The former taxi drivers have already been displaced by the Uber drivers....now despite how quote fantastic end quote the economy is doing there is an over abundance of Uber drivers and they are making way less than they did several years ago....

Talking about taxi drivers, I finally found a worse investment that mine. The value of a taxi medallion in NYC runs in the area of $110,000 - $130,000. In 2011, they were selling for $1,000,000 or more.

The former taxi drivers have already been displaced by the Uber drivers....now despite how quote fantastic end quote the economy is doing there is an over abundance of Uber drivers and they are making way less than they did several years ago....not sure what musk has to do with this... economies and civilization moves forward sometimes at a rapid pace....what happened to the buggy whip manufacturers? The cleaners, no one wears a pressed shirt anymore....How about the phone operators? While it's easy to say if you're in a good spot, one needs to grow and adapt....or else get left behind.
Remember when a few years ago they were telling the blue collar types to learn to code? Now the blue collar types are telling the unemployed coders to learn to weld
What goes around comes around...

@ stayCalm: MRFOX LT Returns as of 9/30: APR 17.0%; MAXDD -15.7% (202003; Recovery Mos. 7; ST Dev 13.2%; DSEV 7.3%; Ulcer Index 3.2%; Sharp Ratio 1.14%; Sortino Ratio 2.07%; Martin Ratio 4.76; MFO Rating 5 (Best); Peer Count 108; APR vs. Peer 3.6%; APR Rating Best; APR vs. SP500 2.3; Fund is 8.8 years old. Good reasons why you own it.

I assume my deductible and my copay are additive ($200 +$1800 = $2000). At that point the cost of meds are fully coverage by my plan...whoopie!

Yup. Took me years to understand the interplay between copays, deductibles, and out of pocket max's, especially when there are some payments that don't count against that max. But I was much younger and inexperienced in the ways of convoluted insurance back then.
That's quite a load you're carrying. Once one goes over $100/mo for MA it is worth a look at original Medicare plus Medigap + Part D (drugs). That will cost even more than the $1200/yr MA you're facing, but you could come out ahead if you are hospitalized or have lots of copays or coinsurance charges. Depends on health and expectations. No one size fits all.
Don't know about Costco's hearing service, but we've been very happy with Costco's eye services. Note that the optometrist uses Costco space but is operating independently (and takes credit cards brands in addition to Visa). The opticians are part of Costco.
BTW, the terms of art are:
copay - fixed amount (e.g. $20 for a doctor visit)
coinsurance - percentage amount (e.g. 20% of contracted rate for a doctor visit under original Medicare)
cost sharing - any arrangement such as the above where the insurer pays part and you pay part

Hi Ben. Thanks for the comments. Faber spoke in terms of “small investors” in the interview I watched, so the mention of $500,000 surprised me. Fortunately, the video is already available on Bloomberg. Scroll ahead to 16:00 if anyone wants to view. It’s the last of several segments on etfs.

I suspect Meb is a bit of a publicity hound. I’ve been listening to a trove of his old podcasts going back several years (The Meb Faber Show) for a month on a regular basis. These consist mostly of hour-long interviews with different money managers. 1 is 3 is pretty good. I don’t need to tell people that Cambria has more losers than winners. Or that it is very small player in a field of giants. That said, I like their global allocation fund (GAA) and have owned it a while - primarily for the exposure it provides to foreign markets, precious metals, commodities and bonds - although it is broader than just that.

Zero or low costs for all our meds too (Optum, Costco, CVS)
The good news is that starting in 2025, drug costs will be capped at $2,000, so exposure isn't unlimited.

I am learning (first year of Medicare) that there are payment phases with Part D.
The Premium - (in my case, it is embedded in my Medicare Advantage Premium)
The Deductible - (Full out of pocket Cost of the RX up to a specific $...in my case $200)
The Co-payment - (A percentage of the RX cost based on the tier of the drug up to a $ Amount... in my case, $2000).
I assume my deductible and my copay are additive ($200 +$1800 = $2000). At that point the cost of meds are fully coverage by my plan...whoopie!
For 2025:
All must pay for:
Medicare Part B - which looks like it will be about $185/M (plus IRMAA adjustments)
Next select between:
- A Supplemental Plan (Some may include benefits for hearing, eye care... maybe even dental?) or
- Medicare Advantage Plan (Hearing, Eye care , Dental or Part D may be included)
Select a Part D Plan (Costs = Premium + as much as $2K of deductibles and co-pays)
Some Non - required Coverage I plan on having:
- Dental (My local Dentist offers an in house care plan) - $280 - Covers basic Care - 2 cleanings, x-rays, exams
- Hearing (Hearing Tests and Hearing aid allowances) - I found that Costco or Easter Seals in our area offered affordable services
- Eyecare (Eye Tests and Eye glass allowances) - I found that Costco offered affordable services
Snapshot of maximum Health care costs for 2025:

