I do not track it daily or even yearly, though I have owned it for more than 15 years.

@BaluBalu - “Not looking” is commendable. But you must take note of BRK’s price movement sometimes. How else could you have known it was down 3% yesterday? Here’s your post from a day ago:

down nearly 3% today.

The unknown outcomes from future management of money and operations does make me nervous but not much I can do about it. I do not track it daily or even yearly, though I have owned it for more than 15 years.

I have come across Gunjan in media over the years. I follow her on Twitter but I have not accessed my account forever. She is [has been] as balanced as they come from WSJ. I am surprised she is not already offered a TV job she could not refuse.
I do not see high correlation between intelligence and education or age. ( I have learned more life lessons from small kids and animals than from people who are older than I am.)
I thought the title of the article appropriately conveyed the necessary sarcasm.

Hi @hank et al
Other generations of adults have their own discoveries and life experiences; as well as their parents.
Within our neighborhood (mostly middle class) finds a range of problems, of which; some are results of a changing economy/and investing markets over the past 20 years.
We have parents who have helped some with buying a first home, we have several who still have a young adult child living with them; as there isn't enough money for the young adult child to afford an apartment and a few households where the siblings did move from the household, but had to combine their incomes with one another, and in some cases, a boy or girl friend in order to afford an apartment.
The age range is part of both of these groups:
--- Millennial's, ages 28 - 43
--- Gen Z, ages up to 27 years
I know some of these parents/children are aware of the impacts of the negative financials of markets/jobs and work related over the past 20 years, which apparently have affected the ability, from lack of sufficient money, to cause the 'above' that I wrote.
So, IMHO; there are other 'modern' age groups having perhaps a similar monetary experience as could have taken place with the grandparents and parents of 'baby-boomers'.
LASTLY, I do believe this is a common circumstance within many areas of the U.S.
Remain curious,
Catch

I know Gunjan very well. We've spoken on various market issues over the years. She is smart, educated, and articulate. Journalism has become more sensationalist and everyone needs to keep their jobs. In terms of market knowledge, she is as smart as they come.

+1 Thanks for sharing.
My jest was directed toward her relatively young age (compared to many of us here), the silliness of the title and what I consider to be an overly euphoric public attitude toward stocks - which the article accurately portrays. I also realize that it is the editor (not the author) who usually creates / assigns the title (mostly to grab eyeballs). The title may also have different variations depending on where it gets published..

I know Gunjan very well. We've spoken on various market issues over the years. She is smart, educated, and articulate. Journalism has become more sensationalist and everyone needs to keep their jobs. In terms of market knowledge, she is as smart as they come.

Any fresh thoughts re investing a few bucks here?
A number of companies package up variable rate demand notes into bank account-like accounts. Features may vary slightly (e.g. min required, check writing ability, min transaction amount) but the underlying investments are similar as are the way these accounts work.
Companies that offer these accounts seem to be rated BBB or A and are using these accounts as a relatively cheap way to get cash. Some BBBs: Duke, Dominion, GM, and Ford. Some As: Toyota, Mercedes-Benz (only accredited investors), and Caterpillar
A couple of webpages from 2021 on these types of investments:
MyMoneyBlog: https://www.mymoneyblog.com/big-list-of-car-demand-notes-non-fdic.html
Bogleheads thread: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=340088
And a 2021 WSJ article cited in the Bogleheads thread (subscription or library card required):
https://www.wsj.com/articles/car-maker-notes-attract-investors-seeking-short-term-yield-11605781801

Called "variable denomination floating rate demand notes," the securities are basically unsecured bonds, paid by the company's cash from operations. There is no public market and investors can typically withdraw their money at will. Rates can be changed at any time by the company, which can call the securities at its discretion.

What's the risk?
For my money (pun intended), I'd rather go with a Treasury MMF yielding around 5.1%; since it's state tax exempt that's not much different from 5.5% fully taxable and a whole lot safer.
https://olui2.fs.ml.com/Publish/Content/application/pdf/GWMOL/ICCRateSheet.pdf
If I had to go with a single issuer, I'd look at the A rated companies.
A nuclear accident that bankrupts the company?
Not likely.

