Nikkei 225 finally is at a new all-time high after 34 years. This is nominal, not inflation-adjusted.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/22/japans-nikkei-hits-all-time-high-on-reforms-robust-corporate-earnings.html
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/^N225

“I don't know what the language of the year 2000 will look like, but I know it will be called Fortran.” —Tony Hoare, winner of the 1980 Turing Award, in 1982.
Scientific computing’s future: Can any coding language top a 1950s behemoth?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/05/scientific-computings-future-can-any-coding-language-top-a-1950s-behemoth/
That's from just 10 years ago. You don't have to be old to be familiar with Fortran. You just have to be in the right field of work.

This is what sticks in the back of my mind, but I try my best to ignore it: "The S&P 500 PE Ratio is in the upper 15% of valuations for the past 80 years."

Very nice piece. One might add HSAs to the mix. They're sort of like Roths, in that growth is tax-free so long as you have accumulated medical expenses over the years (since the HSA was started) that exceed the amount withdrawn from the HSA.
Because of this qualification, they also resemble traditional IRAs. You don't want a T-IRA to grow too large because then RMDs can kick you into a higher bracket. You don't want HSAs to grow too fast, because if they outrun your medical expenses, some of the money you take out becomes taxable. For this reason, I allocate slower growing assets (e.g. bonds) to my HSA.
Regarding IRMAA, I don't see where the $5832 at $194,001 income level (joint) comes from in Table #2. A petty issue is that $194K is the 2023 threshold; for 2024 the threshold is $206K.
This minor point aside (and using 2023 figures for consistency), the monthly Part B IRMAA per person started at $65.90. That's $790.80/person per year. Throw in the starting level Part D IRMAA of $12.20/mo, and that brings the total annual IRMAA per person up to $943.20. Assuming both spouses are participating in Medicare, double the amount to $1886.40.
Cap gains - in 2016, cap gains didn't kick in until one hit the 25% tax bracket. The 2017 TCJA decoupled cap gains brackets from ordinary income tax brackets. Sunsetting reverses this - the 15% cap gains bracket will once again start at the 25% ordinary income tax bracket. Sunset minus cap gains should always be positive.
All of the numeric adjustments are noise. They don't change the points made. It's a formidable task to compress so many moving parts and levers into something clear and digestible. Bravo!
I haven't taken a close look at the funds yet, though I did notice a dearth of Fidelity MM to short term funds (bucket #1). It's hard to beat Vanguard on MMFs, but you might consider FCNVX as a peer to VUSFX.

Thank you very much, Lyn. I read it with interest. Of particular note:
"...There is a psychological advantage for me to minimize sequence of return and longevity risks..."
Ergo, I withdraw only about 3% of the portfolio per year. That much can be easily made up through the year, and perhaps exceeded, by the performance of my holdings. In addition, I've been ADDING a small amount to the portfolio, month by month. At least it gives me a sense of progress. And those small monthly additions likewise serve to virtually cancel-out the money I remove from the portfolio, when combined with the current total that's already in there.
I have heirs in mind, primarily. Another item: I stumbled lately into an IRS Table designed to show withdrawal requirements for a spouse-inherited T-IRA, when the spouse is much younger than the deceased. Specifically, 10 years or more, younger. THAT one applies in my case. But it never gets mentioned anywhere. I'm lucky I bumped into it.
I THINK this link applies. I thought I had the wonderful item I intended to show you (and everyone) linked, but the fabulous Schwab link "defaulted" to a generic page. Anyhow, here's a different "explainer." SOME of us need to pay attention to this:
"...If the sole beneficiary of an IRA is the IRA owner's spouse who is more than 10 years younger than them, the required minimum distribution for 2023 can be calculated by dividing the account balance at the end of 2022 by the distribution period from Table III in Appendix B. If the spousal beneficiary chooses to assume the IRA, they must begin taking RMDs by the later of December 31 of the year after the owner's death or April 1 of the year after the spouse reaches RMD age. The spousal beneficiary should not enroll in the RMD Service until the year they intend to begin taking RMDs. A worksheet is available to calculate the required minimum distribution for a non-inherited traditional IRA if the spouse is more than 10 years younger than the owner."
....I must say, that junk is as clear and straightforward as a photo of a baboon in a closet at midnight. It seems to change horses in midstream. Beneficiary? But non-inherited? "Take over" the IRA? How about THIS: I die. My wife gets the money in the T-IRA. She deals with the labyrinthine, crazy, arcane rules. How about THAT?

