Instead of making my normal annual contribution to SP500 (SPY/IVW) and Tech (VUG/TRLGX) funds/ETFs, I've decided to pile more into Global Clean energy (ICLN) and Waste Management (EVX).
For the past 4 years, I've been selling ICLN as an offset to significant reinvested Tech/SP CGs. For some bizarre reason, global clean energy ETFs performed horribly under Biden but did well (and are doing well) under the orange buffoon's administration. Go figure. Any thoughts on that? Anyway, I've returned to investing in clean energy rather than selling.
Also, my "hard pass" (LOL) bond fund, WAPSX, still performs consistently...4.8% return over the past decade...and I continue to reinvest the divs monthly. Thought about moving it all into WABSX (a similar fund, but M* 5-rated) after receiving feedback here, but I'll stick with my lowly M* 2-rated WAPSX for now.

Warren’s successor has to prove himself as the chairman. The Buffet premium on the stock is gone. Greg Abel, from what i read, is a very capable manager. We will miss Warren Buffet.

Depending on how hard BRK tanks after Warren passes, I would be tempted to buy into it for the long term...

Why would BRK tank after the inevitable occurs? Warren is 95 years old and hasn’t really run Berkshire for a number of years. His passing will not be a surprise to anyone. As a many decades long shareholder, I can say that neither Warren nor Charlie were ever interested in running Berkshire’s sprawling business. They are both very hands-off when it comes to management. Berkshire has always been run in a very decentralized manner.
As much as I love Warren, I’m more optimistic about the company’s future now and after he’s no longer with us. Berkshire needs someone with different skills. It needs a strong operator who will hold subsidiary businesses accountable for performance. This never really occurred on Warren’s watch. I could see Greg selling businesses that are perennial poor performers, which is something Warren wouldn’t do.

Hi OJ (@Old_Joe). Good talking with you as well.
You are of course right about the numbers (scope of control of various SF health care organizations). And I hadn't realized that UCSF was capturing remaining available hospitals.
The reason why I specifically mentioned Sutter was because I was thinking in slightly different terms. Kaiser is definitely an elephant in the room, though to mix metaphors, I prefer to think of it as a horse of a different color. For the most part it is a closed system - you're either in it and use just Kaiser providers, or you're out and don't use their doctors. That's different from working with other health care providers and affects how and even whether they negotiate with outside insurers.
UCSF was always a significant player but perhaps not in the same league as Kaiser and Sutter. Though its latest acquisitions could change that. From 2021:

Over the past 20 years, the Bay Area hospital market has consolidated, leaving a handful of systems holding significant market share. Kaiser remains the largest health system in the region, followed by Sutter Health. While their geographic reach is not as extensive as Kaiser or Sutter Health, UCSF Health and Stanford Health Care continue to jockey for market share in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties

https://www.chcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/RegionalMarketAlmanac2020BayArea.pdf
I'm somewhat familiar with Sutter and UCSF, having received care from a UCSF specialist, care from a Brown & Toland (IPA) provider at CPMC (now part of Sutter), And as part of a Silicon Valley startup I spent an afternoon at Mt. Zion (now part of UCSF system) learning how we might improve radiology treatment equipment. Never interracted with Kaiser (closed system), but I have friends and family who are very happy with it.
The takeaway from that last paragraph is that this industry is massively consolidating, and as sma3 wrote, it's all about the money.

Carl Kaufman of Osterweis Strategic Income, OSTIX, is more cautious on BBB rated bonds. The fund holds over 10% in cash, a historical high. Excerpt from 4th quarter outlook:

For fixed income investors, the AI-themed names are a cohort that exists largely outside our investment purview (although we did have one very successful investment in an AI-related convertible, which we exited at the end of 2024). Most of the AI-themed names are private, VC-owned cash burners that are not prime candidates for borrowing in the credit markets. The few that have come to market to borrow have very dubious credit profiles and have asked lenders to invest largely based on their future prospects. This is a sensible arrangement for equity holders, who receive unlimited upside in exchange for the risk they take, but for bondholders it is far less appealing, as their upside is limited to the coupon they receive while the risk is the same. We are, however, carefully monitoring this because we believe it is an apt barometer for broad investor sentiment, which is unabashedly risk-on.
The hyperscalers are budgeting hundreds of billions of dollars of CapEx to build data centers, which they hope will power a massive expansion of AI adoption in the years ahead. The numbers are astonishing, and the hype and activity around AI reminds us of the excitement around all things dot-com and dark fiber in the 1990s. The birth of the internet was a society-changing phenomenon, and AI could prove to be the same. However, it is unlikely that AI adoption will pan out exactly as planned. Given the lofty valuations ascribed to these early-stage, unproven companies, any deviation from the expected adoption rate and the ensuing revenue forecasts (many of which are still years away) could trigger at least a tremor, and possibly a much larger quake as winners and losers are parsed by the market. Stay tuned.

https://osterweis.com/outlooks/Strategic_Income_Outlook_Q4
OSTIX has lower drawdowns than typical junk bond funds. He tends to stay in higher quality end of junk bonds that provides more consistent total return.
With respect to Global Wellington and Global Wellesley funds, they share the same bond manager, Loren Moran. Moran tends to hold higher % of long bond for higher yield. This hurt them when the FED hiked rate in 2022. Now the FED is reversing the rate cycle that benefit the long bonds. Something to bear in mind of Wellington funds. On the equity side, they share the same manager but the goals are slightly different that reflect in the selector selection. Global Wellington focuses more on the capital appreciation side while Global Wellesley focus on dividend and value oriented stocks. I own Global Wellington but will buy Wellesley.
@sma3, agree with point on the Active Shares. The passive asset allocation funds are often used as benchmark to other asset allocation funds. I still prefer active management.

The flaw in most definitions is that they’re just labels.
What truly matters are quantifiable performance metrics:
TR (total return), SD (standard deviation), Sharpe ratio, Sortino ratio, max drawdown, and others.
Then: set measurable goals, track them rigorously, evaluate honestly, identify improvements, and implement changes.
Repeat every several years.
Everything else is unmeasurable noise.
BTW, a true goal must be challenging.
Example 1: At age 30, aiming for 7% annualized returns over the next 30 years while the S&P 500 averages 10% isn’t a real goal; it’s underperforming by design.
Example 2: If your bond allocation was in BND over the past 15 years and returned just 2.2% annually, that’s dismal performance, not a success.
All my meaningful goals over the years were hard to beat. That’s how I improved. On the flip side, many missteps taught me exactly what to avoid.