[The] Price-Anderson [Act has since 1957 freed] nuclear plant operators and all firms involved in nuclear construction and maintenance of any liability for offsite accident damage. The only chance for additional compensation lies in the act’s declaration that if accident damages exceed the legal limit “Congress will thoroughly review the particular incident” and will “take whatever action is determined to be necessary” to provide full compensation to the public. In short, a Fukushima-level accident would toss the costs of compensation and cleanup unto the lap of Congress.

https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/the-us-government-insurance-scheme-for-nuclear-power-plant-accidents-no-longer-makes-sense/
This was recently extended (for another 40 years) and expanded with little publicity. It's a sizeable and relatively unknown industry subsidy.
What was publicized were billions of dollars allocated in the Inflation Reduction Act for maintaining existing nuclear plants and building new ones.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/inflation-reduction-act-keeps-momentum-building-nuclear-power

"No doubt, this great unwinding of stock market mania was discussed / analyzed to extent
in her high school business / social studies classes during these teen-age formative years."
LOL!
I'm not so sure about this Hank...

I track it daily, but don’t own it. I can’t remember it sustaining a -2.85% single day hit like today in the years I’ve tracked it - but am sure there have been some. It will be interesting to watch this one in coming days and see how it performs relative to the broader market. I don’t really understand it very well, which is the main reason I don’t own it. But have tremendous admiration for Buffett and BRK’s long term stellar performance.

Not sure why there is so much interest in this fund now. Its YTD performance is 48 percentile and it is a $62B fund with idiosyncratic sector allocation.

Maybe the price is lower than it might otherwise be?
I suppose it benefits from its history of past performance, which predates the current manager. It seem like the type of steady-eddy fund that made T. Rowe famous back in the day.
Then too, it has not been available for some years. I added a small position to my IRA in June of 2014 shortly before it "closed."
Add the surprise factor that its apparent availability was unexpected.
I have yet to check if the order went through.

Thanks @Observant1 for the “probing” article on Americans’ current love affair with stocks. In reading I became curious about the author. From the linked article: “The typical salary for a journalist in the United States is $49,887 per year”. Had no idea they were so underpaid.
Gunjan Banerji was born in 1992. For some perspective …. That year Louis Rukeyser’s Wall Street Week was completing its 22nd season on PBS. 5 years had passed since the global stock market “flash crash” of ‘87. She would have been 6 or 7 when the tech sector sizzled and 8 when the bubble burst in 2000. (Maybe some nervous playground banter?) She would have been 16 in 2008 during the depths of “the great financial crisis” (and subsequent 50%+ drop in the S&P). No doubt, this great unwinding of stock market mania was discussed / analyzed to extent in her high school business / social studies classes during these teen-age formative years.

Hi, guys.
Mostly, given the Morningstar research and my own preferences, I was shooting for two parameters: (1) maximum simplicity hence 50/50 and (2) a multi-asset manager who might make some adjustments to moderate risk as things evolved. Too, I've spoken to a bunch of managers who are corrosively skeptical about the weaknesses of a debt-weighted passive index. Absent those constraints, Vanguard Balanced Index would be the logical choice.
Really, anything we can do to get anxious young investors to take the first, tentative step, would be wonderful. Colleges are hiring faculty later in life (our "youngsters" are starting 5-7 years later than I did) and they're not starting to save until their mid-30s. I spend a lot of time cheerleading for "take the first small step".
David

Time to bring out Devo's replicating portfolio exercise.
A 50/50 portfolio of LCORX and RPHYX generate a beta of .26 over ten years. So the clone is 26% SPY and 74% the 3 month T-Bill. Here is the result: Dinky linky.
The second portfolio recommends a 50/50 split of FPACX and ICMUX. The clone works out to 46% SPY and 54% 3 month t-bills. Here is the result of that run: YADL.
What advice would you give any indolent youths known to you?
Edit to add: PV does not seem to be accounting for fixed annuals contributions of 6500$. Suggestions and solutions are welcomed

Agree with you 100% @larryB. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I experienced five years of hard work earnings go poof in the market within a few weeks...
Like I stated earlier, easy to say in hindsight just stay invested etc...but the market doesn't care what you need to support your retirement and most crapped themselves when the markets drew down by 30% plus... They say it always comes back like that's a law of gravity or something...just like housing always goes up ..hmmm