Greetings to all on this board. Have been away for several years as a result of family issues. But glad to "be back".
Have a question re determination of mutual fund ["MF"] NAVs. (Assume 100% stock portfolio.)
I believe that I read (somewhere, this board? - unsure - ) that MFs determine their daily NAV by using (more or less):
1. * Prior * day's holdings; and
2. * Current * day's close-of-business stock prices;
And determine the aggregate value for Current day close by multiplying Prior day holdings x Current-day's-close prices to determine [*] aggregate holdings.
Or to put it another way, for #1, above, the MF does NOT use Current day's holdings. They use Prior, instead (for operational reasons.)
Does anyone have direct experience or knowledge to confirm what is actually done for MF? Thank you. - Vegomatic
[*] And possibly some adjustments to account for change in total assets, maybe, between Prior day and Current day.

@Crash- just curious- at your branch do you really need an appointment to do ordinary stuff, or just to reserve a time slot with the manager or an account specialist?
Thanks- OJ

Surely for more lengthy conversations, an appt. is called for, like my very first visit in there. There is a further, follow-up item: I must get a TRP statement printed, but I own no printer. So he just asked what time I'd like to come in, and I'll simply login at TRP while I'm sitting there with my guy at Schwab, and he can take a screen grab or print the pertinent info. He's telling me that in about 5 years, this can all be done more seamlessly, online. But not yet. And we did need my wife's signatures on the joint brokerage account and also her IRA, to get it under the Schwab umbrella, anyhow.

@msf, series 6,7 or 112 doesn't matter that much. The facts at least for me over the years is that all the Fidelity reps who contacted me tried cookie-cutter ideas and pushed their agenda which would cost me money. Schwab never did, and my rep is willing to put the extra effort my way, still for free.
TT and the rest are peanuts...I saved hundreds and sometimes thousands.
1) Every time I buy I share funds, Schwab waives the fee which is $50 (49.95). I usually deal with I share funds. I have 5 accounts. At least 4 trades per year per account = 20 * $50 = $1000.
At fidelity, the next day I must buy the remaining 10% and that doubles the amount to $2000.
2) Every time I sell a fund, I buy the next fund on the same day, it takes me less than one minute at Schwab and I buy at 99.5% of the selling proceeds. At Fidelity, I have to call a rep, half refuse to do it. It takes 15-20 minutes with annoying reps and they finally do it. But wait, I can only buy 90% of the sell proceeds. Fidelity reps lie saying it's a SEC rule.
So, I sell at least one million, at Fidelity they will buy only $900K. Most times the switch is pretty good and I make just an extra 0.1-0.2%.
0.1% on $100K is just $100. Suppose it happened only 5 times = $500
3) This is the biggest difference. Schwab has more funds I like and most times months earlier. I invested a lot in a fund that made just 1% more than my other bond funds, it's available at Schwab but not Fidelity. Do you know how much is 1% more? in my case close to $20K. My specialty is to find small AUM newer bond funds with very smooth uptrends.
4) Over the years, every time I transferred cash from a 401K to Fidelity and asked for one time to waive the $50 fee to buy an I share fund either it was denied or I had to spend 15-20 minutes and argue with a supervisor and I'm like "I just transferred $250K and you can't waive the $50, really?" Schwab always made an effort to work with me.
5) I started using TaxHawk for at least 10 years. It has many options. Fed is always free. State is $15. If I want to save the $15 I can just copy from the software and mail it to my state. I don't care about $15. Maybe one day GA will have a free online e-file service.
Other than that, Fidelity is great, the only problem, I know about Schwab.
BTW, years ago after Charles Schwab, the LT founder and CEO, stepped down, Schwab lost its heritage after several years and fees crept up. I changed back to Fidelity. Charles came back, and mojo came back, I switched too. I keep accounts at both. I have no bone in this fight, I go where I can save/make more money for my investing trading style.

@msf Wish I knew what the magic formula at Fido is for determining if you qualify for free TurboTax - we got it a number of years ago but not since even though our assets invested there have increased substantially.

Once upon a time, Wellstarde had access to many I share funds that were not available at Fidelity and Schwab + zero fees, but it wasn't a guarantee to be executed.
It was fun for a while for several of us until most/all left their terrible customer service and unreliable system.
It was great to get in for FREE and hold lower ER funds forever and then transfer them.
I left VG pretty early, within 1-2 years, and transferred everything to Fidelity. Everything was great, I found Schwab by mistake. My employer allowed us to use Schwab as part of our 401K. I found a great competitor.