@Crash and @Observant1 et al
Only a question to AI and what 'it' can find.....
Question: BBB bond quality over past 5 years
----- Over the past five years, the quality of BBB bonds has seen mixed signals: yields have decreased overall, but their risk profile has been a subject of debate. Some sources suggest that while yields have declined from historical highs, the underlying corporate fundamentals of many BBB-rated companies are stronger, with a notable increase in the overall market share of BBB bonds, often attributed to a shift from higher-rated bonds and an abundance of issuance in shorter-term maturities. However, the increasing popularity of this market segment raises concerns about the potential for a future downgrade, especially as market conditions fluctuate.
Yields and returns
Decreased yields: The effective yield for US corporate BBB bonds has fallen over the last five years, though it remains above the long-term average, according to data from YCharts.
Mixed returns: ETFs tracking BBB-rated corporate bonds have shown a range of returns over the last five years, depending on the specific fund's focus, such as maturity or duration. For example, the Bondbloxx BBB Rated 1-5 Year Corporate Bond ETF (BBBS) had a 5-year return of 2.49% while the iShares BBB Rated Corporate Bond ETF (LQDB) has a 5-year return of 0.00% as of a recent reporting date, highlighting the impact of bond-specific factors, such as maturity, on performance.
Higher income: Despite lower yields, some analyses suggest that BBB-rated corporate bonds have historically provided higher average coupon income compared to other investment-grade bonds.
Quality and risk
Increasing market share: The overall market share of BBB-rated debt has increased, as a larger number of companies issue more debt within this rating bracket, potentially making it a more accessible and liquid investment class.
Mixed fundamentals: Some analysis suggests that the quality of BBB-rated companies has improved, with many former A-rated companies maintaining strong cash flows despite their lower credit rating.
Contingent risk: The shift in the market toward BBB-rated bonds has sparked concerns among some analysts about potential downgrades in the future, particularly if market conditions were to worsen.
Focus on specific segments: Some sources recommend focusing on shorter-dated BBB-rated bonds while avoiding the long end of the maturity curve to limit downside risk, especially in more leveraged sectors.
Low default rates: Despite concerns about potential downgrades, BBB bonds still have historically low default rates, typically below 0.36%.
Key takeaway
Increased market share: Over the past five years, BBB-rated bonds have become a more prominent part of the investment landscape, driven by factors like increased issuance and a shift toward shorter-dated maturities.
Divergent performance: Performance has been mixed, with some ETFs showing positive returns while others have been flat or even negative, underscoring the importance of evaluating individual bonds or fund holdings based on their specific characteristics.
Mixed quality concerns: While some BBB-rated companies are considered fundamentally sound, the increased market share has raised concerns about potential future downgrades and market volatility.
Need for careful selection: Investors should conduct thorough due diligence before investing in this asset class to identify the highest-quality issuers and mitigate risks.

I just now looked at this whole thread, though I did not read Benz. Like the rest of you, the Maximiser vs. Satisfiser motif is pretty clear to me. And nobody, I bet, would be always 100% one or the other.
Having been "smart enough" to inherit some money, I learn from mistakes, never bet the whole farm on one big play. I've been in PRWCX for 13 years, don't plan to get out unless it falls off a cliff. I think it's helpful to pay attention to the news, financial and otherwise, so that one can be tactical and make a move or two when it is advantageous. Avoiding mistakes makes me a Satisfiser, I suppose. But I do want to take a small portion of the money to exploit new developments--- the falling dollar this year, for instance. In Ritholtz' new book, "How Not To Invest," he very succinctly describes investing as the Art (not science) of intelligently investing the best way you can, into probabilities. This is always done with a backdrop which makes all information imperfect and subject to interpretation. Numbers don't lie, but how might they be manipulated, or inserted out of meaningful context? What does Person X have to gain by convincing you to do what they say they are doing? And on and on...

As a physician I have seen too many people forced to see sub standard providers or hospitals to ever feel comfortable with an HMO or a Medicare Advantage Plan.
Some people in cities with spectacularly good hospitals and Medical Schools ( like Boston or Atlanta or LA) may feel comfortable knowing that if the MA plans drops one provider, there will be just as good alternatives. But this ignores the unusual but still possible "bone marrow transplant" problem. Sometimes you might need a very rare procedure that is done extremely well across the country but in your town, not so hot.
I think you have to do your homework very carefully and also realize what may look like a decent community hospital today may be awful in a few years, and as they loose business they may lower their prices and become more attractive to MA plans.
There are towns that come to mind where the entire health care system is under one umbrella like Rochester MN or apparently FT Wayne IN, but at least in the latter case their monopoly position allowed them to charge the highest prices in the county.
Even in what would be considered probably the best place in America for medical care, Boston, the infighting and money grubbing of the two major hospital systems has reached epidemic proportions with bad consequences for MA patients. Mass General just kicked all other MA plans out of their network.
Starting January 1, 2026, Mass General Brigham primary care providers will no longer be in-network with United Healthcare or Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts (BCBSMA)* Medicare Advantage plans

Thank you, @Sven. I am putting the finishing touches on an article about portfolio performance during the past hundred years of bear markets, and a second article about portfolio performance including the financial crisis to date. It was informative to me.

