@Old_Joe , you noted:

Absolutely- we've had this coverage for over fifty years. I wasn't aware of the need until a friend was sued over a comment that his wife had made publicly. I don't recall the details of that situation, but their insurance did cover the lawsuit claim.

I wasn't aware umbrella insurance could be had for what reads like 'slander'.
@MikeM
We have a $1 million umbrella policy, that applies to extra 'liability(s) that may come forth in a law suite, etc. I believe $1 mil is the common starting number. This policy is in effect for only home and auto extra coverage and is $386/year. I don't know how state and/or location in a state may affect this cost.

@MikeM asked- Question for the group, I just purchased an umbrella policy. Do others have this insurance? It isn't that expensive, and it keeps you from losing a bundle in a law suit, for example someone badly hurt on your property or in a car accident. Regular HO and car insurance cover to a point, but if God-forbid you are at fault and sued for more than that coverage, it could hit hard on your life savings.

Absolutely- we've had this coverage for over fifty years. I wasn't aware of the need until a friend was sued over a comment that his wife had made publicly. I don't recall the details of that situation, but their insurance did cover the lawsuit claim.

@MikeM,
I've had an umbrella policy for several years now.
My 401K and Roth IRA have excellent creditor protection¹.
For assets outside of these accounts, the umbrella policy offers protection
against large lawsuits which are highly unlikely but potentially very impactful.
This policy provides peace of mind and it's relatively inexpensive as you have mentioned.
¹ IRA / Roth IRA creditor protection varies by state.

They are. essentially, "cherry-picking" and spreading out their exposure to limit the potential losses to a level that can be supported by premium revenue.
Major insurance companies will not insure our house by the Russian River at Guerneville. I asked our neighbor, an attorney, who he was using, and they have also insured us now for a few years. I am really expecting that company to cancel one or both of us at some point, because if one house burns it is very likely that the other will also. If I was running the insurance company I would be very concerned about such exposure.
To repeat what I said above - When contiguous communities are at risk because of one single loss situation (especially weather or fire related) the present model simply doesn't work. And the fact that there have been no major fires for a long time in any particular area is really meaningless... that was the situation in almost every major fire in California in recent years.
My memory of the first such major incident of that type was the Oakland Hills firestorm of 1991. Ashes from that fire rained down on us out by the ocean in San Francisco. Prior to that, the Oakland Hills had never had a major fire either.

Following is a reproduction of the insurance-related posts from "The Week In Charts" thread.

Rbrt - April 18
From the blog:Transportation costs remain stubbornly high (+10.7% over last year), with skyrocketing auto insurance rates being a major contributing factor. The 22% increase over the last year is the biggest 1-year spike since 1976.
Insurance inflation is crazy. I need to pay attention more. Thanks.

BaluBalu - April 18
I thought 20+% auto insurance increase is absurd until I received my home insurance renewal notice with a 55% increase in premium. Never made any claims and live in an urban area. I called the insurance company to increase my deductible. For increasing the deductible by $2,500, premium decreases by $80. The insurance co.’s reasoning for increasing the premium by 55% is climate change and increase in material and labor costs. That is the same excuse they used the last two years for increasing it by more than 20% each year.
KIE, the insurance ETF has a TR of 32% over the last 3 years. Over the three year period, my home insurance premium more than doubled. How to better protect against increasing insurance premiums?

Derf - April 19
@BaluBalu ; Time to look elsewhere for insurance FWIW ! Do you have Erie in your neck of the woods ?

MikeM -April 19
@BaluBalu, I just moved my State Farm policies, 2 cars and my HO. I was with them for 10 years which really is a big mistake in the insurance game. Went to an independent broker a friend recommended who deals with several companies. Ended up saving ~$1000/year. Used some of that savings to buy a $1million umbrella policy which I've been meaning to buy for a while. Bottom line, staying faithful to an insurance company will cost you a lot of money.
Erie is a very good option. I got the best price with NYCM, which is only available in NY state I believe

Old_Joe -April 19
Thinking that there's somewhere to hide in the ongoing insurance disaster is very wishful thinking. Plain and simple: the major risk factors have increased to the point where the old models no longer work.
The basic concept of insurance is that any specific loss situation will be confined to relatively few claimants, covered by affordable premium income from the larger insured community, with room for profit left over.
When entire large contiguous communities are at risk because of one single loss situation (especially weather or fire related) that model simply doesn't work.
The reality is that the insurance model as we have known it is disappearing piece-by-piece, and no major financial or government entity has yet advanced a sustainable replacement model. California and Florida are your coal-mine canaries.