Part B= ($185*12) = $2,220
Medicare Advantage = $1200 (Includes Part D Premium) + Max $2000 Medical Deductible + Part D Potential out of Pocket Max cost of $2000
Dental Plan - $280 (50% discount of other procedures)
All of the above costs are close to $7700
In years where I have mostly Wellness visits I would have costs close to $3700
Most of this is HSA eligible for reimbursement so I will have decisions to make on how I manage that account going forward.
Lots to continue to learn and do.

Zero or low costs for all our meds too (Optum, Costco, CVS)
Drug plans often get little attention when comparing MAPD plans. For most people there's little difference - generics, preferred or otherwise, are either "free" or dirt cheap on most plans. But when it comes to brand name drugs, the difference between plans can be huge.
Over the past few years, drug plans, both Part D and MAPD, have been moving from copay (flat amount per item) to coinsurance (percentage cost). Brand name drugs with four (or more) digit costs are becoming way more expensive.
Consider Prolia, a brand name drug used by many for osteoporosis. (I know a few people using it.) Plans typically list it as a tier 4 (brand name, non-preferred) drug. The manufacturer gives its list price (wholesale acquisition price) as $1,786.12. It is injected twice yearly.
Tufts Preferred Access PPO charges 50% for tier 4 drugs. That would come to $1,786 yearly. (Medicare.gov says $1,62x).
BC/BS Blue SaverRx charges 49% copay for tier 4 drugs. That comes out about the same as Tufts. (Medicare.gov says $1,59x.)
Or you could get a BC/BS PPO plan that charges just $285/dose ($570/year), but it comes with an $87/mo premium. The all in cost is about the same, at $1,614.
One point here is that what looks like an obvious candidate can instantly become dubious depending on one's individual situation.
Another point is that drugs can shift the whole landscape, even tilting it toward MA plans.
Medicare.gov shows no Part D policy charging under $1,900 in Boston when one includes Prolia. But it reports that Mass General Brigham PPO's all in cost, including Prolia, is "just" $600/year. That's a $1,300 difference.
One might be willing to pay the cost of a Medigap plan for the peace of mind that comes with Original Medicare. Many people are. But adding yet another $1,300 on top of that due to Part D costs could give one pause. The good news is that starting in 2025, drug costs will be capped at $2,000, so exposure isn't unlimited.

Blog - https://bilello.blog/2024/the-week-in-charts-10-14-24
Item 4 discusses the cumulative increase in major CPI categories over the past 4 years and shows Medical care at 8% and Auto insurance at 60%. Why are we measuring Medical care, rather than Medical insurance? My medical insurance probably went up 60%. I already know my next year medical premium increase is 15%. CPI probably has measurement problem.
Item 8. US HY Credit spreads at 2.89% is the lowest since 2007. SPY dividend yield at 1.27%(tied with Q4 2021) is the lowest since 1999. Nothing to see here?

@bee I'm not sure I like the wording, "government transfers." I take it as a gift from the gov., which most of it isn't. VA Benny's all earned as is my SS monthly check.

It's a very interesting topic and can appear convoluted. Couldn't an argument be made that we (the public) transfer more of our money to the government than we did years ago?
Take the lottery for example. I see this as both public/government transfer. Wish I was on the winning end of the these transfers.
Taxes are public transfers to the government that hopefully become government transfers to build bridges and roads, fund public safety and education, arm the military. Let's not forget the government transfers that pay for a growing number of government salaries.
Others:
SS= runs partially on (earned income) public transfer - it needs to balance out with future public transfers = or > government transfer to SS recipients.
Medicare = Pooled Public transfers "in" by way of premium payments...shared payment out by way of government payments and public co-payments for medical services.
Medicaid = Appears a one way Government Transfer out, but there must be a public funding source for medicaid, right?

