Warren Buffett’s firm increased its cash reserves to $227bn, sparking concerns about company’s view of US economy
Following are excerpts from a current report in The Guardian:

Warren Buffett appears to have soured on stocks, letting cash soar at his Berkshire Hathaway firm to nearly $277bn and selling a large chunk of its stake in Apple, even as the conglomerate posted a record quarterly operating profit.
Berkshire sold about 390m Apple shares in the second quarter, on top of 115m shares from January to March, as Apple’s stock price rose 23%. It still owned about 400m shares worth $84.2bn as of 30 June.
The cash stake grew to $276.9bn from $189bn three months earlier largely because Berkshire sold a net $75.5bn of stocks. It was the seventh straight quarter Berkshire sold more stocks than it bought.
Second-quarter profits from Berkshire’s dozens of businesses rose 15% to $11.6bn, or about $8,073 per class A share, from $10.04bn a year earlier.
Nearly half of that profit came from underwriting and investments in Berkshire’s insurance businesses.

Personal observation:
Would these be the same insurance companies that claim they are losing money?

Berkshire often lets cash build up when it can’t find whole businesses or individual stocks to buy at fair prices. Its cash may also signal concerns about the broader US economy – many investors view Berkshire as a proxy for it.
Government data on Friday that showed slowing job growth and the highest unemployment rate since October 2021 prompted some analysts to project multiple Federal Reserve rate cuts starting in September.
But Berkshire’s returns from short-term treasuries should decline once rate cuts begin.
“We’d love to spend it, but we won’t spend it unless we think we’re doing something that has very little risk and can make us a lot of money,” Buffett said at Berkshire’s 4 May annual meeting, referring to Berkshire’s cash.
Since mid-July, Berkshire has also sold more than $3.8bn in shares in Bank of America, its second-largest stock holding.
Buffett remains a big Apple fan, reflecting the iPhone maker’s strong pricing power and committed customer base.
He said at the meeting that he expected Apple to remain Berkshire’s largest stock investment, but selling made sense because the 21% federal tax rate on the gains would probably grow.

Note: Text emphasis added in above.

- Try DRRAX (Rated neutral by Morningstar) 10 YR Return +3.4% Mentioned in Barron’s favorably in 2020 as a “go anywhere” fund. But I am unable to pull up the article.
- Also try QAI (Hedge fund tracker etf) 10 YR Return 1.8% (Not Rated at Morningstar).
Personally I probably wouldn’t buy such a fund. Hedge funds have the advantage of being able to lock-up an investor’s assets for a set number of years. Allows higher level of risk taking. Mutual funds do not have that advantage. Lose 10% in a year and $$ rushes out the door.
- One (approximation) I’ve owned for short periods in the past (without fully comprehending) is the CEF GUG.
I’d term it “Go anywhere with an emphasis on fixed income”. Quite volatile as CEFs tend to be.
- BCAT (CEF) managed by Rick Rieder might fit your bill. I bailed after it jumped 10 or 15% a year or so ago. Heights bother me. Rieder has a lot of discretion in what to buy.
- You might look at GAA. Globally diversified fund of funds. Risk averse high (media) profile manager some would rather avoid. Spreads the risk around. Seems to have a lot of personal discretion which Morningstar loathes. Exposure to gold / EM. But not billed as “go anywhere.” Morningstar Neutral Rating. 5 YR +5.64% (Disclosure: I own this one.)
-

I have a highly diversified stable of investments/income producing vehicles. More bearish lately and have been taking profits/building cash (and cash like) investments. My question…
I’m looking for a fund that goes anywhere/does anything to produce gains. It has the discretion to do that and does it. A hedge fund like mutual fund. Think Oceanstone or CGM Focus. I’m not concerned about risk just something that I can slowly build a position in, in the next 3-4 years. I was really interested in MRFOX but the hoops I would have to jump through to buy and sell are too much. Signature guarantees to sell a large amount? No thanks.
Any suggestions where I should be looking? Thank you.

Without going into too many details, here are some broad comments:
This is marketed as a reduced risk investment. Prospectus:

The Fund may also hold a substantial portion of its assets in cash or cash equivalents, including treasury bills and money market funds in an effort to maintain high liquidity and to provide additional downside protection by limiting the Fund's exposure to equity market risk. The Fund is designed to generate income while providing some downside protection in the event of broad equity market downturns and also providing some equity market upside participation exposure to the Index.
...
The portfolio managers seek to construct the options-based income component of the Fund’s portfolio by investing in high-income, short-term ELNs with a focus on downside protection.

