I feel like I'm both but probably not either in strictly financial terms. It all depends on ones perspective I suppose.

I’m always thinking, “There but for the grace of God go I ... ”
No matter how well-off you feel, there’s a plethora of things that can jump up and bite you - “Riches to Rags” call it. For some perspective on how well we have it, take a walk down the sidewalks of virtually city and witness those less fortunate camped out under the store fronts and overpasses.

FYI: (This Is A Follow-Up Article.)
The latest tally shows more than $3 billion in client assets pulled from Fisher Investments since the Oct. 8 comments were initially criticized in a video posted on Twitter.
Most of those departing assets are represented by public pension plans and high-profile companies like Goldman Sachs that are showing their own PR prudence by distancing themselves from Fisher.
But Fisher Investments, as the nation's second-largest RIA behind Financial Engines Advisors, has over the past few years undertaken an aggressive retail branding campaign and could also be vulnerable on the consumer side.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNQfxbvLiQf4TfPJXK_NCyTHTdBEtw:1572078987192&source=hp&ei=iwW0Xf2UCcjmsAXbk404&q=Is+it+time+for+Ken+Fisher+to+step+down?&oq=Is+it+time+for+Ken+Fisher+to+step+down?&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i299.4920.4920..6175...0.0..0.93.93.1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.D0GWZyMH8wA&ved=0ahUKEwi9htrMwrnlAhVIM6wKHdtJAwcQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

I feel like I'm both but probably not either in strictly financial terms. It all depends on ones perspective I suppose.

[Special relativity twin paradox]

Because the twin traveling is moving close to the speed of light when they return, the time it took them to travel millions of miles may have only been a few days, while the lapse of time for the twin on Earth may have been multiple years. Time was relative to the rate at which the twin was traveling.

Just another example of a financial writer lifting something out of context, not comprehending it, and then misapplying it.
The whole point of special relativity is that there are no absolute positions or motions, everything is relative. (Only the speed of light is absolute.) You cannot say that one twin is traveling away from the earth and that the other twin is "standing still". Such a suggestion reeks of Ptolemy. From each twin's perspective, it is the other twin who is moving.
If neither twin altered course (so that, relatively speaking, both continued traveling in straight lines), then each would see the other aging more slowly and each would be correct. It is when one twin reverses direction that the twin moves from one frame of reference to another and that time appears to "jump".
Here's what's happening:
https://properphysics.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/a-no-nonsense-introduction-to-special-theory-of-relativity-part-4/

"Contrary to popular belief, the financial-services industry will not regulate itself."
You make the little joke, yes? There is really a "popular belief" that any commercial entity is capable of self regulation? On what planet might that be?

Why would the industry do better for the disabled who are easier marks when it routinely tries to scam the able-bodied? This is what government regulation exists for. Contrary to popular belief, the financial-services industry will not regulate itself.

FYI: Why the financial-services industry needs to do better for the financially vulnerable among us.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/950594/not-ok

FYI: If one were to participate in one of my company’s meeting, they would most likely hear a conversation surrounding Charlie Munger’s concept of mental models. Munger believes one should study and understand the fundamentals of multiple core subjects, such as math and physics. Fundamentally understanding those subjects develops new mental models to solve an array of problems. Let’s take Munger’s mental-model concept and applying it to financial planning, and how there should be a theory of relatively for wealth.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2019/10/23/are-you-rich-or-wealthy

FYI —-“Many people turn to books for help, so we decided to go back and review three of the most popular finance books of the last 15 years: Suze Orman’s “The Nine Steps to Financial Freedom” (Currency, $16.99); Dave Ramsey’s “The Total Money Makeover” (Nelson Books, $26.99); and Robert T. Kiyosaki’s “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” (Plata Publishing, $8.99).”
https://www.consumer-action.org/press/articles/reconsidering-advice-in-3-popular-personal-finance-books
NYT article - I wasn’t willing to click on a NYT article and use one of my 5 or 10 for the month.

Sigh. All people born before 1955 (i.e. those who turn 65 before 2020) will be able to sign up for Plan F in any year, even if they're not current enrollees.
The article says that the only difference between Plans F and G is that in the latter, "People must pay Medicare’s deductible before insurance coverage kicks in each year." There's also another difference. In 2019, only Plan F offered a high deductible option. Going forward, only Plan G will have that option.
It says that Plan G will become more expensive as "the pool of people coming into the plan will start becoming less healthy than those who previously enrolled when financial advisors pointed them toward a bargain." Is it really suggesting that financial advisors have been committing malpractice by steering sick people away from the better bargain (Plan G)? The article said that Plan G was the better deal (independent of health) because the all in cost (premiums plus part B deductible) was less than Part F's.
What will happen is not so much that Plan G premiums will rise, but that Plan F premiums will. That's for two reasons. One is that its pool of people will get older (thus more costly to cover). This year, anyone age 65 or above (i.e. virtually all potential enrollees) can buy Plan F. Next year, you'll have to be 66 or better to buy Plan F. Then 67, 68, and eventually all the potential participants will die out.
Which leads to the second reason. The pool will grow smaller. The idea of insurance is that while you never know who will need care, you know with near certainty what the average cost will be. But as the pool shrinks, that certainty fades. Insurers have to prepare for an increasingly likely black swan event. That means rising premiums for Plan F.
Medical underwriting: If you live in a state like New York or Massachusetts, you can buy any Medigap policy at any time, no questions asked. Or if you live in a state like California, once a year you have the option of "downgrading" your policy. So you could easily switch from Plan F to Plan G some time in the future once Plan F's premiums starting rising quickly. It pays to know what the rules are for your personal situation.
https://www.medicareresources.org/states/