How does Medicaid financing work?
Medicaid financing is shared by states and the federal government with a guarantee to states for federal matching payments with no pre-set limit. The percentage of costs paid by the federal government varies for specific services and types of enrollees and depending on whether the costs are for medical care or program administration.
The federal share of spending for services used by people eligible through traditional Medicaid, which includes individuals who are eligible as children, low-income parents, because of disability, or because of age (65+), is determined by a formula set in statute. The formula is designed so that the federal government pays a larger share of program costs in states with lower average per capita income. The resulting “federal medical assistance percentage” or “FMAP” varies by state and ranged from 50 percent to 78 percent for FFY 2023 (Figure 5).
States can use provider taxes and IGTs (intergovernmental transfers) to help finance the state share of Medicaid. States have some flexibility to use funding from local governments or revenue collected from provider taxes and fees to help finance the state share of Medicaid within certain limits and rules. Provider taxes are an integral source of Medicaid financing, comprising approximately 17% of the nonfederal share of total Medicaid payments in SFY 2018 according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). All states (except Alaska) have at least one provider tax in place and many states have more than three (Figure 8). The most common provider taxes are on nursing facilities (46 states) and hospitals (44 states). As of July 1, 2022, 32 states including DC also reported at least one provider tax that is above 5.5% of net patient revenues, which is close to the maximum federal safe harbor or allowable threshold of 6%. Federal action to lower that threshold or eliminate provider taxes, as has been proposed in the past, would therefore have financial implications for many states.
The most common Medicaid provider taxes in place in FY 2022 were taxes on nursing facilities (46 states), followed by taxes on hospitals (44 states), intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities (33 states), and MCOs7 (18 states).
https://kff.org/report-section/medicaid-budget-survey-for-state-fiscal-years-2022-and-2023-provider-rates-and-taxes/

Bottom line, we pay more today in public transfers to local, county, state, and federal governments so they can orchestrate these transfers out.
I might imagine that years ago a larger proportion of these transfers and services happened between the public and private organizations - churches, non-profits and philanthropy.
IMHO we have grown governments along with the growth of these government transfers.
Maybe its time to review the role of government regarding both sides of these transfers.

The source link for these rough calculations is below. If anyone has another method of calculation; please let us know. The calculator uses a standard CPI government number. Whether you agree or not; this is the method used for various COLA's to the best of my knowledge. Having a COLA for a pension or SS is valuable. For those fortunate enough to have a pension, let alone a COLA; you should be 'happy'.
I'll use 10 years looking back, to present, as a sample; with $1,000 as a base number.
YES, there numerous types of CPI; including formulas that do not use government methods.
IF one had SS or a pension paying $1,000/month in 2014, then the following numbers seem to apply:
--- Pension, no COLA: One still has a $1,000 monthly payment, but the 'purchasing power is NOW $670 from 10 years ago .
--- Pension w/COLA: One's monthly payment may now be in the range of $1,332.
*** A very large gap in those two numbers in 2024, eh?
Annual in 2024:
Pension w/o COLA = $8,040
Pension w/COLA = $15,984
Compounding operates in two directions !!!
HEY, I/we need to know if there is a large mistake with this math.
Calculator source

I saw an S&P target of 8,000 by the end of the decade from a perma bull. While that number looks big, it is only about 33% over the next six years. That comes to about 5% per year or 6% inclusive of dividends and an equity risk premium of only 2% at the current 10 yr yield of 4.10%. I am tempted to reduce equity exposure in favor of high yield corporate bond fund(s) yielding at 6+%.

@msf
My wife and I have been with Traditional Medicare and a medicare supplemental plan over 7 years and have never had to communicate an appeal, request authorization, denied coverage, or received a bill during that time. I can see any doctor who accepts Medicare anywhere in the country.
I choose the peace of mind that I’ve experienced with Traditional Medicare and Supplemental plan even though it costs me more in the short term; and even though the supplemental plan increases each year, I know there will be no surprises with accessing the health care, I or my wife needs.

Well said, exactly the same reasons why I chose to stay in Original Medicare Plan F.
May I also add that I just spoke to a friend of mine who is a retired NYC schoolteacher. He told me that when the City first rolled out its Medicare Advantage Plan, the retirees were assured that any doctor who accepts Original Medicare would also accept the City's new Advantage Plan. However, all of my friend's doctors told him that they do not accept any Advantage Plan, period. They most frequently mentioned the onerous procedure they would have to follow of obtaining access to critical medical care for their patients through pre-authorizations.

