I got data from 2021 from Fido. about 50% of the SPAXX yield was state tax free. I don't know what % then was in Repos, but I bet that it was 50% and Repos are not state tax free

https://www.fidelity.com/tax-information/prior-year-tax-exempt-income-information
https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/taxes/2021-gse-letter.pdf
Aside from repos, other holdings that one finds in government MMFs that are not state tax-exempt include debt of some agencies: FHLMC, FNMA, GNMA.
https://www.rbcwm-usa.com/resources/file-687493.pdf
Also, the percentage of income derived from an asset class ≠ the asset class' percentage of portfolio
This is because different securities have different yields.
Three states, California, New York, and Connecticut require the percentage of state tax-exempt assets (not income) in each quarter to be at least 50%, or none of the income is exempt.
https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/USGOIN_01_2022.pdf (see footnote ** on p. 2)
The difference between percentage of income and percentage of assets may explain why in 2020, 57% of the income from FDRXX was state tax-exempt, but still the fund failed to meet the 50% asset threshold.
https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/taxes/2020-gse-letter-sai-funds.pdf
Regarding FCASH, this is covered by SIPC insurance, so long as the cash is temporary - there awaiting investment (cf. Robinhood). The MMFs are securities, not cash.
A side note on cash-ish yield: FWIW, we're a month into 2023 and RPHIX is still chugging along ahead of Treasuries and MMFs. Its January total return is 0.47%, or 5.79% annualized.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/60495/riverpark-short-term-high-yield-divs-and-availability#latest

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1753394/000121390023006585/s148703_497.htm
497 1 s148703_497.htm 497
RIMROCK FUNDS TRUST
(the “Trust”)
Rimrock Core Bond Fund
SUPPLEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 1, 2023 TO THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS, PROSPECTUS,
AND STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION EACH DATED SEPTEMBER 28, 2022
At the recommendation of Rimrock Capital Management, LLC, the Trust’s investment adviser, the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board”) has approved the liquidation and termination of the Rimrock Core Bond Fund (the “Fund”) as a result of, among other factors, challenges faced by the Fund in conducting its business and operations in an economically viable manner under current market conditions. The Board approved the liquidation pursuant to the provisions of the Trust’s Agreement and Declaration of Trust after making a determination that the liquidation of the Fund is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders.
Effective immediately, shares of the Fund will no longer be available for purchase by new or existing investors. The liquidation of the Fund is scheduled to take place on or about February 28, 2023 (the “Liquidation Date”).
On or before the Liquidation Date, the Fund will seek to convert substantially all of its respective portfolio securities and other assets to cash or cash equivalents. Therefore, the Fund may depart from its stated investment objectives and policies as it prepares to liquidate its assets and distribute them to shareholders. Any shares of the Fund outstanding on the Liquidation Date will be automatically redeemed on that date. As soon as practicable after the Liquidation Date, the Fund will distribute pro rata to the Fund’s shareholders of record, as of the close of business on the Liquidation Date, all of the remaining assets of the Fund, after paying, or setting aside the amount to pay, any expenses and liabilities of the Fund. At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may redeem their shares of the Fund pursuant to the procedures set forth under “How to Sell Your Fund Shares” in the Funds’ prospectus.
The Fund has the ability to distribute income and/or net capital gains on or prior to the Liquidation Date in order to reduce Fund-level taxes. For taxable shareholders, the automatic redemption on the Liquidation Date should generally be treated like other redemptions of shares, that is, as a sale by the shareholder that may result in a gain or loss to the shareholder for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Shareholders should contact their tax advisor to discuss the income tax consequences of the liquidation.
Please retain this supplement with your Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information.

Happened to be watching CNBC while working out at a gym between 3:00 and 3:45. S&P was in a tight trading range during that time - running just +0.8% - 1% higher for the day. But the close had it up 1.46% at 4076.6. Yikes - some fireworks the last 15-20 minutes one might guess. Looks like most everything did well. Crude and most metals saw slight gains - but equities were the place to be. One European consumers staples stock I own bounced 2%. Don’t know if that was typical of most of the continent. As @Sven noted elsewhere, the defensive consumers staples types have been back-sliding recently while the NASDAQ and riskier parts of the market have revved-up.
Other numbers: DOW +1.09%
NASDAQ +1.67%
FOMC meeting / statement tomorrow. I don’t think today’s sort of market action makes them very happy.