One of my “go to” sites is Yahoo. PRSIX is an excellent fund. It only lost 20.38% in 2008 and gained nearly all of that back with a 25+% gain the following year. A bit over half the ‘08 loss occurred in the final quarter of ‘08 when it lost nearly 11%. Got hit hard in ‘22 with a 13.56% loss - but what didn’t?
Doing the math … assuming someone held PRSIX thu both 2008 and 2009 they’d have emerged after 2 years with 99.9% of their initial investment (a larger gain needed to break even).

@larryB At my stage of investing, risk=volatility. Obviously, nobody can see the future but if you look at a chart of the 2 sectors over the past 5 years, you may have your answer. Are you willing to bet that the next 5 years will be much different? While gains have been greater in tech, chances of a loss were also greater.
Perhaps you could share the names of the 2 funds you are considering.

Thanks for adding the substance guys. ISTM that “global” funds, unlike international, do normally have significant U.S. exposure. Some as high as 65-70%. Not to argue, just to be sure we’re on the same playing field.
The whole concept of a single fund for all (or most) of one’s investments is a tough nut to crack. I wouldn’t do it, but you can find many examples of where it would have produced great long term results. Too many fantastic funds to even mention. But always that nasty little warning in the fine print: “Past performance is no guarantee …”
At 80 and 15 years out from the last serious bear market (‘07-‘09) … do I want 60-65% of my life savings in stocks? No thank you. There are lot of interesting issues here. I look forward to following the thread.
-
Fair play / disclosure here: I am about 30% equity, 10% “other” (mostly real assets) with the remaining 60% in short term or rate-hedged debt of varying quality. Compared to 1-2% on cash a decade ago, 4, 5 or 6% (depending on quality of instrument ) isn’t hard to take. If leary of equity valuations, you’re getting paid to wait.

“There’s nothing inherently wrong with share-based compensation.
It’s prevalent in Silicon Valley and biotech because of startup culture.
With limited cash, a company operating out of a garage needs to dangle
the possibility of a bonanza to attract top talent.”
Disregarding the "top talent" ego stroking, there's a fair amount of truth in that, at least for pre- and early post-IPO companies. Options are handed out like candy, at all levels. When I interviewed with one company, I was asked whether I would prefer salary $X with N options, or a lower salary and many more options.
After having received what turned out to be worthless or near worthless options from a few startups before that I had learned enough to give the following response:
I know that you're looking for me to take the larger option package. Ultimately though, options are like lottery tickets. If they pay off, I'll come out well enough with the smaller package. It's not that I don't have faith in the company - if I didn't I wouldn't be talking with you. It's that salary history is a concrete metric that I can leverage if things don't work out and I have to move on. Option grants are nebulous.
He always advised to hold <10% of your portfolio in the company you work for but even better is to sell the moment they vest (you pay taxes regardless)
That 10% figure is recommended because you don't want to hitch both your income stream (job) and much of your portfolio to the same horse in case the company goes south. I consistently suggested being cautious to others and I was consistently ignored.
"sell the moment they vest (you pay taxes regardless)" sounds like he is thinking about nonqualified stock options (NSOs) that have been exercised without making an 83b election. (Perhaps a cashless exercise?) Those get taxed as they vest. Vesting date doesn't matter for taxation of incentive stock options (ISOs) or if you've made an 83b election (that's a purpose of the election). Regardless, unless you exercise, you don't pay taxes.
https://carta.com/learn/equity/stock-options/taxes/
https://dpalawyers.com/stock-options-the-major-differences-between-isos-and-nsos-the-83b-election/
At least that's what I vaguely recall. It's been several years since I had ISOs or made an 83b election on NQOs. (I was but a cog in various machines; options were handed out liberally. And they were lottery tickets that one typically wound up discarding.)

Most (or some years all) of my RMD consists of QCDs.
I don't try to time it. I make the contributions early in the year, figuring that the recipients would rather have the funds early and put them to good use.
I hold onto a small amount for later on to meet needs that come up (for the recipients).
David

@ Hank. It’s gotta be someplace. Seriously,,, what’s riskier in the next five years, tech or financials? I don’t have FOMO and won’t regret leaving money on the table.