Derivatives, including ELNs, can be used to reduce volatility. Though as implied at the end of the first paragraph above this comes at a cost of limiting upside potential.
That's to be expected - just as higher risk should bring higher rewards, lower risk is expected to bring lower rewards.
The derivative risk here may still be consequential. While Vanguard is curiously comfortable with trading this ETF, Fidelity requires investors to agree to the following:

Fidelity has designated certain investment products identified as more complex and/or higher risk as “Designated Investments”. I understand that from time to time Fidelity may accept orders for Designated Investments only from self-directed, sophisticated, experienced investors who (1) have represented to Fidelity that they do their own investment research and analysis and (2) agree not to rely to any extent upon Fidelity for advice, guidance, information, direction or recommendations relating to these investments.

Please don't rely on any guidance, information, direction or recommendation received here, either :-)
Personally, I'm comfortable with the concept of ELNs, principal protected notes, etc. ISTM the key risk (aside from market risk) is counterparty risk (will the issuer default?). The other significant factor is the packaging cost. The issuer is packaging securities and options into a single product (note) for a fee (skimming returns).
A risk in this ETF is that it is a black box. They say they are using ELNs in an "options-based income strategy". You're trusting them here. How good is that strategy? How well do they execute it?
At least here you've got a bit of info to go on. The portfolio managers, Burrello, Devine, and Huxon are co- (not lead-) managers of another Invesco fund using the same strategy albeit in a different universe.
GTNDX also uses a "portfolio of equity securities and equity-linked notes designed to generate high income while providing some downside protection." Summary prospectus. The differences are not in the strategy but in the equity portfolio. This is a global portfolio, not a domestic one, and it is actively managed, not an index. Still, it can offer some clues into how well these managers execute the stated strategy.
Its annual report tells the story of what one gives up for reduced volatility.

The Fund’s underperformance over the year [2023] was largely driven by the sub-portfolio of customized ELNs that reduced overall returns relative to the MSCI All Country World ex USA Index as equity markets rallied through much of the year; however, the defensiveness also helped reduce volatility and downside impact to performance during the more volatile periods throughout the year. In addition, the strategy delivered a higher yield relative to the dividend yield of the MSCI All Country World ex USA Index.

I brought up GTNDX because it is one of the highest yielding derivative income funds, and it still only yielded 8% last year (with a 13% total return). (Disregard the 1* rating for GTNDX; that's likely because it's being compared to domestic funds in the same category.)
Domestic stocks typically have lower yields than foreign stocks, so it's an even harder task to reach 9% with a domestic portfolio. Invesco has a domestic fund SCAUX (actively managed) with the same team as GTNDX. In 2023 it (like domestic funds generally) outperformed the sibling global fund, but yielded in the 6% range.
Based on the above, 9% target for RSPA seems more aspirational than realistic. Designed to attract investors, not necessarily to be achieved.
If it's cash flow you're looking for, there are substantially unleveraged CEFs that can get you this yield. True, they return some principal, but that's usually just a transmutation of unrealized gains into distributions. You're not losing your original principal (though the unrealized gain portion of the total principal is being tapped). The industry has come up with an enticing name for this: constructive return of capital.
For example, ETB. Tends to trade at a discount. Based on price, it yields over 9%, all domestic, no leverage. 150+ stocks. Just tossing this out, I haven't researched.
https://www.cefconnect.com/closed-end-funds-screener
Then there is the question of why track an equal-weighted S&P 500 index? John Rekenthaler found that between 1998 and early 2023 " the equally weighted S&P 500 portfolio has thrashed the conventional index." (50% greater value.) But that was then, this is now. As he also wrote, "I cannot prophesy that its success will continue." It didn't.
VFIAX has crushed VADDX over the past YTD, 1year, 5 year, and 10 year. It has also beaten VADDX over the latter's lifetime (since 1997).

PSH YTD TR: -0.4% and currently at 34% discount. Which institutional investor would be able to get this product through their investment committee?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-02/ackman-s-pershing-lost-4-7-in-july-erasing-most-of-2024-gains

An interval fund could work for institutional investors.
He could have started with a 5-year term CEF with an opportunity to extend the term with shareholder vote, which is a more captive capital than an interval fund.
My advice to him now is "Cool it." Come back next year.