ISTM the Barron’s (Roundtable) gurus made some predictions on where the S&P would end this year. Ranged from a low at / below 4,000 to around 4300 (David Giroux on the high end). Sorry - have scanned the back issues and can’t locate those predictions. Thanks for sharing your update Yogi.
To be honest I pay little attention to the S&P. (Yes - I realize one should). The Dow ISTM is a good indicator of public sentiment (if nothing else) because so many Mom & Pop investors are attuned to it. Still tends to be the headline-grabber on big up / down days. Of course, both are largely U.S. focused. Certainly there are developed markets in Europe / Japan and elsewhere as well as a wide range of undeveloped markets to be possibly included in a long term portfolio.
Added: What is helpful to me to a degree is watching the % of change + / - in a particular asset or index. Last year was a “gift-horse” in the sense the indexes peaked early in 2022. So, simply pulling up the YTD return gave you a pretty good approximation of the amount of loss from peak. Not that easy now, though there are ways to compute peak to present as well as 1, 3, 5 year gains or losses. I think I’ve alluded in the past to being a bit of a bottom-feeder. Heights in general bother me.
Actually, simply ”Googling” a stock or fund’s ticker symbol now pulls up an incredible amount of current / backward-looking data. Use it almost daily.

You can always put forth a proposal for the annual meeting if you own shares directly.
While that's what many people think, that's not quite the way it works.
Companies don't want Johnny-come-latelies buying a share just before the record date just to introduce a proposal at an annual meeting. Rather, they want you to have some skin in the game before they accept your proposals for a vote. Not much skin, but skin nevertheless.
The law allows a company to require shareholders submitting proposals to have a small but substantial pecuniary interest in the company. In 2020, the SEC "adopted amendments to Exchange Act Rule 14a-8, the shareholder-proposal rule."

[It] amend[ed] Rule 14a-8(b) by:

• replacing the current ownership threshold, which requires holding at least $2,000 or 1% of a company’s securities for at least one year, with three alternative thresholds that will require a shareholder to demonstrate continuous ownership of at least:
  • $2,000 of the company’s securities for at least three years;
    
  • $15,000 of the company’s securities for at least two years; or
    
  • $25,000 of the company’s securities for at least one year.

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-220
For completeness (and to split hairs even more finely), you don't necessarily have to own shares directly (i.e. be shareholder of record) in order to submit shareholder proposals.
What I think you're alluding to are the limited rights that mutual fund owners have with respect to the underlying companies in the portfolio. There, fund owners don't even hold company shares indirectly. Often indirect ownership is sufficient. The most common example likely being street name ownership.
Again looking at Rule 14a-8:

There are two types of security holders in the U.S.: registered owners and beneficial owners [footnote omitted]. Registered owners have a direct relationship with the issuer because their ownership of shares is listed on the records maintained by the issuer or its transfer agent. ...
The vast majority of investors in shares issued by U.S. companies, however, are beneficial owners, which means that they hold their securities in book-entry form through a securities intermediary, such as a broker or a bank. Beneficial owners are sometimes referred to as “street name” holders. Rule 14a-8(b)(2)(i) provides that a beneficial owner can provide proof of ownership to support his or her eligibility to submit a proposal...

https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/staff-legal-bulletin-14f-shareholder-proposals

@WABAC and @sma3: I appreciate your responses. A few years ago, while watching my CELG shares make a huge climb upward, I rationalized that I was offsetting my rapidly increasing out-of-pocket healthcare expenses by investing in the sector. Now I feel a certain amount of guilt that I, as opposed to a retiree on a very limited budget, have enough discretionary capital to be able to profit from the misfortune of others. I also realize that I do not screen my funds or stocks with anything like a social responsibility screen. While I own BIAWX, it's not because its "responsible," but because it's a good growth fund. I invest in healthcare because it's "defensive," yet I may not like the fact that profits are made because sick people will always need treatment. I like the fact that healthcare funds don't decline as much as the rest of the market on down days. A Hobson's choice, I suppose.