This old retired guy looked at Carlson's chart for the number of years it took to consistently made 4% ( one recommended withdrawal rate ) or more on average over the preceding period.
In other words how long after a major loss would it take to get back to over 4% return on average to equal your withdrawals
Out of the 31 years listed in 9 years you would have to wait over 5 years to get back to over 4% average return
In 2000 you had to wait 14 years before your ave returned to over 4%
One wonders if the recommended "three to five years of expenses in cash" is sufficient.
The SP500 didn't permanently recover to it's 2000 peak until 2012

Hi David, And yes, for the young one's to start investing. Many can't or won't for a variety of reasons; but for those who can help promote such a situation, do your best to poke and prod. The results can be very gratifying on a personal level. The investments can be very simple for the task.
Thank you for your write; and everyone else for the contributions this month.
From my write of August 22: A Conservative portfolio design, thread.
A real world example of a very lazy portfolio using two index funds.
Criteria:
--- Utah 529 education account, open for 18 years
--- inception, May 2006
--- self directed with self choice(s) of investment sectors
--- 13 years of contributions (1st and 15th of each month) = $ cost averaging
--- 5 years to date; no additional contributions
--- the 50/50 equity/bond portfolio is reset to 50/50 each September, per the Utah 529 contract
The institutional funds (for 529 accounts) are VITPX (U.S. Total stock market) and VBMPX (U.S. Total IG bond market). All distributions reinvested in the fund(s).
The annualized returns data are from Vanguard, M* and the 529 account.
--- annualized 15 year combined return = 8.125%
--- YTD return = 10.47%
Remain curious,
Catch

If you followed FD's guidance, you regularly purchased and sold funds
at very opportune times and never experienced losses greater than 3%!
What's not to like?
Easy, peasy... ;-)
When US LC are not doing well (2000 - 2009), it's an easy way to lose money for years!
However, FD does not believe in diversification (regardless of the empirical data)
and would like everyone to know he wouldn't be caught dead in an underperforming fund
for any appreciable length of time.

First, you take things out of context. If you want to present what I do, please be accurate. The 3% loss is only for bond funds + a tedious trading + selling to MM in high risk markets.
Second, my older system when I was an accumulator:
About every 4 months, I screened wide-range funds and selected the best risk/adjusted performing funds based on 1-3 months + also looking good for 1-3 years. This exercise limits funds that lag for months-years. The main idea is to be mostly in the right 1-2 categories.
You can see an example for indexes (I used managed funds because I believed in star managers) (here).

The Bloomberg Aggregate Bond Market Index, which BND tracks, dates back to 1976.
Let's put this in perspective.
Prior to 2022, the index experienced only four calendar year losses:
1994 - (-2.9%)
2013 - (-2.0%)
2021 - (-1.5%)
1999 - (-0.8%)
The Bloomberg Aggregate Bond Market Index's 13% loss in 2022 was, by far, its largest loss ever.
The performance that year was highly irregular.

It was irregular. The following are not the "norm" either...losing twice 40-50% during 2000-2009 or BND making only 1.7% annually for 10 years or QQQ making over 1600% since 04/2009.
LT stats do not tell us about the markets ahead of us. If you join/avoid 1-2 of these, it can improve someone's portfolio by a lot.
BTW, these are not weekly/monthly trades, some of them are years in the making.

If you followed FD's guidance, you regularly purchased and sold funds
at very opportune times and never experienced losses greater than 3%!
What's not to like?
Easy, peasy... ;-)
When US LC are not doing well (2000 - 2009), it's an easy way to lose money for years!
However, FD does not believe in diversification (regardless of the empirical data)
and would like everyone to know he wouldn't be caught dead in an underperforming fund
for any appreciable length of time.

I do my best to steer clear of The Crowded Trade. It's fun, too, to uncover a good stock that's not getting much or any attention. No more penny stocks for me, though. Diversify, but do not di-worse-ify. Growing cash at the moment. Bullish, but valuations are very high. My plan is to let my stuff ride. When there's a pullback, I'll buy.

For years now the top high tech drove the US stock market to new highs and much more than international, SC, and value. You could used SPY,VOO or QQQ was better. These companies are globally well known.
If you missed them, you made less money.
If you bought others, you made less money.
If you were out waiting for an opportunity, you made less money.
If you thought they are overvalued, you made less money.
If you stayed clear of the crowd, you made less money.
When US LC are doing well, it's the easiest way to make money and it lasts for years. 1995-2000 + 2009-2024 is more than 20 years