Re: “ Stocks Waver On China Data”
Does somebody get paid to cook up these silly headlines every day? Yesterday it was BREXIT. The day before that it might have been the lunar cycle. I don’t know. Of course, only a third grader would believe that a single factor “moves” the markets each day, or for that matter, that there’s been any significant movement at all for a long time.
Truth is the markets have been incredibly stable for a long time now - save perhaps for some nations like China that are hurting from the tariffs. So pretty much nothing happened of consequence in the financial markets today ... or yesterday ... or the day before that. Trying to pretend something important happened borders on insanity.
My headline: “Markets have gone nowhere for most of the year.”
- U.S. stock indexes are near where they sat more than a year ago, mid-way thru 2018. For the most part, they’ve retrenched / recovered from the nasty selloff of late 2018.
- Gold was hot for the first 5-6 months of the year, tacking on $100-$200 and getting up above $1500. But it has in recent weeks slumped back below the $1500 level.
- Oil has stagnated (fitting I guess for a product derived from dead dinosaurs). Brent and NYMEX have been hugging the line just below $60 for several months now - far below their all time highs of several years earlier.
- Interest rates fell sharply for a month or so to absurdly low levels. They’ve retrenched those sharp declines in recent weeks but remain abnormally low.
- Jerome Powell is breathing easier nowadays as the scapegoating of him seems to have abated. DT’s attention and wrath have been diverted away from Chairman Powell’s backside to some - uhmm - other pressing issues.

Surely you're not suggesting that 3M does most of its mining and manufacturing in Minnesota, or that US Bank does most of its lending to midwest businesses. I might grant you midwesterners consume a lot of processed meats (Hormel). But enough of this Spam :-)
Mairs and Power says that it invests in (local) companies it knows about. That's an argument for investing in global funds where the managers live abroad (close to the companies they invest in), not for investing in companies that do business close to home.
Counter example to regional investing: FKCGX, formerly Franklin California Growth Fund. One would think that California would be a broad enough market that a fund could easily limit its investments to that state. (Franklin is based in San Mateo, Calif nearly midway between San Francisco and Silicon Valley, and a stone's throw from Oracle.)
But it first dropped its 80% California requirement to 50%:

It has been a policy of the Franklin California Growth Fund, under normal market conditions, to invest at least 80% of its net assets in equity securities of California companies. Effective September 1, 2002, Franklin California Growth Fund will change its name to "Franklin Flex Cap Growth Fund" and will eliminate the 80% investment policy. ... [replacement strategy] The Fund normally invests a majority of its assets in California companies

Apparently that wasn't "flex"ible enough.

Effective October 1, 2004, the section "Goal and Strategies" ... is replaced with the following: ...
Under normal market conditions, the Fund invests primarily in equity securities of companies that the manager believes have the potential for capital appreciation. The Fund has the flexibility to invest in companies located, headquartered, or operating inside and outside the United States, across the entire market capitalization spectrum from small, emerging growth companies to well-established, large-cap companies.

The successor fund was merged into FGRAX in August 2016.

1999 NYTImes feature on FKCGX. Like Mairs and Power, emphasizing knowledge of companies near where the managers are:

Call it the home-team advantage.
"We're able to keep close tabs on our investments," said Conrad B. Herrmann, lead manager of the $1.58 billion Franklin California Growth fund, which focuses on California companies. "We read local newspapers in California and socialize and interact with people who might be employed in the companies in our universe."

'It's exactly like getting in a girl's pants', said financial guru Ken Fisher of client relationship-building ...
etc.

confused. please tell me fund that has lowest risk. I thought MBS had much higher risk than another SD fund with same characteristics. Or is my judgement being clouded by the financial crisis?
I am looking for some punch over my MM funds with minimum risk. I am not too happy with RPHYX and RSIVX.