BaluBalu - April 19
Thanks for the replies. I hope I am not ruining this thread with comments not directly related to the OP.
There is a lot of BS practiced by insurance companies' leadership. Most of us understand what risk assumption and risk diversification means.
In my small town, I have not seen a single fire in the 14 years I have been here. We have two fire stations for a 4 sq miles town and I have not seen a fire truck on the roads in years. (I see them when I drive by the fire station.) But I pay in increased premiums for the fire hazards caused by PG&E (wild fires!) and others in places with big, old trees and overhanging power lines. My neighborhood has neither of those. Evidently, I have to pay higher premiums for fires and risks in Hollywood, Napa, and other places in the country. But when you look at auto insurance and health insurance premiums, they vary by zip code. Poorer zip codes pay higher premiums for both auto insurance and health insurance - I know this because I moved around. I will not be surprised if home insurance premiums are also higher in poorer neighborhoods because my extended family members who live in richer neighborhoods with 50% more house size pay only 10% more in home insurance premium. They live only 15 miles away from me so material and labor cost differences do not explain. We can always explain away anything or build a story around any outcome if we are not interested in progress. Whose progress? you ask!
We are at the mercy of politicians and lobbyists (business leaders).
None of the above helps in figuring out how to protect ourselves from increasing premiums during my life time. (We can hope for some slow (hardly) moving social reforms but that is for another day.)
I buy insurance through a broker and I asked them yesterday and they said (after checking) I am getting the best deal in the market place. I shall call a different broker.

Old_Joe - April 19
@BaluBalu- Be sure to keep us informed of your findings- maybe a new thread devoted to the insurance situation?

BaluBalu - April 19
Good idea. May be @Observant1 / thread moderator can move our recent posts from this thread to the new thread so this thread stays clean so it is easier for others to access old Week in Charts posts.

Observant1 - 11:37AM
I created the new "Rising Auto & Home Insurance Costs" thread in Other Investing.
Requested that posts for auto and home insurance in this thread be moved to the new thread.

OK, that should get us off and running on Insurance matters.

I checked it years ago and I could not prove it helped me and why I stopped following it, my link includes what have worked for me very well...but...I looked again and now I see that MOVE > 110 has a nice correlation to high volatility in bonds and in most cases typical high-rated bonds don't do well.
On 3-2-2020 it was at 125 = sell everything = correct. The week before it was already over 110.
End of 02/2022 it was over 130 = sell and continue to get higher with some lower volatility.
Also at the end of 2007, it was over 130 and higher in 2008.
OK, I was wrong.
(link)
Key Takeaways
The bond market tends to signal significant changes ahead of the equity market
MOVE is 'the VIX for Bonds, by having a history of solid signals regarding the sentiment of the bond market
MOVE can be used in conjunction with the VIX (explained below) to define general market risk and investor sentiment

M-mkt regulations are quite tough now. Look around, there are hardly any small m-mkt funds - they have been merged or liquidated. It was unheard of just few years ago for firms to offer m-mkt funds from other firms, but now, some even offer a menu of m-mkt funds from other firms (ML/BoA, E*Trade/MS, etc). Sure, Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard still offer their own m-mkt funds, but many firms don't have that choice.
And m-mkt reforms are ongoing, especially for gates for retail-prime m-mkt funds and other aspects for institutional-prime m-mkt funds (with floating NAVs).
I don't worry about government m-mkt funds with $1 NAV. Without the fear of gates, retail-prime m-mkt funds with $1 NAV will be fine too.
For liquid part of fixed-income, one can look broadly at a mix of m-mkt funds, T-Bills, short-term CDs, ultra ST bond funds. It isn't a good idea to rely entirely on any one of these, or to claim that one would never have x or y or z.
BTW, institutions are stuck with m-mkt funds and T-Bills (ask Warren Buffett) because what will do with limited FDIC insurance, now restricted to 5x per account per bank with all sort of tricks.

Thanks, yogi.
Another mention of still another exception: there is a separate and more generous IRS RMD Table which is to be used by spouses who inherit an IRA, when the surviving spouse is at least 10+ years younger than the deceased.
Table II (2) through this link: (LOTS of scrolling down in order to find it!)
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/ira-required-minimum-distribution-worksheet-spouse-10-years-younger

There was indeed confusion in early-2021 and there were revised versions of IRS Publication 590-B [

As you wrote in the cited link, "So, this new 590-B dated 3/25/21 makes things clear."
Hence the original two year transition waiver through the end of 2022.
If the rules have been clear since 3/25/21, then ISTM that by providing additional waivers for 2023 and then 2024, all the IRS is doing is rewarding people who didn't read rules that were clear for two years or more at the time they were required to take RMDs (2023 and later).