Perhaps 80% of OEFs / ETFs are "unnecessary" and their disappearance wouldn't impact most investors.
The number of publicly listed companies has decreased significantly from the 1996 peak.
"The count of publicly listed companies traded on US exchanges has fallen substantially from its peak in 1996. Back then, the number exceeded 8,000 companies. Today that count has dropped by more than 50% to just 3700, according to data from the Center for Research in Security Prices."
"It’s not that America has half as many companies as 30 years ago – it’s that companies are increasingly staying private, largely outside the scrutiny of the public eye. Publicly listed companies are subject to regulatory oversight and disclosure requirements, which help ensure transparency and maintain investor confidence. With fewer companies listed, there may be a decrease in overall transparency and investor trust in the market, said Matthew Kennedy, head of data and content at Renaissance Capital."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/09/investing/premarket-stocks-trading/index.html

I swapped out VHCOX for FPURX. I've held Capital Opportunity for over 20 years, but it just seems to have lost its edge (Similar to why I sold out of POAGX earlier in the year). I think in the current environment FPURX will provide a steadier ride over the next 2 years. At this stage in my investing life steady is good.

Thanks for the heads-up @Mitchelg
Not really understanding options very well I dug up some information from the fund’s prospectus and also about ELNs from another source. Possibly this may prove helpful for other ”Options Dummies” like myself.
About RSPA
”The portfolio managers seek to construct the options-based income component of the Fund’s portfolio by investing in high-income, short-term ELNs with a focus on downside protection. The ELNs in which the Fund seeks to invest are hybrid derivative-type instruments that are specially designed to combine the characteristics of investing in one or more underlying equity securities or an index of equity securities and a related equity derivative, such as a put or call option (or a combination thereof), in a single note form (typically senior, unsecured debt) issued by financial institutions. The options within the ELNs in which the Fund invests will be based on the Index or on ETFs that replicate the Index, and such options will generally have covered call and/or cash secured put strategies embedded within them. When the Fund purchases an ELN from the issuing counterparty, the Fund is generally entitled to receive a premium generated by options positions within the ELN. Therefore, the ELNs are intended to provide recurring cash flow to the Fund based on the premiums received from selling the options.
“Selling a call option entitles the seller to a premium equal to the value of the option at the time of trade. When the Fund sells call options within an ELN, it receives a premium but limits its opportunity to profit from an increase in the market value of either the underlying benchmark or ETF to the exercise price of the call option (plus the premium received). The maximum potential gain on the call option embedded within the ELN will be equal to the difference between the exercise price of the option and the purchase price of the underlying benchmark or ETF at the time the option is written, plus the premium received. Accordingly, because these premiums can partially offset losses incurred by the Fund's equity portfolio, the Fund's investments in ELNs may reduce the Fund's volatility relative to the Index, while providing limited downside protection against declines in the value of the Fund's equity portfolio.”
Prospectus
About ELNs
”An Equity-Linked Note (ELN) is a debt instrument, usually a bond, where the payout is based on the underlying entity. The underlying equity of the ELN can be a collection of stocks, a single stock or an equity index. A typical ELN is usually principal-protected meaning that the investor is guaranteed the return of the initial investment, but as ELNs have become more exotic in nature, fewer ELNs are principal protected.
“Generally, the final payment is the amount invested times the gain in the underlying stock or index times a note specific participation rate. For example, if the underlying equity gains 150% during the investment period and the participation rate is 50%, the investor would receive $2.25 for every dollar invested. If the equity remains unchanged or declines, the investor receives the full investment back. However, if the underlying equity defaults, the investor will receive only what is available after bankruptcy.
“Investors should understand everything they can about the underlying equity because what may seem like a safe investment may fail. For example, in 2008 equity-linked notes tied to equity in Lehman Brothers failed. Many investors sued the broker-dealers for promising 100% principal protection and still losing money.”
Source

Half cash and half balanced? For a young worker? Just no

An optimal portfolio for many young workers (early 20s to mid 30s)
would be allocated predominantly, if not entirely, to equities.
After all, young workers' risk capacity is great and equities
generate the highest long-term returns.
But what if an inexperienced investor has never encountered
a nasty bear market like the Global Financial Crisis?
It's possible some investors may panic and sell equities when prices are extremely depressed.
Then they may decide to remain out of the "market" for years failing to capture tremendous gains.
Would it be beneficial for certain investors to start with a lower equity allocation (maybe 50% - 60%)
which can be increased after they gain experience and discover their true risk tolerance?

+1
It’s difficult to draw a line in the sand (or concrete). But if you’re under 40, dollar-cost averaging in and planning to work at least 20 more years … put it in a good low cost growth fund and let it rip. No more than 3 funds I’d say. You can withstand the +35% and -35% market whipsaws with that kind of time horizon.
I get the feeling from our friend @Joyes that his situation is different - probably an older investor.

