Date will receive cash at the net asset value of their shares as of that date, which will include any capital gains and dividends as of such date. The liquidating cash distribution to shareholders will be treated as payment in exchange for their shares. The liquidation of the Fund’s shares may be treated as a taxable event. Shareholders may wish to consult with their tax adviser about their particular situation. Once the distributions are complete, the Fund will terminate.
For additional information regarding the liquidation, shareholders of the Fund may call (877) 277-6933.
______________________________________________________________________
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI each dated December 1, 2024 and should be read in conjunction with those documents. The Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI have each been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and are incorporated by reference. Copies of these documents may be obtained without charge by visiting Fund’s website at www.ArrowFunds.com or by calling the Fund at (877) 277-6933.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1500604/000139834425013268/fp0094263-1_497.htm
497 1 fp0094263-1_497.htm 497
Janus Detroit Street Trust
Janus Henderson U.S. Sustainable Equity ETF
Supplement dated July 17, 2025
to Currently Effective Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”)
The Board of Trustees of Janus Detroit Street Trust (the “Trust”) approved a plan to liquidate and terminate Janus Henderson U.S. Sustainable Equity ETF (the “Fund”), effective on or about October 14, 2025 (the “Liquidation Date”). After the close of business on or about October 9, 2025, the Fund will no longer accept creation orders. Trading in the Fund will be halted prior to market open on or about October 10, 2025. Proceeds of the liquidation are currently scheduled to be sent to shareholders on or about October 16, 2025. Termination of the Fund is expected to occur as soon as practicable following the liquidation.
Prior to and through the close of trading on NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE”) on October 9, 2025, the Fund will undertake the process of winding down and liquidating its portfolio. This process may result in the Fund holding cash and securities that may not be consistent with its investment objective and strategies. Furthermore, during the time between market open on October 10, 2025 and the Liquidation Date, because the shares will no longer be traded on NYSE, there may not be a trading market for the Fund’s shares.
Shareholders may sell shares of the Fund on NYSE until the market close on October 9, 2025 and may incur typical transaction fees from their broker-dealer. Shares held as of the close of business on the Liquidation Date will be automatically redeemed for cash at the then current net asset value. Proceeds of the redemption will be paid through the broker-dealer with whom you hold shares of the Fund. Shareholders will generally recognize a capital gain or loss on the redemptions. The Fund may or may not, depending upon its circumstances, pay one or more dividends or other distributions prior to or along with the redemption payments. Please consult your personal tax advisor about the potential tax consequences.
Please retain this Supplement with your records.

At Hank. I have been building positions in PRPFX and TRIGX. I am not adding to CGDV. Also a small position in DODLX for global bonds. I am long past being an accumulator and have no great insights. My key motivation in not to lose capital,,, As I have often opined, the orange revolution is historically significant and will impact all aspects of American’s daily and investing life. Ignore at your own peril.

Following are excerpts from a report by CalMatters, an independent California news organization.

California saw a 3.1% drop in private-sector employment the week immediately after the Trump administration stepped up its immigration raids in the state, according to a new analysis of U.S. Census data. UC Merced researchers said the steep drop is second only to the unemployment surge the state experienced during the onset of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, and greater than the immediate decline during the Great Recession in 2007 and 2008.
This appears to be the first analysis of the data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey from the time when federal agents’ focus on the state became clear in early June, when a raid at a garment factory in downtown Los Angeles preceded weeks of sweeps and unrest.
The Census Bureau surveys Americans every month about whether they worked the week before. The UC Merced researchers compared survey results from the week of May 11 to the week of June 8, and found that in California, more citizens than non-citizens reported that they did not work the week after that first raid.
The percentage decline would equate to a loss in California of 271,541 jobs from citizens and 193,428 non-citizens, the report said: “What we know from previous research is that the work that undocumented immigrants or non-citizens do does not exist in a vacuum,” Edward Flores, lead author of the report, told CalMatters. “If there’s disruptions to the work that undocumented immigrants do, it has ripple effects. A slowdown in one industry could cause slowdowns in other industries.”
That’s consistent with other studies that have shown that mass deportations of undocumented workers reduces job opportunities for U.S.-born workers, and studies that have shown the raids’ negative effects on local economies.
The effects of the enforcement may continue to be felt more strongly in California. The report also showed that the number of male citizen workers slightly increased in the rest of the U.S. compared with California during the same periods.
White and Latino workers in California were the most affected, the researchers found. The number of Latinos in California who reported work between May and June declined 5.6%, while the number of whites in the state who reported work during the same period decreased 5.3%, according to the report.