@LewisBraham
Thank you for your kind response and discussion.
America's tortured history of race indeed should be discussed in schools at all levels, including discussions about the motivations of slaveholders in the Revolution.
But I am trying to make the point that the approach to subjects like these needs to be done in a very careful, well researched manner that will encourage the people whose minds are perhaps still a little open to participate in the discussion.
By that I mean extreme care should be taken to avoid statements and opinions that either political extreme can pick up and run with, such as "one of the primary reasons ... was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery".
But I don't think extreme care was taken in the lead 1619 essay. Professor Leslie Harris was asked to fact check the essay before they published it and warned Hannah-Jones and the NYT this statement was inaccurate
"On August 19 of last year I listened in stunned silence as Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter for the New York Times, repeated an idea that I had vigorously argued against with her fact-checker: that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America."
(The quote comes from the article below which is also a good summary of the rapid increase in the last 30 years in American Historical scholarship on slavery, which Harris applauds and has been part of and claims that Gordon Wood has not)
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-project-new-york-times-mistake-122248
The NYT eventually backed down, sorta, " We stand behind the basic point, which is that among the various motivations that drove the patriots toward independence was a concern that the British would seek or were already seeking to disrupt in various ways the entrenched system of American slavery". Not very convincing is it?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.html
I do not really know the NYT editors motivation in publishing the original statement, but ideology certainly seems to have payed a part, rather than a rigorous search for the truth.
The right wing has unfortunately used this to ban 1619 books, and now AP courses in African American history ( which does include sections that some parents would find inappropriate for high school), and now a few people and one right wing foundation are attempting to muzzle basic support for diverse viewpoints and LGBT people in any school n Michigan, because state law allows parents to opt their child out of "sex education".
https://popular.info/p/inside-the-audacious-new-scheme-to
You should look at it "Judd at popular information" on Substack, He does an immense amount of work tracking down dark money supporting these legislative movements, and tracks corporations spending on politics very carefully. Most corporations claim they support equal rights for women, LGBT, and election integrity but give lots of money to election deniers, and bigots. Their money has clearly been a major source of the divisive poisonous political atmosphere we find ourselves in.
It is unclear to me why US corporations believe that fostering these political confrontations will be positive in the long run or good for their business. I assume they are too scared not to cough up the cash, after seeing what happened to Disney in Florida.

Hi , I am also victim of TBO capital group , can you please grant me access ?

FWIW, I have Capital One a/c. But what I don't like is that it keeps coming up with new a/c with higher yields ("360 Performance Saving" is the latest) and leaves legacy savings at low levels (they exist but not even shown on the website). The next may be "360 Super Performance Saving".
The legacy savings owners are not informed about the newer options. This has been in the news for Capital One and other banks. A while back, I called Capital One to complain, and the Rep suggested to just open a new 360 Performance Savings and transfer money - that is what I did. As the Bank is linked default for some transfers I make, I keep a variable amount depending on the current deals.

Capital One Bank is paying 3.3% for their Savings Account, and 4.15% for one year CDs. That is still below the 4.27% and 4.42% for a Money Market fund at Schwab. and I can get one year CDs at Schwab for a 4.75% Coupon rate. Capital One offers some liquidity advantages for me, with a local branch that appeals to my wife, and CD penalities for early termination is much less "painful" than brokerage CDs at Schwab. You take a hit on interest rate amounts at Capital One, but not as significant as some might expect.

”The dash for cash on Wall Street is back on. Investors have added about $135 billion to global money-market funds over the past four weeks … through Jan. 18. That is the best stretch since the four-week period ended May 2020, when those funds logged roughly $175 billion in net inflows …
“Increased cash allocations are the latest sign of caution among investors who are questioning whether the recent rebound in stocks and bonds will continue … The average return on U.S. money-market funds this month is 4.12%, the highest yield since the 2008 financial crisis … The S&P 500, on the other hand, has a dividend yield of about 1.6%.”
“By the end of December, assets sitting in money-market funds hit a record $5.18 trillion … That surpassed the previous high of $5.16 trillion from May 2020 … In December, individual investors slightly lowered the share of cash in their portfolios to about 21.8%, below the historical average of roughly 22.5% … The reading still marks one of the highest levels since May 2020. In comparison, stock and stock fund allocations are at about 63.9%, above the historical average of around 61.5%.”
Excerpted from: The Wall Street Journal (Print Edition) January 26, 2023 (Narrative edited for brevity. Attribution to data sources omitted for brevity).
You’ll likely need a WSJ subscription to access story online.

Some thoughts on bonds from David Giroux, manager of PRWCX, in this week’s Barron’s:
* “My last recommendation is a bond. I echo the view expressed here that fixed income hasn't been this attractive in a long time. We invest in high-quality high-yield bonds and high-quality leveraged loans—issuers whose Ebitda isn't volatile and that have a large EV [enterprise value] cushion, relative to their debt. You can get yields of 7% to 8% today in the high-yield and leveraged-loan market without taking on bankruptcy risk.
“My pick is the Hub International 7% coupon unsecured bond that matures on May 1, 2026, trading for $99. This is a bond that tends to be reasonably liquid, given its large size, and should be able to be purchased through most, if not all, brokerage accounts. Hub is one of the largest private midmarket insurance brokerages. It is an attractive business with low capital intensity, long-term organic growth in the mid-single digits, and low cyclicality … “
The above is Giroux’s final (fifth) recommendation. For what interest it may hold, following are the 4 equity investments he recommends:
- GE HealthCare Technologies GEHC $58.95
- Avantor AVTR $20.07
- Fortive FTV $65.54
- NXP Semiconductors NXPI $159.63
* Excerpt & additional information from: Barron’s “Roundtable III” - January 30, 2023 print edition.
Extra-topical - But makes you wonder why he was high on AMZN a year ago when it was 30% more expensive but fails to mention it this year? But I digress …. :)