@Level5
Thanks for the well stated post. I agree that much of this comes down to trust, which is a variant of what @fred495 originally expressed as peace of mind.
Your supplemental plan, whether it is NYC's Senior Care or a standard Medigap plan (A-N), is provided by the same "dishonest" insurance companies that provide MA plans. So some trust in these companies is still needed. Though perhaps because less can go wrong with supplemental plans they are easier to trust. Or perhaps seven years of good experience has made your provider more trustworthy.
Not all MA providers are out for profit. Some, like HealthFirst, like the "Blues" that haven't yet gone over to the dark side (switching from not-for-profit to for-profit), aren't driven by making money. Maybe that makes a difference. I don't know. Though I agree that there is something off putting about profiting from, effectively, someone's misery.
For me, I've had more hassles with insurers because of incompetence than because of what motivates them.
Quick example: my SO and I had the same policy, went to the same PCP on the same day, had the same blood test. One of us was charged a $20 copay, the other was charged $0. I recognized this as a coding problem. One had been coded as a lab procedure ($0 copay), the other as a diagnostic test ($20 copay).
The insurer refused to acknowledge that this inconsistency proved that something was wrong. I had to go to the state attorney general's office (they have a special department to handle this stuff) to get the insurer to fix things. On principle.
I did mention last court decision, but dismissed it as nothing substantial: "Nothing new aside from the injunction being sustained on appeal."
With any luck, Adams won't be the one pressing on much longer. Can I say that, or is it too political? :-)

@msf
First, let me say that I enjoy your investment contributions on this site. You take a focused and analytical approach to data, which is well thought-out and clearly outlined. I appreciate it. You have carried that forward in your response to me about MA plans and what they are *required* and *should* provide. For me, there is a trust issue at stake, especially as my wife and I age, requiring more anxiety provoking health services.
My wife and I have been with Traditional Medicare and a medicare supplemental plan over 7 years and have never had to communicate an appeal, request authorization, denied coverage, or received a bill during that time. I can see any doctor who accepts Medicare anywhere in the country. All of these items are advertised as policy for MA Plan.
But what I keep in mind is that all MA Plans are private companies whose overarching principle is to generate profits. That in itself is not a bad thing. I invest my money with companies to generate an income. But I think health care is a different entity completely, and I do not trust that drive for profit in this case.
So I do not dispute what you’ve posted (with one exception - the last court decision was 5/2024; Adams continues to press on). I choose the peace of mind that I’ve experienced with Traditional Medicare and Supplemental plan even though it costs me more in the short term; and even though the supplemental plan increases each year, I know there will be no surprises with accessing the health care, I or my wife needs.
Simply put, it comes down to - “who do you trust?”

@msf @fred495 I am one of those NYC retirees, of which there are over 250,000 of us, represented by multiple unions (firefighters, EMT, teachers, etc). Prior to the MA proposals we had a choice of multiple plans. However, both the first proposal between two private health insurance companies, and the second cobbled together by Aetna, if approved, would have removed any choice, and forced us into the MA plan.
The political and legal shenanigans which took place by the current city administration over the past 2+ years have been repelled in court in multiple cases. This is not “old news.” The Adams administration has continued to appeal the court decisions.
The majority of NYC retirees do not want to lose our choice of health care plans which were part of the hiring package and promise to us, and that access to traditional medicare would always be available to us.
For a review of the history of our struggle to maintain our choice of health services you can visit one of the union sites here: https://psc-cuny.org/whats-happening-retiree-healthcare/
My apologies for going off topic, but the tangential topic of the NYC retirees, issue with health care, required some background info. The reasons for our push-back are already embedded in earlier posts.