To be clear here (somewhat ironic choice of words), the IRS is rewarding failure to read the rules by waiving a rule for another year.

Some individuals who are owners of inherited IRAs ... [misunderstood] the new 10-year rule. ... Specifically, [they] expected that the [new] 10-year rule would operate like the [old] 5-year rule. [They though that] there would not be any RMD due for a calendar year until the last year of the 5- or 10-year period following the ... death of the eligible ... beneficiary. ...
[B]eneficiaries of individuals who died in 2020 explained that they did not take an RMD in 2021 and were unsure of whether they would be required to take an RMD in 2022. [They] asserted that ... the Treasury Department and the IRS should provide transition relief for failure to take distributions that are RMDs due in 2021 or 2022

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-24-35.pdf
Fair enough. To avoid penalizing beneficiaries due to initial confusion about the new rule, the IRS provided a two year period where penalties were waived.
Apparently two years weren't enough for some taxpayers. The IRS extended the waiver for 2023, and now again for 2024. As near as I can see, there was no additional rationale given beyond that used for the initial transition waiver.
Note that the same rules apply to inherited employer-sponsored plans (401(k)s, 403(b)s).

Great! If that's true and he times it in his always perfect ways maybe he'll be able to add another felony to his list.
"Under federal law, the crime of Securities Fraud is a Class C felony, punishable by up to twenty years in prison, three years of supervised release, and $5 million in fines."

DJT secondary filed for 146,108,680 shares of common stock and 4,061,251 Warrants (exercisable at $11.50; STRANGE, as options/warrants typically have exercise prices ABOVE the current prices).
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001849635/000114036124019745/ny20026576x1_s1.htm

That smells fishy to me ... I don't remember seeing this happen before, and you're right in how you described it. Frankly, it makes me think of the 'options backdating' scandal from 10-15 years ago, except this time it's games being played with strike prices, not issuance dates.

Another fund to put on your radar is ARCIX— the AQR Risk balanced commodities strategy fund. Up 1.24% today and 10% over the last month. It was also up 21% in 2022 and 17% annual returns over the past 5 years. Looks to be a good inflation hedge.

Started small DHAMX position - 10 years up, 2 down (but both small losses). Solid returns.
The Fund may employ hedges and other capital protective strategies when deemed appropriate and may try to enhance returns by writing (selling) out of the money call options on stocks held.

Per the Abraham Fortress website: FORTX
Equity
40-60% exposure in equities comprised of stocks of issuers of any market capitalization in the United States, and/or outside of the United States, and derivative instruments such as futures, options or swaps on equity securities or equity indices.
Fixed Income
10-30% in fixed income securities (generally with greater than 5 years of remaining maturity) issued by the US government, other sovereign bonds, and any investment grade bonds.
Diversifying Strategies
10-30% in a diversified portfolio of trading strategies/programs managed by one or more trading advisors including the Advisor (the "Diversifying Strategies") through investments in securities or derivatives (such as futures, swaps, or options) either directly or indirectly through the fund or its subsidiary. The fund through its subsidiary will also generally have a 0-15% long gold exposure through commodity linked derivatives and/or exchange-traded funds (ETFs).
FORTX seems to be a more conservative version of PRPFX, with lower returns and lower SD in it's ~ 6 year lifespan. REMIX has been a champ, besting both of them. Supposed benchmark is 50%-70% allocation funds, but FORTX can use derivatives and gold.
Really low Total Assets of $66M despite the 5 star rating (M*). 75 bps fees per year.

Has anyone had any CDs called in? When I first started buying CDs, I didn’t realize they could be called unless listed as uncallable. I soon realized my mistake and have only bought noncallable CDs or Treasuries since then.
However, I initially bought about six callable CDs in my ladders. Some of the shorter issues have matured, but I’ve still got 5 callable CDs with maturities ranging from a few months to 3-4 years. Only one of my CDs has been called in, and ironically it was a shorter maturity issue that I was able to replace at the same rate. I’m assuming the longer term CDs will be called in, but I’m satisfied with the 5% yields in the meantime. I’m surprised that none of these have been called yet because their yields are well above current rates.