I wish I could answer your question Larry. I’ve been spending too much time reading 1929 lately, which may explain an aversion to putting much risk on the table. I believe there will be better buying opportunities. But, it all depends on risk appetite and time horizon.
Here’s the problem with the two choices: Even if one or the other (tech / financial) is “safer” - that does not preclude that “safer” investment from underperforming for months or even years before the tide turns. Gail Dudack wanted nothing to do with tech for a couple years before the 2000 tech wreck. But tech continued to soar. Became so “out of sync” with the current climate that Rukeyser finally fired her (from her exalted position as a Wall Street Week “elf”). .

@ Hank. It’s gotta be someplace. Seriously,,, what’s riskier in the next five years, tech or financials? I don’t have FOMO and won’t regret leaving money on the table.

@FD1000 said,
BTW, the Original Medicare Medigap went from $145 to $206 in the last 3 years. That's over a 40%.
I believe @FD1000 is referring to Part B increases.

No.
Supplement Insurance (Medigap) Plan G policies.

@FD1000 Thank you for your partial response to my question. Could you please clarify which insurance company’s premium for Plan G increased from $145 to $206 over the past three years? Also, what age did you use to calculate these premiums?

The idea that I have answered — or will ever answer — your question is ludicrous.

@FD1000 If a Medigap Plan G jumps 40% in three years, the solution is to switch companies through underwriting if required. I know a few people who, by changing insurers each year, are paying less today than three years ago.
BTW, that double dash? Pure ChatGPT. You really needed AI for one sentence?”

Trump slams air traffic controllers who called out during the government shutdown
Following are excerpts from a current NPR report:

President Trump is slamming U.S. air traffic controllers who called out of work during the government shutdown, during which they were forced to stay on the job without pay.
Trump said in a post on Truth Social Monday morning that he was "NOT HAPPY" with controllers who took time off. "All Air Traffic Controllers must get back to work, NOW!!! Anyone who doesn't will be substantially 'docked,'" he wrote.
In a statement to NPR, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association said, "This nation's air traffic controllers have been working without pay for over 40 days. The vast majority of these highly trained and skilled professionals continue to perform one of the most stressful and demanding jobs in the world, despite not being compensated. Many are working six-day weeks and ten-hour days without any pay."
"These unsung heroes, who report for duty to safely guide this country's passengers and cargo to their destinations, deserve our praise. They have certainly earned it."
Meanwhile, Trump called controllers who took no time off during the longest shutdown in U.S. history "GREAT PATRIOTS" and said he would recommend giving them each a $10,000 bonus.
He said any controllers who wanted to quit shouldn't hesitate, but would receive "NO payment or severance of any kind!" and would be "quickly replaced by true Patriots." (In fact, one reason for the shortage is that it takes years to train and certify new controllers.)
Others offered sharp criticism of Trump's comments. "The President wouldn't last five minutes as an air traffic controller," former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in a post on X, "and after everything they've been through - and the way this administration has treated them from Day One - he has no business s****ing on them now."

Comment: Trump said in a post on Truth Social Monday morning that he was "NOT HAPPY" with controllers who took time off.
The report does not state if Trump made these comments from the golf course at Mar-a-Lago.

@FD1000 said,
BTW, the Original Medicare Medigap went from $145 to $206 in the last 3 years. That's over a 40%.
I believe @FD1000 is referring to Part B increases.

No.
Supplement Insurance (Medigap) Plan G policies.

@FD1000 Thank you for your partial response to my question. Could you please clarify which insurance company’s premium for Plan G increased from $145 to $206 over the past three years? Also, what age did you use to calculate these premiums?

The idea that I have answered — or will ever answer — your question is ludicrous.

Buffett is a shrewd and patient investor. Understatement maybe?
A very sensible and level-headed individual. I wonder if he could have translated his skills over into the political forum. We don't have many such people as leaders.
95 years old - god bless him.