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1618627/000139834423001236/fp0082003-1_497.htm
497 1 fp0082003-1_497.htm
THE RBB FUND TRUST
Penn Capital Floating Rate Income Fund
(the “Fund”)
______________________________________________________________________________
Supplement dated January 27, 2023
to the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) dated December 31, 2022
______________________________________________________________________________
The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of The RBB Fund Trust (the “Trust”), based upon the recommendation of Penn Capital Management Company, LLC (the “Adviser”), approved a Plan of Liquidation and Termination for the Fund (the “Plan”). The Board concluded that it is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund be closed and liquidated as a series of the Trust effective as of the close of business on or about February 27, 2023.
Effective as of January 30, 2023, in anticipation of the liquidation, the Fund will no longer accept purchases into the Fund. In addition, the Adviser is in the process of transitioning the Fund’s portfolio securities to cash and/or cash equivalents and the Fund will no longer be pursuing its stated investment objective.
Shareholders of the Fund may redeem their investments as described in the Fund’s Prospectus. The redemption of shares will generally be considered a taxable event.
If you hold shares of the Fund in an IRA account, you have 60 days from the date you receive your proceeds from the liquidation of the Fund (the “Proceeds”) to reinvest or “rollover” your Proceeds into another IRA and maintain their tax-deferred status. You must notify the Fund’s transfer agent by telephone at 1-844-302-PENN (7366) (toll free) prior to February 27, 2023 of your intent to rollover your IRA account to avoid withholding deductions from your Proceeds.
Pursuant to the Plan, if the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction prior to February 27, 2023, your shares will be automatically redeemed on February 27, 2023 at the closing net asset value per share, and you will receive your Proceeds from the Fund, subject to any required withholding. These Proceeds will generally be subject to federal and possibly state and local income taxes if the redeemed Fund shares are held in a taxable account, and the Proceeds exceed your adjusted basis in the Fund shares redeemed.
If the redeemed Fund shares are held in a qualified retirement account, such as an IRA, the redemption Proceeds may not be subject to current income taxation. You should consult with your tax advisor on the consequences of this redemption to you.
Shareholder inquiries should be directed to the Fund at 1-844-302-PENN (7366).
* * * * *
Please retain this supplement for your reference.

University auxiliary services (bookstores, dorms, dining halls, gyms, sports, stadiums, etc) have their own operating budgets and are not part of the academic budgets (tuition, faculty/staff salaries).
Public university tuitions have gone up because state supports have declined significantly. At my university, state support was about 70-80% when I started, but only 10-15% by the time I retired. Some joked that we could stop using the state's name and be free but the explanation was that it wasn't simple - as land-grant university, we got lot of land, and buildings that were from separate capital budgets, and it would be impossible to pay for those.
In as much as out-of-state tuitions are attractive to universities, several have strict limits on nonstate enrollments. This is because for each nonstate student admitted, there may be a qualifying state student not admitted.
Private university tuitions are going up because many rich folks are willing to pay for the name and prestige; but lot of students get financial aid (via scholarships, grants, loans, campus work) and their effective tuition may be about half the listed tuitions.
Community colleges/2-yr colleges are mostly funded locally (property taxes, etc); there is some state funding too. Often, one has to a resident in the district to qualify for low tuition.

There is also of course the PPP business loan forgiveness hypocrisy from the 2020 bailouts:
https://statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2022/09/06/fact-check-ppp-loans-forgiven-republicans-matt-gaetz-marjorie-taylor-greene/65470173007/ It's OK for Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene to get their business loans forgiven, but not students.
There are also ancillary benefits to society overall from an educated populace: less crime, better understanding of the political process and an educated workforce to compete with other nations. It isn't just me, me, me as Crash suggested, although a degree is pretty much essential now to be in the middle class. Ironically, there are states today that spend more tax dollars on prisons than they do on public schools and their university systems.

@Devo : Thanks for your info. Can you tell me what drove the adjusted NAV from $51.22 01/01/2020 to $54.38 at the end of Aug. 2020 as no dividends were paid during this time period.
Thank you, Derf

@Crash Dividends not pd for number of months / year.
2018 3 not pd
2019 4 ''
2020 8 ''
2021 3 "
You are correct on amount of dividends also not consistent.