There is no relationship between money and power and ethics and morality. Put more simply: Poor people can be alpha-dog jerks similar to Fisher or incredibly sensitive, considerate, ethical, generous and open-minded individuals. Likewise, the very rich can exemplify these fine qualities - or conversely can be antithetical to everything most of us stand for.
We can all point to examples of rich and powerful individuals on both sides of the “decency spectrum” - likely because many attain celebrity status - while the loud jerk who lives down the block, chases kids out of his yard, curses / insults your family members behind their back or runs you off the road while in a hurry to get nowhere doesn’t normally make it onto the pages of Forbes. Wouldn’t sell many copies or elicit the same number of clicks.
I really thought the earlier Forbes exposé was yet another poor post by @Ted - and avoided commenting at the time. However, I recognized that many good contributors found it worth their time. It’s the sensationalized story of a powerful and wealthy financial figure who has gone “rogue” and openly / flagrantly violated our standards of decency and personal conduct. Worthy of condemnation, but hardly the type of financial question MFO is dedicated to pursuing. Yes - people of this deplorable nature exist. They can be found in most professions including sports, entertainment, politics, and business. But why waste time and energy excoriating them in this forum devoted to helping average investors make sound financial decisions?
If there’s any lesson here, I think it provides one more good reason to avoid the “strong man” cult of individual leadership and stick with long-standing highly respected organizations in investing. This means going with a sound long-proven firm like VG, D&C or TRP. I’d venture to guess that jerks of the Fisher variety have from time to time made it into their ranks, but that their tenure was short-lived once they showed their true stripes.

The thing is, there are so many advisers in the world and there are even algorithms that now do this kind of work for a pittance. There is no reason anyone has to give their money to someone who thinks we're still living in the 1950s or in this case the 19th century. America wasn't "great" for more than half the population back then. The irony is fellow financial advisers go to these sorts of conferences for business advice to help attract clients etc. How stupid do you have to be to publicly act this way while promoting yourself as an adviser guru who is good at attracting new business? It's 2019.

FYI: Billionaire money manager Ken Fisher has come under fire for crass comments he was said to have made Tuesday as part of an exclusive fireside chat in front of financial services executives at The Ritz-Carlton, San Francisco.
In a video that amassed nearly 70,000 views within 16 hours of being shared to Twitter on Tuesday night, financial advisor Alex Chalekian called Fisher's comments, which were made on the second day of an invite-only summit hosted by Tiburon Security Advisors, "absolutely horrifying.”
According to Chalekian in the video, Fisher inappropriately referenced genitalia, Jeffrey Epstein and "tripping on acid." Wealth manager Rachel Robasciotti attended the event and told Bloomberg that Fisher, a former longtime Forbes columnist, compared building client trust to "trying to get into a girl's pants."
Regards,
Ted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanponciano/2019/10/09/billionaire-ken-fisher-blasted-online-after-offensive-comments-at-closed-door-fireside-chat/#2184133619ea

FYI:(Slide mouse to 37:20 minutes for Bernie Horn interview.)
Bernie Horn, portfolio manager at Polaris Global Value, says that while the U.S. stocks have sharply outperformed international stocks since the financial crisis of 2008, the situation has now gotten to where foreign valuations are increasingly attractive, and he noted that if you can find the right valuations in businesses that are able to grow cash-flow over time, the stock should ultimately pay off no matter where in the world it is based. Also on the show, Tom Lydon of ETFTrends.com makes an actively managed municipal bond fund his ETF of the Week, Pat Rowan of TIAA discusses Americans' confidence in retirement, and Craig Curlop of biggerpockets.com talks about his new book on 'house-hacking,' a strategy where you buy multi-unit properties, live in one unit and rent the others, uing the rent to pay your mortgage and effectively letting you live without having to make a monthly housing payment of your own.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/moneylife-with-chuck-jaffe
M* Snapshot PGVFX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/pgvfx/quote

was curious what you would advocate or were advocating, was saying 'do go on'
am always curious, when you are brief
(I myself support way higher wealth taxes, loophole closures, and also DoD and select subsidy cuts, just for starters)
yes, correct about interest being part of debt
also it is good that shiller is timeless, so influential is he; wonder why he specifically history-qualified his explanation as he did
and from thehill.com just now, quite as you say:
The difference between federal spending and revenue has only ever exceeded $1 trillion four times, in the period immediately following the global financial crisis.

The article has solutions(see below) which I don't think are good ones:
1) When a fund lags, you can't predict it will do well in the next 5-10, it can be an underperformer for years to come.
2) Financial adviser? I can write 3 pages of why not
3) What I have done for years is to invest in only 7-8 funds max (in the last several years 4-5) by looking at 1-3-12-36 months good risk/reward and then select the best ones with 1-3 momentum. That lead to holding some funds for months and some for weeks and the exceptions, like PIMIX, for years. Each of my funds must do well if not, it will be replaced. I call it my NBA team, I'm going to the playoff each year but winning the title isn't guaranteed. I have my core players and supporting player but even the biggest stars are not immune from sitting out.
============================
From the article below
What can we do?
1) Have a predetermined investment process with a disciplined approach to buying, assessing and selling investments. To discourage myopic focus on a particular investment, build a portfolio of diverse strategies that perform in different ways and in different market conditions.
2) Be willing to accept periods of underperformance. During tough times, take your eyes off performance with a qualitative assessment. Understand a manager’s investment strategy and process: How do they make investments? Are they staying true to their strategy? Are market conditions impacting their strategy?
3) Work with a financial advisor who can help to maintain discipline, patience and a long-term focus.