@johnN
You need to view msf's (above) link for a clear data picture related to your pronouncements. Also, what does your comment have to do with Mr. Obama? Whomever was president at the time was figure head only. The actions/power lay elsewhere at the time, for financial markets stability.
So, you may choose a self test before reviewing the link(s) as to when was Mr. Obama elected and inaugurated; relative to the 2008 market melt. You then will be well prepared to discuss this area of recent financial history with co-workers, friends and family; who may not be well informed.
The below CNN time line is fairly well done for a brief overview of the market melt of 2008.

A snippet time line, by date; of the market melt beginning Sept. 2008. Click "next" to move to the next date page.

FYI: U.S. stock index futures were mixed on Thursday morning as investors gear up for a busy day of earnings.
Around 5 a.m. ET, Dow futures pointed to a gain of 26 points at the open, while the S&P 500 was seen fractionally higher and the Nasdaq looked set to slide.
European stocks followed Asian indexes higher ahead of the European Central Bank meeting later today, where hints of fresh stimulus to boost the eurozone economy are widely expected.
The Stoxx Europe 600 was up by 0.4%, led by gains in the health care and food and beverage sectors. Asian stocks were broadly up, with South Korea’s Kospi the exception with a decline of 0.4%.
The yield on 10-year German bunds was at minus 0.436%, near its all-time low after weaker-than-expected European manufacturing data.
In the U.S., the yield on 10-year Treasurys fell to 2.030%, from 2.052% Wednesday. Yields fall when bond prices rise. The WSJ Dollar Index, which measures the currency against a basket of peers, was flat.
On the earnings front, financial firms Lazard , Invesco and KKR will report Thursday, as will tech giants Alphabet Inc. and Amazon.com Inc.
A series of better-than-expected earnings reports have recently supported markets. Facebook Inc. on Wednesday brushed off a record-setting privacy fine to post strong earnings and revenue growth. Shares gained 0.9% in after-hours trading.
U.S. durable goods data for June are due later Thursday, which will give an indication of the health of American manufacturing.
In commodities, the global oil benchmark Brent crude was up by 0.5% to $63.47 a barrel, as European powers struggled to cooperate on a plan to secure the Persian Gulf. Gold edged up 0.2%.
Regards,
Ted
WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/global-stocks-rise-ahead-of-ecb-policy-decision-11564041309
Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-24/asian-stocks-set-for-muted-open-treasuries-gain-markets-wrap
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/dow-jones-futures-facebook-stock-volatile-tesla-stock-servicenow-xilinx-ford-fall/
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/25/us-stock-futures-tech-regulation-nasdaq.html
Reuters:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy/u-s-housing-manufacturing-sectors-mired-in-weakness-idUKKCN1UJ1UZ
U.K.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-stocks/astrazeneca-guides-ftse-100-higher-buyout-powers-cobham-idUKKCN1UK0RO
Europe:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-stocks/lvmh-inbev-lift-european-shares-to-one-year-highs-ahead-of-ecb-meeting-idUSKCN1UK0SO
Asia:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/asian-markets-little-changed-as-investors-await-central-bank-decisions-2019-07-24/print
Bonds:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/25/treasury-yields-fall-key-central-bank-meetings.html
Currencies:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/25/forex-markets-euro-european-central-bank-in-focus.html
Oil:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/25/oil-markets-global-demand-in-focus.html
Gold:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/25/gold-markets-dollar-ecb-in-focus.html
Cuirrent Futures:
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

"Headlines frequently state the program is going bankrupt. It isn’t. Today’s level of benefits may not be sustainable, given current funding sources, but Social Security payroll taxes are sufficient to maintain the bulk of benefits currently paid. "
Emphasis added. To be clear, "bankruptcy" is a legal state - when someone seeks protection from creditors in court, or creditors sue to force a debtor into the state of bankruptcy. The financial term is "insolvent".
A debtor is insolvent if it is unable to fully pay its creditors as bills become due. That is precisely what is projected to happen to Social Security in 203x. It is projected to be able to meet about 3/4 of its obligations going forward.
I respectfully suggest that anyone using the term "bankruptcy" is by the choice of words appealing to people's vague understandings and fears. Social Security is not going "broke" (whatever that might mean), but neither will it be able to pay all of what it owes.
Neither stoking fears, nor poo-pooing them, is particularly productive. Social Security does need to be fixed, the sooner the better. In the worst case, "Social Security" will not be "there". But something paying 3/4 of its obligations, and still called Social Security, will be.