While I have my own issues with student loan forgiveness, I can understand the perspective of Millennials and Gen Zs who think it’s hypocritical that many in the older generation were perfectly fine with two massive government taxpayer funded bailouts of financial markets in 2008-09 and 2020 in which the younger generations have little invested because in part they are laden with student debt. Not to mention the fact that in some cases I imagine they are indebted to the very banks that were bailed out with taxpayer dollars in 2009. That is on top of the bailouts “small businesses” got in 2020, which the government defines as any company with less than 500 employees—many large companies qualified.
And finally, the cost of tuition is astonishing today even at public universities, when the older generations had much more affordable educations. The average cost of attendance for a student living on campus at a public 4-year in-state institution is $25,707 per year or $102,828 over 4 years. Out-of-state students pay $43,421 per year or $173,684 over 4 years. Private, nonprofit university students pay $54,501 per year or $218,004 over 4 years. This in a country where tuition at public universities was once exceedingly low and in certain cases free. It is also true that it is extremely difficult for anyone to have a middle class life today without a college degree when this was not the case in earlier generations. Well-paying Industrial blue collar jobs that don’t require a degree have largely disappeared in 2023. So kids have to go to college and they end up in debt because of it.

I would wager a sizable sum that Baseball_Fan has never read the 1619 Project and is merely parroting what he hears from the usual sources. Nor does he know what Marxism is. I suspect any sort of taxation to him for purposes other than the protection of his personal property he views as Marxism. Wanting, say, a public park or public schools makes you a Marxist. Meanwhile, numerous studies have shown the very capitalist stock market has performed better under “tax and spend” Democratic presidents than Republican ones.
Moreover, Biden worked for over 30 years as a senator of Delaware, the nation’s incorporation capital, helping to pass legislation highly favorable to the extremely capitalist credit card and banking industries. But somehow he’s a Marxist too for wanting poor people to eat, our roads and bridges to be repaired and children and the elderly to have healthcare.
Where do people who oppose any sort of taxpayer funded government programs think the money goes other than the private sector in the U.S.? The two work in concert in the U.S.. That is not Marxism by any means. The reason Moderna's stock has done so well is the government spent billions of dollars helping it develop vaccines and then purchased those vaccines from it. That is true for the entire healthcare sector by the way. And yes, as DavidrMoran has pointed out, such government spending stimulates the economy, creating jobs and increasing GDP. It's called the multiplier effect, not Marxism.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1545440/000158064223000383/umt_497e.htm
497 1 umt_497e.htm
January 25, 2023
Q3 ALL-SEASON SECTOR ROTATION FUND
A Series of Ultimus Managers Trust
Supplement to the Summary Prospectus and Prospectus
each dated March 30, 2022, as supplemented on April 8, 2022, May 3, 2022, July 26, 2022, and September 21, 2022 and the Statement of Additional Information dated March 30, 2022, as supplemented on May 3, 2022, July 26, 2022, and September 21, 2022
(This Supplement replaces the first Supplement dated January 25, 2023.)
This supplement updates certain information in the Summary Prospectus, statutory Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information (the “SAI”) of the Q3 All-Season Sector Rotation Fund (the “Fund”), a series of Ultimus Managers Trust (the “Trust”). For more information or to obtain a copy of the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus, or the SAI, free of charge, please contact the Fund at 1-855-784-2399.
On January 18, 2023 the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board”) approved the following changes to the name, the investment objective and the investment strategy of the Fund, which changes are expected to take effect on or about March 30, 2023:
The name of the Fund will be changed to the Q3 All-Season Systematic Opportunities Fund.
The investment objective will be changed to reflect that the Fund will seek to achieve capital appreciation.
The investment strategy will be revised to reflect the Fund’s use of a different strategy, as described in the revised Prospectus and SAI.
Notice is hereby provided to shareholders of the Fund that the foregoing changes are anticipated to take effect on or about March 30, 2023.
Each of these changes will be reflected in a Summary Prospectus, statutory Prospectus and SAI dated on or about March 30, 2023. A revised Summary Prospectus, which incorporates the foregoing changes, will be provided to shareholders of the Fund once these changes go into effect. Copies of the preliminary statutory prospectus (“Preliminary Prospectus”) and SAI will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and will reflect the foregoing changes, which will be publicly available on the SEC’s website. The information in the Preliminary Prospectus and SAI is not complete and may be changed.
Investors Should Retain this Supplement for Future Reference