Another standing hed, for 28 years (brk.b)

Perhaps you're thinking of The Road Not Taken, for that has made all the difference.

Excellent. Frost might have been lamenting a choice of investments in his earlier years. :) :)

There is CHNTX, Chestnut Street Exchange Fund, which is also closed to investors. I have been both of the funds for years.

”Pardon the obvious suggestion here: try asking Fidelity.” :)
Well, I enjoyed @msf’s attempt to make sense of Fido’s wording & updates. Was seriously considering buying the Fidelity bond fund Yogi referenced in a different thread. My concern wasn’t a desire to trade in & out but a recognition I maintain almost 0 cash reserve, So, in the event an emergency expense occurred (my car dies or something like that) I might need to withdraw some of those funds in stages earlier than anticipated. That’s one of the nicer features of ETFs and CEFs.
Another obvious question: ”Why don’t you keep more in cash?” - Don’t know. Just isn’t the way I’ve done it over the years. May I suggest reading Robert Frost’s poem “Mending Wall” for further insights into this kind of thinking?

Wikipedia explains it really well and provides some similar analogies. I’ve used ”the pot calling the kettle black “ countless times over the years. Because an overly critical listener might unjustly allege racial overtones, I’ve pretty much avoided it in recent years. Suspect it has fallen into disuse in recent years on that account.
From the linked article:
”The pot calling the kettle black" is a proverbial idiom that may be of Spanish origin, of which English versions began to appear in the first half of the 17th century. It means a situation in which somebody accuses someone else of a fault which the accuser shares, and therefore is an example of psychological projection or hypocrisy.
The earliest appearance of the idiom is in Thomas Shelton's 1620 translation of the Spanish novel Don Quixote. The protagonist is growing increasingly restive under the criticisms of his servant Sancho Panza, one of which is that "You are like what is said that the frying-pan said to the kettle, 'Avant, black-browes'."

The idea is to be in good categories, because markets proved they can be one sided for many years. I never understood why investors are overdiversified.
MFO is an amazing place to find great risk/reward managed funds, but I hardly see discussions about it.
How can anyone miss PIMIX great performance from 2009 to the end of 2017? or PRWCX for 2-3 decades? or SPY since 2010?
In the last 3 years compare ICMUX, BND, DODIX(good bond funds). The chart (https://schrts.co/cQPAWsgM) shows total returns: ICMUX=16.8%...DODIX=0.1%...BND=(-5.2).
See ratings at MFO (https://www.member.mfopremium.com/riskprofile)

BND(US total bond index) the most recommended bond fund made only 1.6% annually in the last 10 years.

I’ve done a lot of looking recently at bond funds (investment grade). It’s shocking how poorly they have performed over the past 10 years. I ran comparisons at Fido using CVSIX and LQDH against many bond funds (and also compared results to many bond CEFs). Both are low-volatility arbitrage strategies often viewed as cash substitutes. Interestingly, both have stomped short-term bond funds and ultra-shorts over 10 years as well as just about every other investment grade bond fund. They’ve even managed to outshine Price’s Spectrum Income Fund (RPSIX) which typically allocates 10%+ to equities. I don’t mess with high yield - so don’t know. But as FD says, investment grade bond fund returns have stunk for the past decade.
To be fair, 2022 was disastrous for bonds / bond funds and does tend to distort their recent performance numbers. Disclosure: I own CVSIX. Have considered owning LQDH.
@bee - Thanks for the computation & especially for the reminder about inflation. Too many folks I know personally regret not factoring in that second item in their retirement planning. More important than ever due to the miracles of modern medicine and lengthened life-spans.

@low_tech

Who cares about the 4% "rule" when most bond funds are paying that and more, maybe much more? Just take the bond interest instead of eroding the asset base by selling anything.