You're talking about old news here. I'll have to dredge up old links from when this was new news and I was talking about it with some NYC retirees. As I recall, neither side was being especially honest. And there was an earlier proposal for coverage provided by a joint operating agreement (or some such entity) created by two different insurers.
Most of your post (2+ of 3 paragraphs) talks about how unethical, money hungry the health care insurers are. No argument there. If your position is one of principle, how does that comport with buying Supplemental Medicare insurance from one of these private insurers?
"four of the five largest players – UnitedHealth, Humana, Elevance [formerly Anthem] and Kaiser – have faced federal lawsuits". Can we infer that the fifth in that group of largest players has not faced federal lawsuits? That would be CVS (Aetna), the insurer that NYC planned to use.
https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/medicare-advantage-in-2024-enrollment-update-and-key-trends
"NYC retirees age 65+ and their eligible dependents have ... choices in how they receive their retiree health insurance benefits, with the vast majority of retirees in either HIP VIP HMO, or GHI Senior Care."
https://bplc.cssny.org/blog/nyc-retiree-health-benefits-update
HIP and GHI are insurance brands of EmblemHealth, a large regional health insurance provider. Senior Care is a "supplemental coverage plan that works with Original Medicare. HIP VIP HMO is exactly what it sounds like - an HMO. Since it is an Emblem plan, it is regional and retirees must be living in the NYC area to use it. Retirees (especially ones out of town) can also choose among other HMOs and PPOs.
https://www.nyc.gov/site/olr/health/retiree/health-retiree-choosing-a-health-plan.page
This chart (link below) compares the existing (VIP HMO and Senior Care) plans with the proposed Aetna plan. On features and value, Aetna comes out even or slightly ahead.
https://www.nyc.gov/assets/olr/downloads/pdf/health/aetna-ma-docs/plan-comparison-chart-seniorcare-hip-aetna.pdf
The union members raised many objections, such as: "concerns that retirees will be stuck with a smaller network of providers and larger out-of-pocket costs." The above cited chart says otherwise.
OTOH, the added preauthorization requirement for some procedures would be a real, change, and the only substantial objection that I found credible. The KFF study reports that over 90% of preauthorization requests are granted in full for MA insurers generally.
In court, Aetna submitted figures for its own plans. "According to Aetna, out of more than 82 million claims under its Medicare Advantage plans last year, only 3.4% were subject to prior approval, and 0.49% were denied."
https://gothamist.com/news/aetna-reveals-health-care-denial-rates-in-medicare-advantage-court-case-for-nyc-retirees
That 0.49% may not give you peace of mind, but then again, Original Medicare also denies some procedures.
P.S. When people quote from articles (or even paraphrase) it would be nice if they would cite the articles. The NYTimes article is here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/08/upshot/medicare-advantage-fraud-allegations.html
Regarding Aetna, it says: "The fifth company, CVS Health, which owns Aetna, told investors its practices were being investigated by the Department of Justice." That was two years ago. Any updates?

We are pleased to announce that the Intrepid Small Cap fund is Closing down.
Really ?
How about saying - Do to incompetent management and poor stock selection the Intrepid Small Cap Fund is closing down on November 22, 2024.
The 2 Star, negative rated fund by Morningstar has attracted just 38 million dollars in it's 19 years of operation, not enough to continue operations.

Rick,
Many days my account balances at Schwab are wrong by a few percentage points. I stopped worrying about $$ reflected. I just hope that someone is not salami slicing my accounts slowly because I would not detect it as I do not check the History often. The big corporations have won the game of desensitizing me to their deliberate incompetence.
IBKR patrons talk highly about it. May be it is time to check them out?

I'm really not in a rush to change brokerages and Schwab's been mostly decent otherwise (not as good as the old TDA), but I'll look. It's been ages since I explored IBKR (back when I was futures trading 15 years go) but when I get some time I'll take a gander.

With Traditional Medicare, there are no networks to worry about. My Medigap Plan is "F." But BC/BS of MA has to be special, so they call theirs, "Bronze." after surg and hospitalization a few years ago, I was left with a bigger out of pocket bill than I ever wanted. I swallowed hard and upgraded to Bronze. I got in just under the sunset deadline. The (literally) two bills I've received since were all about doctor's lovely billing offices wanting money before the payments were processed and paid, locally. I called, and in very sweet polite tones, refused to pay. In one case, I was told that payment was already made. So before I hung up, I asked: "Then, how dare you bill me, before you ever heard from my secondary insurer?" Point made.
Every year, the price for "F" goes up a bit. BC/BS plays word games, calling it an annual reduction of the initial discount. Bushwah. Anyhow, since I'm paying so much, I'm deliberately getting a bunch of surgical work done. Along the way, some serious junk was discovered and a few laser treatments have killed the bad stuff. I'm making use of every bit of that policy. Luckily, we can afford the payments. And no bills. Period. That's the biggest benefit. Until this country grows a brain and institutes universal coverage.

We moved on from Tweedy Browne many years ago when we found cheaper alternatives with comparable and often better performance. Currency hedging adds to the expense ratio.
Additionally, value style has lagged growth style in oversea investing.