QDSNX looks like an interesting fund. Rather than invest directly with this fund, I decided to put money into sort of a modified “best of” of this fund and made a combination of 3 of the underlying funds. Looking at the returns, the diversified arbitrage fund component seemed like dead money, so I wanted to eliminate that. I wanted to choose one fund between Macro opportunities fund, managed futures strategy HV fund, and style Premia alternatives fund (as these seem to be in a similar category of funds). I went with the premia alternatives fund, as plotting the returns of these funds on a chart, just going with the “eyeball” test, that fund looks the best (it also has the best alpha and sharpe ratio for the past 3 years among the 3), The market neutral fund is another component of QDSNX, but comparing it to the long-short fund by AQR (which is not in QDSNX), the long-short fund passes the eyeball test looking at the chart beteeen the 2. The long-short fund has better alpha and sharpe ratio over the last 3 years, and the standard deviation isn’t much different. The long-short fund looks close to a market neutral fund (the website describes it’s holdings as 237% of NAV long, 216% of NAV short). So I decided to go with 1/3rd multi-asset fund (another underlying fund of QDSNX), 1/3rd style premia alternative fund, and 1/3rd long-short fund. We’ll see if that combination beats out QDSNX.

GONIX has $100K min at Fidelity.
PRPFX the perm fund is behind for years + much higher volatility. See (https://schrts.co/ygVNgMYi)

We have been discussing alternative (several categories here) funds for over 10 years. They look great SOMETIMES when markets go down but then don't keep up with the market. I have looked at AQR years back too. Many of their funds are a black box, no way to know what their model would do. AQR managers have been doing this for many years. QDSNX invests in other AQR funds.
REMIX is a multi-asset and keeps changing funds.
Since you are looking at alt funds, I would look at others. I sorted by highest Sharp and used the following screen(link)
Then, I used SD < 10 + Sharpe > 1 and clicked on overview(link)
Then, I looked for the best combo for 1-3 years of performance + YTD=good performance + good 1 month performance.
The idea is to find good funds with good risk/reward for 1-3-12 months(for traders) + 1-3 years(less traders). I believe that these funds are more for traders and holding for years is too long.
GONIX=L/S This one has the best combo of Sharpe, SD, and performance
QDSNX=Multistrategy. Another good combo of Sharpe, SD, and performance
VMNIX=Equity Market Neutral
QQMNXEquity Market Neutral
YTD chart (https://schrts.co/XyAvVZZW)of QDSNX,GONIX,QQMNX,REMIX,VMNIX. Then I changed to one years.
I like GONIX+QDSNX/QDSIX, but prefer QDSIX right now. See 2 months chart, and especially the last 2 weeks (https://schrts.co/TvuGTWaT).
Fred, thank you for an interesting research.

An easy read. Thanks, @hank. Age 70 is coming for me in July. I can afford some more risk with a longer time-horizon---- given that I have a working spouse, much younger, and have heirs in mind, not just myself. Still, everyone should be prudent about taking either not enough risk, or too much.
I'll switch-out of some of my junk bonds sooner or later. They are still juicy and advantageous at the moment. But yes, they will require me to stay vigilant about their risks in different circumstances. I've just BEGUN a position in FALN: investment-grade bonds which have fallen into "junk" status. The safer side of the junk bond world.
My allocations are not far off from those offered in the article. I do not include savings in the credit unions; those accounts are always earmarked for some goal or expense we are saving for. And in just several months, the car will be paid-off: the new car we bought, after arriving here in the Aloha State. We got a good deal on that Nissan sedan, though there have been battery issues.
7 cash.
48 US stocks
5 foreign stocks.
38 bonds of all sorts, including the balanced funds we own. (Soon switching out of BRUFX and into WBALX to counter-balance some of the risk inherent in the single-stocks we now own. Oil/gas midstream and drilling is doing nicely; but financials and Real Estate? Not good at all, yet.)
3 "other."
Still reinvesting everything that comes, except with TS, because it's an ADR. I'm unable to reinvest profit from TS at Schwab. So, I'll reinvest the cash manually, myself. Every year in January, I take just a very thin slice from the T-IRA, which does not affect tax return. I deliberately keep that withdrawal amount limited, so that the portfolio can make up the difference through the coming year. Finally: I have been continuing to ADD monthly to the portfolio in tiny bites, too. I'll re-start that habit shortly with the new broker dealer (Schwab.)
RMDs are coming in a couple of years. I suppose the "good news" is that I'm already accustomed to taking those RMDs unofficially, already. Maybe not quite as big a chunk as the required RMDs will be...