Let's test the above. BND(US total bond index) the most recommended bond fund made only 1.6% annually in the last 10 years.
SPY made "only" 12+%.
Using PV with 4% withdrawal for 10 years shows that starting with one million ended at $779K(rounding) while SPY ended at 2.23 million.
Another proof that total return is always the most important aspect of investing. Many investors, especially retirees, also care about risk-adjusted performance.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=2yCWNHHnyii8C3LxrBfKrb

Who cares about the 4% "rule" when most bond funds are paying that and more, maybe much more? Just take the bond interest instead of eroding the asset base by selling anything.

brilliant, really.
****************

Isn't it obvious? I don't get the obsession and wasted "ink" over "buckets", or sticking to some percentage which will be different for everyone, etc.
My obsession for years was to get a big enough asset base to provide income for retirement (I only have SS, no pensions).
I was trying to avoid (and did) having an asset base that I would have to sell off for retirement income, and hoping it would last til I croak. But if you need 4% to cover expenses, then back to my original point of just taking bond interest and leaving the base alone.

"I would also add that my preference would be for equity funds that are managed by a group of advisors, such as at American Funds. (But I'm not at all pushing American Funds in any way.) Over the years here at MFO I've seen way too much anguish about funds led by some sort of wizard, who either loses his magic wand, quits to go somewhere else, retires, or dies."
I've been burned by funds due to various "star manager" issues over the years.
When selecting actively-managed funds, I now choose funds which have multiple portfolio managers.

@hank said- "I would advise younger investors who are dollar averaging in, saving for retirement and still in their 20s and 30s to go 100% equities... I’d probably split it into 3 different equity funds for safety if had to do it over."
And I strongly agree with all of that. I would also add that my preference would be for equity funds that are managed by a group of advisors, such as at American Funds. (But I'm not at all pushing American Funds in any way.) Over the years here at MFO I've seen way too much anguish about funds led by some sort of wizard, who either loses his magic wand, quits to go somewhere else, retires, or dies.

Cash cushions, or emergency funds, are different from investments in those getting-started years.
It's hard to think about retirement when you're hoarding soda bottles for their deposit value.
Ahhh, the good old days in San Francisco when a Bohemian life-style was still possible.
I did end up taking penalties on what little I had in IRA's to help come up with a down payment on a house in Marin. Might be the smartest thing I've ever done with money besides paying cash for used cars.

MikeM said- "I personally won't be taking 5% because I don't need to, but the thought of taking 3% sure sounds safer."
And of course the key words there are "because I don't need to". So it's evident that there really is no percentage "rule" that fits everyone. Everyone's portfolio is different and everyone's needs are different. We, for example, have been retired over 20 years, are in our 80's, and have yet to need to take any percent from our portfolio/savings. In fact that has grown significantly since retirement.
Neither of us came from wealth- I retired as a radio tech and my wife as a teacher. We both were super fortunate to have pensions and SS retirement income. But we began planning for retirement in 1970, and were very careful about expenditures. Being blessed (so far) with good health is a really major factor also.
To reiterate: everyone's needs are different. There is no one percentage that fits all.

In general, models like these are helpful to me, but I rarely do exactly what they recommend
It is difficult I have found to accurately predict what your spending will be in retirement. I ran multiple [plans over the years but the reality in retirement has proven most of them were too high, especially when you look at just the necessities, ie food utilities rent and insurance
One of the reasons we have adequate savings in retirement is we were rather frugal when we were working. We splured only on the kid's education which paid of. Small house, cheap cars camping vacations mean we don't have to worry about running out of money.
M only regret about my early financial decisions is not having our retirement accounts 100 % inequities when I was in my 30s and 40s. But I wanted to sleep at night!

Let's examine some of these assertions.
"Bogle, and Burton Malkiel's Book, Random Walk proved decades ago that if you buy and hold the SP500 you would likely beat most investors and mutual funds for decades to come."
Adding a low-cost S&P 500 fund to your portfolio can be part of an effective investment strategy.
But what if an investor doesn't have the risk capacity or risk tolerance to be 100% invested in equities?
If someone heavily invested in the S&P 500 needed to make withdrawals
from 2008 - 2011 how would this have impacted portfolio longevity?
"Many writers are very educated but it has nothing to do with market performance So, they discuss mostly economics or tell you what happened already; they repackage the same articles they published before with changes to fit whatever."
This is no different than what some posters do on investment sites.
They regurgitate essentially the same information (with minor intermediate changes) ad nauseam.
"We also know that most predictions are useless.
After decades of listening and reading thousands of articles and interviews, I came to a conclusion based on facts that the economy, inverted yield, PE, PE10, valuation and many more can't predict what markets would do next 1-4-16 weeks or even months and years."
Many predictions turn out to be inaccurate.
However, longer-term "predictions" may be useful in setting expectations which can be valuable for planning.
Unfortunately, there are no simple metrics that can reliably and consistently predict future market performance.
"I have been reading this type of articles for years, and they follow the above. I just do it because investing is my passion. None made me real money."
Reading numerous articles which are deemed not worthwhile seems like an awful waste of time.