This story has been told several times already.
05/2007 (https://bendbulletin.com/2007/05/21/analysts-gain-wont-change-dollars-decline/)
10/2013 (https://www.cnbc.com/2013/10/22/de-crowning-the-dollar-and-the-collapse-ahead.html)
07/2020 (https://www.ft.com/content/712fe3e7-6bfd-46be-9fbc-6b992aa0d043)
The 24/7 media loves it. Bad (possible) news sells great. You click and read, and they make money.
=============
catch22:

suicide...ignorance...'cult'

Another day and another political post.
How can it be that everything that was done since 01/2025 is the above, while the previous administration's actions were all right and great?
If you think the outcome is pretty bad, follow it and invest it all in MM.

According to the quote in the OP: "Now, Vanguard isn’t eliminating SpecID—but they are making it harder to use by removing it as a default option for your accounts."
This change does indeed better align Vanguard with industry standards. I wrote in my original response: :"Vanguard is a bit unusual in that it allows you to effectively select 'none' as the default method of selecting which shares you are selling. "
Brokers are required to have clients select what Fidelity calls a default "disposal method". In this way clients tell the broker the order in which to dispose of shares in a sale if the client does not specify which shares are to be sold at the time they place a trade.
If a client says that their default disposition method is specific ID, then they are effectively giving no default method to be used in lieu of specific ID. No other institution I'm aware of has allowed clients to explicitly give "specific ID" (i.e. "none") as the default disposal method.
Regarding this change affecting only some Vanguard clients: It is true that only clients that had selected "specific ID" as their default disposal method are directly affected (and I'm guessing are the ones who received email notice). Still, all clients were affected when this change took place because they became unable to change their default disposal method to "specific ID".
This change has already taken place generally. Vanguard currently writes: "[Specific identification] method is not available as a preferred cost basis method".
https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/taxes/cost-basis-methods-available-at-vanguard
As to restricting the use of specific ID to market orders, Vanguard's FAQ addresses the rationale. Consider the following limit order to sell 300 shares @$25.00 from three specific lots and only 150 are sold:
Lot 1: 100 shares purchased on 7/1/23
Lot 2: 100 shares purchased on 7/1/24
Lot 3: 100 shares purchased on 7/1/25
The specific ID order says only that these 300 shares are to be sold. Suppose one lot is sold @25.10, then the bids over $25 dry up. A few hours later, the price recovers and the broker is able to dispose of another 50 shares at $25 even. The remaining 150 shares remain unsold.
Which shares did the broker sell at $25.10, which at $25.00? Had a market order been placed, they all would have sold at virtually the same time. (Though admittedly there could still be sold at slightly different prices - placing a market order reduces but does not eliminate the pricing problem.)
The answer to this question affects long term vs. short term cap gains and also current gains (assuming the various lots were acquired at different prices.)
Fidelity is the only place I've found that answers this question (sort of). On its help page for trading specific shares it answers this question:

What is tax lot priority?
If your order receives multiple executions, the first tax lots selected will be used to determine the gain/loss for the shares executed. The shares sorted and selected first (at the top of the list of tax lots) have the highest priority.

As to the order of the tax lots selected, the closest Q&A I can find is:

How are the lots available for trading displayed?
Since the shares you hold may have been acquired at different times and different prices you can choose to have your shares sorted by long-term shares (with a holding period of greater than one year) or short-term shares (with a holding period of one year or less). A secondary sorting option allows you to sort the shares you hold by highest or lowest cost. In addition, you can attempt to minimize your gain or loss. If you do not request a specific sort option, the tax lots will be displayed in first in, first out (FIFO) order - that is, oldest shares acquired to the newest shares acquired.

All well and good, but Vanguard's FAQ raises the question of what happens with automatic distributions (or automatic rebalancing). WIth a default disposal in place, that is the ordering applied. And as I explained above, "specific ID" is tantamount to having indicated no default method.

According to M* VOO is up 6.39% YTD.
I wasn't looking for anything. Stating that the S&P 500 is up 25+% in just 3 months demands a closer look is all in the long run.

You must be missing my point here. I said that a 25% gain in a three month period is a rare historical event. A closer look? It has occurred five other times since 1950.
3/7/75
10/21/82
1/5/99
5/29/09.
6/15/2020.
After those five other times the market was up an average of 16.9% six months later and 22,3% one year later. It was never down 6 months or one year later. Streaks are meant to be broken so time will tell if this new signal will be the sixth winner since 1950. Just maybe a clue the market is going higher. The two Zweig signals ( also rare historical events) in April mentioned here were obviously a better time to have entered or added, but most here were more focused on the negative tariff headlines and not the Zweig signals.
Source Carson Research.
Edit - I see Carson Research must have updated their numbers now showing 13.8% and 21,4% six and 12 months out, The latest signal dated 7/10/25.