FYI: Money gets a bad rap. In the current environment, amid levels of inequality not seen since the 1920s, too many people find it too easy to disparage wealth and the quest for material goods. There is no doubt that lifestyle creep and the hedonic treadmill are not the paths to true happiness. But what we see today is a backlash caused, in part, by the hangover from the 2007-09 financial crisis.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-22/money-doesn-t-deserve-the-bad-rap-it-s-getting

FYI: Warren Buffett isn’t close to beating the market this year, and a giant pension fund has cut its investment in Berkshire Hathaway , the investment juggernaut that Buffett helms.
Class B shares of Berkshire Hathaway stock (ticker: BRKb ) have only managed a 0.9% gain so far in 2019 through Friday’s close, in sharp contrast to the S&P 500’s 18.7% rise.
We’ve noted that Buffett suffered “a reputational and financial black eye” earlier this year as Berkshire took a $1 billion paper loss when Kraft Heinz stock (KHZ)—one of its larger investments—tumbled. Years ago, Buffett backed the combination of H.J. Heinz and Kraft Foods Group that created the company.
Oregon’s Public Employees’ Retirement Fund slashed two-fifths of its Berkshire stock investment by selling 141,822 Class B shares in the second quarter. OPERF, as the pension is known, made the disclosure in a form it filed this week with the Securities and Exchange Commission. OPERF, which recently was counted as the 42nd largest public pension in the world by assets, now owns 222,763 Class B Berkshire shares.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/berkshire-hathaway-stock-is-lagging-and-a-giant-pension-just-slashed-its-stake-51563707754

FYI: Actively managed funds have had outflows for the past four years straight, while index funds have gained
A decade after some of the nation’s largest U.S. banks helped to bring the financial system to its knees, a new kind of “too big to fail” risk may be emerging in a very different corner of the market: index funds.
Three index fund managers currently dominate ownership of shares of publicly traded companies in the U.S., and their control is likely to tighten in coming years, according to a June research report.
Concentrated ownership — what the authors refer to as the “Giant Three scenario” — means investors and policy makers need to keep a careful eye on the role of fund managers in upholding corporate governance, argue authors Lucian Bebchuk of Harvard Law School and Scott Hirst of Boston University in a working paper titled The Specter of the Giant Three.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/three-fund-managers-may-one-day-control-nearly-half-of-all-company-voting-shares-researchers-warn-2019-07-17/print

Updated: N-14 filing:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1040612/000104061219000072/broadviewmadisonformn-14pe.htm
Incidentally, investors with Broadview Opportunity Fund, once converted can:
Comparison of Purchase and Redemption Procedures. The Acquired Fund has a minimum initial investment of $1,000 for all accounts and subsequent investments may be made with a minimum investment amount of $100 ($50 if purchases through the Automatic Investment Plan). The Class Y shares of the Acquiring Fund have a minimum initial investment of $25,000 for shares purchased directly from the Acquiring Fund. Class Y shares are also available for purchase by the following investors at a reduced minimum initial investment amount of $1,000 for non-retirement accounts and $500 for retirement accounts:
•Dealers and financial intermediates that have entered into arrangements with the Acquiring Fund’s distributor to accept orders on behalf of their clients.
•The fund-of-funds and managed account programs managed by Madison.
•Investment advisory clients of Madison and its affiliates.
•Members of the Board of Trustees of Madison Funds and any other board of trustees affiliated with Madison.
•Individuals and their immediate family members who are employees, directors or officers of the adviser, any subadviser, or any service provider of Madison Funds.
•Any investor, including their immediate family members, who owned Class Y shares of any Madison Mosaic Fund as of April 19, 2013.
•Any investor, including their immediate family members, who owned shares of the Acquired Fund as of the Effective Date.
The minimum subsequent investment for the Class Y shares of the Acquiring Fund is $50 for all purchases.