Here is something that big retailers are doing to their suppliers. Walmart has been doing this for years in order to lower their prices, and consolidating the retailers, killing off the mom and pop retailers, for example.
https://reuters.com/article/world/wal-mart-puts-the-squeeze-on-suppliers-to-share-its-pain-as-earnings-sag-idUSKCN0SD0CY/#:~:text=(Reuters)%20%2D%20Suppliers%20of%20everything,from%20the%20retailer%20last%20week.
A more recent article.
https://retailwire.com/discussion/will-walmart-throw-high-price-suppliers-off-the-shelf/
Question is this anti-competitive practices good for the consumers?
The proposed merger of Kroger and Albertsons is facing the same question.

The biggest problems with investment articles:
1) Bogle, and Burton Malkiel's Book, Random Walk proved decades ago that if you buy and hold the SP500 you would likely beat most investors and mutual funds for decades to come. There is not much to discuss after that, but many still do.
2) Many writers are very educated but it has nothing to do with market performance So, they discuss mostly economics or tell you what happened already; they repackage the same articles they published before with changes to fit whatever.
If economics was the best way to make money, Profs would be the richest people on earth.
3) We also know that most predictions are useless.
After decades of listening and reading thousands of articles and interviews, I came to a conclusion based on facts that the economy, inverted yield, PE, PE10, valuation and many more can't predict what markets would do next 1-4-16 weeks or even months and years.
4) Some "experts" are smart and use history for their predictions. Example: Prof Siegel basically has 2 long term opinions a) Stocks will make money next year; b) Stocks will make more than bonds...I say duh. Since 1980, the SP500 has been positive about 80%.
He missed every down year. To see other experts, read (link).
5) I have been reading this type of articles for years, and they follow the above. I just do it because investing is my passion. None made me real money. I got a lot more great ideas from handfuls of posters on several sites, including this one.
6) This is why I created my own site. This (link) has several learning articles.

"Investors have been conditioned for decades to believe they can withdraw only 4% a year
through a theoretical 30-year retirement, adjusted for inflation."
"But several studies and retirement experts now view 4% as too conservative and inflexible.
J.P. Morgan, in a recent report, recommended about 5%.
David Blanchett, who has a doctorate in personal financial planning and has studied retirement withdrawal rates for years, says 5% 'is a much better starting place, given today’s economic reality and people’s flexibility.'”
"The inventor of the 4% rule agrees.
Retired financial planner Bill Bengen tells Barron’s he is revising his benchmark in an upcoming book,
and that a rate 'very close to 5%' may be warranted."
This article (link below) places too much emphasis on bucket strategies.
While a formal bucket strategy can be beneficial for certain investors, it is not essential.
The "4% rule" is not an ironclad rule - it's only a decent starting point for retirement withdrawal rates.
1) What are your thoughts regarding retirement withdrawal rates of ~5% for the general population?
2) Which withdrawal strategy do you utilize and why:
a) fixed real withdrawal amount (FRWA); b) FRWA which skips inflation adjustment after annual portfolio loss;
c) RMD method using IRS Life Expectancy Tables; d) "guardrails" plan developed by Guyton and Klinger;
e) other strategy.
Portfolio Withdrawal Strategies

If such a process works consistently, it would be of interest. It may be just another gimmick.
The Deletions ETF (NIXT) is essentially a bet on long-term reversion to the mean. Index deletions are typically followed by sell-offs. Arnott hopes to find value in unusually depressed stock prices.
“.... historical evidence that they win by 5% a year for the next five years, at least.”