Yep. 11.5% in the 80s The first house we bought ($35,000) however we assumed an FHA mortgage. The house was not our first choice, on a busy street etc, but we didnt want to hock our souls and then some to the Bank
Sold it two years later for $55,000. Only house we made much on. In CT we sold our house for 30% more than we paid for it, after 30 years. ugh

The mortgage on our first house was 10.5% in 1986. Our second house had a mortgage about 8%, but we refinanced to a 15-year loan at 6% a couple years later. We eventually paid it off at that rate.

Good useful summary, although the example of worse case losses being 2% a year seems a bit optimistic. Averaged over 10 years it comes closer.
He doesn't mention the importance of the source of the withdrawals, ie taking money from bonds when stock market down etc.
Delaying the inflation adjustment also saves the suggested portfolio in several other examples ie "The All Weather Retirement Portfolio" by Randy Thurman.
One of the most complex discussions of allocations and withdrawal rates I have read is "Living Off Your Money" by Michael McClung. It has dozens of allocations and methods of withdrawal, almost too many. But they are all back tested with 40 to 50 years of data

I have been in the decumulation phase for five years now. It’s not just a phase . The risk of loss of capital seems a bigger deal as the clock runs down. As someone who is not investing for future generations preserving capital must be balanced carefully against the risks that come with growing it. Just my 2 cents.

@jptak, good to know that you have been at MFO for MANY years. As there are many comments/complaints here related to M* or Morningstar, I often wondered if anyone from M* was here looking or monitoring.
BTW, we have also communicated at X/Twitter (@syouth1, @YBB_Finance).

Of all the people I've talked to at Schwab in the past 27 years, every one has been very pleasant and super polite. Unless you're getting very technical with something where they might connect you to a broker, they are knowledgeable and know their way around the website.
My only other experience with brokers was with Vanguard, 10 or so years ago, I was not impressed.

For the record. A few years back I did two direct rollovers. One 401 k going to Schwab & one to Vanguard. Oops one came as a check to me. Checked the amount of the check against 401-k account. No with holdings. I didn't sign the check , but wrote on the back for the benefit of >>>> into IRA account XXX. Sent it on it's way . So far so good !

FMILX - one manager, 1.3 yrs tenure, $100-500K invested
From M*: "The strategy underwent an entire portfolio management team change about a year ago".
Not quite your classic LCV fund!
The portfolio was LCV through 2021 and LC Blend in 2022. It's just the recent strategy change that overhauled the portfolio. M* generally uses a three year lookback in classifying funds, to ensure that a fund's classification isn't whipsawed because of momentary changes in portfolio style. Arguably M* should make an exception when there's a complete change of strategy and management.

Fund categories are much more stable, designed to avoid such noise by putting each fund into a peer group that best represents what its portfolio has looked like over the long term and is likely to look like in the future.
...
There are no hard-and-fast rules, but generally if a fund's style box has consistently differed from its category for three years or more, we'll consider moving it to a new category that's more in sync with its portfolio.

https://www.morningstar.com/articles/306244/why-is-my-funds-style-box-different-from-its-category
Who remembers what this fund was originally supposed to be? It was started in 1992 as a fund focused on new trends and a promise to close before it became another hulking Fidelity fund.
From the 1996 prospectus:

The fund's management style focuses on identifying future beneficiaries of social and economic change. FMR examines social attitudes, legislative actions, economic plans, product innovation, demographics, and other factors to learn what underlying trends are shaping the marketplace. Based on its interpretation of these trends, FMR tries to identify the industries and companies that will benefit, and then analyzes the fundamental values of each potential investment. ... The fund's strategy can lead to investments in small and medium sized companies, which carry more risk than larger ones. Generally, these companies, especially small sized ones, rely on limited product lines and markets, financial resources, or other factors. This may make them more susceptible to setbacks or downturns.

That hardly describes a fund holding the largest companies in the country.
And it did close as promised, while it was still small. I don't know of any other fund that Fidelity closed like that. "Effective the close of business on May 15, 1996, the fund was closed to new accounts."

I opened an account in the early 2010s, for access to TGBAX when it was still a solid fund. It filled a small hole in my portfolio (foreign bonds). Firstrade was the only game in town where one could access the cheaper Advisor class shares with a small min. Firstrade charged $9.95/trade back then.
Like much of the rest of the investing world, I abandoned TGBAX a few years later. No reason at the time to keep an empty account with Firstrade. Though I did like being able to walk into their office.
Firstrade didn't go transaction fee free until 2018, after I'd left.
https://www.firstrade.com/press/pr180824

I'm probably not going to be very useful but if you're looking to invest in the commodity there is this from Investopedia Top Natural Gas ETFs for 2023
Aside from that I have held an investment in EPD for about 10 years now. EPD is one of the largest Midstream Oil and Gas companies in North America.
Good luck with your research.