Half cash and half balanced? For a young worker? Just no

An optimal portfolio for many young workers (early 20s to mid 30s)
would be allocated predominantly, if not entirely, to equities.
After all, young workers' risk capacity is great and equities
generate the highest long-term returns.
But what if an inexperienced investor has never encountered
a nasty bear market like the Global Financial Crisis?
It's possible some investors may panic and sell equities when prices are extremely depressed.
Then they may decide to remain out of the "market" for years failing to capture tremendous gains.
Would it be beneficial for certain investors to start with a lower equity allocation (maybe 50% - 60%)
which can be increased after they gain experience and discover their true risk tolerance?

Thanks @Observant1
Here's an interesting article on a previous week's guest (Bitcoin Goes Mainstream):

Given crypto’s extreme volatility, instead of sourcing from broad equities, an investor could pull from the riskiest areas of the equity sleeve like innovative growth companies. One might assume that the cryptocurrencies have a higher correlation to riskier stocks. However, bitcoin and ether’s correlation to the broad growth index from July 2020 through June 2024 is similar to the broad global index, ranging from 0.33 to 0.82, so this avenue likely wouldn’t result in a different outcome.
Bitcoin and ether’s galactic returns may be compelling to investors, but their volatility can have a colossal impact on a standard 60/40 portfolio, and diversifying within crypto still leads to a heightened risk profile. Their newfound accessibility through ETFs has many investors eager to add one or both cryptocurrencies to their portfolios, but one must be aware of how they change the risk composition

are-two-cryptos-better-than-one-6040-portfolio?

@Joyes
One of the most helpful things I encountered when beginning an investment journey was to purchase and devour materials which covered aspects considered helpful for new investors as well as more seasoned folks with more capital. Upon graduation from college, my parents purchased for me a subscription to Kiplinger. I still have that subscription some 45 years later. Many sample portfolios are included in the magazine as well.
Barron's was mentioned previously, but I'd suggest Kiplinger for someone starting out. It's a great tool for learning and becoming familiar with investments.

On the topic, Empower dashboard has definitely deteriorated from a stability perspective after Personal Capital was sold to Empower.
I poked around with a few competitors in order to move on but unfortunately had to return back to Empower because it is still the best imo. It is an outstanding tool for free, I would happily pay a reasonable annual subscription fee for a better product.
How do folks here track financial footprint, net worth and allocations? For me personally, pulling everything into a spreadsheet will not work.

Empower is the former Personal Capital. I use their free wealth tracker dashboard, not any of their paid FA services. I tried to do the same with Fidelity's Full View but did not find it convenient or useful.
Empower is convenient because it can automatically pull(like Yodlee) and aggregate from various accounts -- brokerages, banks, credit cards, etc. to give you a complete picture of net worth and allocations. It has other useful tools like Retirement Planner, Cash Flow, etc..
Below link has a visual on Investment Checkup feature
https://www.empower.com/personal-investors/investment-checkup
Reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/PersonalCapital/
I primarily use Empower for the Allocation view and as a quick check on how much of a particular asset I am holding in aggregate across brokerages vs. having to login to Fidelity, Schwab and HSA to manually figure it out.

Active fund with an objective of long term capital appreciation.
Good timing!

In the IRA: Closed out NUSC and FSNDX. Gave a ten percent bump to XMHQ and FDSVX. I don't expect to be making additional purchases on the equity side at current prices.
I continue to mull bond funds. Any new fund will have to have had a better than zero return in 2022 and 2020. It will also have to be doing better that the money market sweep account over the last week, month, three-month period. I don't feel the need to do anything in a hurry on that front. I don't feel the need to add to MNHAX, THOPX, or WCPNX at the present time. They don't meet the criteria described at the beginning of this graf; they're just little toes dangling in the water.
In the taxable: Nothing shaking but the leaves on the trees.

Concentration by itself doesn't work. I have been using concentration + momentum + best risk/reward funds + being in the right wide-range categories.
Since I started in 1995, there have been three long term cycles
1995-2000 + 2010-2020 = US Large cap tilting growth
2000-2010 = US Value, some small cap and some international
BTW, I changed the number of funds from 5 (2000-2018) to only 2-3 since retirement in 2018 because I can only find very limited great ideas.
You can read how I did it (here).

https://velafunds.com/large-cap-plus.html
Investment Objective: Long-term capital appreciation.
As of 6/30,
Number of Holdings Long/(Short)/Options 66/(24)/60
Gross / Net Exposure 109%/93%
$67M AUM (inception date 9/30/2020)
At the bottom of the page are risk statistics.
@baseball_fan, Do you mind cluing us in what your goal with this fund is (i.e., what role you would like this fund to fill)?