From a slightly different perspective: You can’t determine how much to set aside until you figure out where you’re heading after retiring. I agree in playing with different simulators as an educational experience. I sure did in the last 2 or 3 years before jumping ship and retiring, and also for 2 or 3 years after retiring as things were still falling into place. I did a lot of experiments with compound interest calculators and with the numerous suggested allocation models that existed online back than. Most fund companies had one of their own or had access to one. American Century’s proved especially helpful to me. Surprisingly, back than suggested allocations for those in or near retirement differed quite markedly from model to model. So in the end, a lot was left to the individual to work out. One suggestion for those facing retirement in the near future is to “look under the hood” at some of the “funds of funds” (like at T. Rowe) and observe how their managers allocate various assets for different life scenarios (generally expressed in a range of options from conservative investor to aggressive investor).
The simulators mentioned by both the article and @MJG and others all sound very useful in this regard. After you’ve been retired for several years you should have a good handle on how you’re faring, so I think simulators become somewhat unimportant. Rule #1 - Don’t quit a good paying and relatively secure job to transition into retirement unless you’ve run some simulations and are confident you have “all your ducks lined up”. Generally it’s better to err on the side of working longer and spending less in retirement than the other way around.
There’s much you cannot simulate ahead of time: Will you still be healthily enough or feel like working part time during retirement? What will taxes be? Will you or your spouse encounter unexpected health expenses? What will the inflation rate be? What type of returns will bonds and equities be yielding during retirement? What will your equity stake in your home be worth? How high will interest rates be if planning to use some of your home equity? What standard of living will you be comfortable with? And the “granddaddy” of all - How long will you live? Still, the unknowns persist. Few could have foreseen the financial collapse of ‘07-‘09 and the long term consequences for financial markets and investors. And how many models work with both the Traditional IRA and the Roth IRA (as well as a combination of both) during retirement to anticipate your outcomes? There’s a big difference between the two in how your standard of living eventually evolves.
I think a lot of simulators are “bottom up” in approach. They look at what your needs will be and than attempt to arrive at an investment strategy during retirement. I tend to focus more on a “top down” approach. With that approach one pays close attention to shaping an all-weather portfolio and financial plan that has a good chance of keeping pace with or outrunning inflation. That means that if inflation is running at only 1-2% during certain retirement years, you’ll be earning less on your investments. However, should it run at 7, 8 or even 10% your investments will by and large keep pace and protect you as much as possible. Caveat: Don’t trust the greatly understated government inflation numbers. It’s your inflation (as actually experienced) that counts. Not theirs.
@MJG - you were once known for rather verbose submissions. I assure you I’ve greatly outdistanced anything you ever achieved in that regard with this rambling (possibly nonsensical) one. :)

I wish something like a “10% Rule” was common knowledge when I started working in the 1970s. Nobody talked about saving for retirement then, and the stock market was considered a risky gamble. You could earn 12% interest from a money market account and my friends were more concerned about buying a car or house before prices went up again.
I didn’t start saving for retirement until my mid-30s when my employer started a 401k Plan. I contributed the amount that my employer would match, probably about 3% of my salary. I invested it all in cash and bonds because— again— stocks seemed like gambling. My employer provided no guidance or education about investment options, diversification, etc. Fortunately bonds did well during that period and even money markets paid 5-6%.
I finally got educated about investing when I left that job and rolled over my 401k and pension to an IRA. I was about 40 by then and immersed myself in financial literature. I invested the bulk of my savings in a diversified collection of stock funds, with a few bonds for safety, and never looked back. I increased my savings to about 10% of my salary including the employer match, and it all turned out OK in the end. For the last 20 years of my career, my employer had a pension but I kept contributing to a 401k, so my savings were closer to 15-20% of my salary— through my own ignorance because I didn’t realize that the pension was equivalent to saving about 10%.
Bottom line, for young workers or older ones who aren’t saving yet for retirement, the 10% Rule is a pretty good guideline for getting someone started in investing.

The article isn't too bad, as far as facts and figures. Perhaps it will cause a few readers who stumble across such a write to be more involved with their financial future.
So, before folks run to a "SIMULATOR" to determine the yet unknown they first must have a "STIMULATOR". Without a stimulator to help with motivation to save, there will be no need for the simulators.
So, let us count the ways. I've been pushing folks for 40 years to invest some of their wages; including the current campaign of setting up minor ROTH IRAs.
The "stimulator" has been in place with simple facts and figures.
The results have always been disappointing.
Boomers always seemed to want other stuff for "today's wants". Their children were not much different. In both of these groups, at least most were married and dual income households. But, the remaining free monies for investments (401k, 403b, simple IRA and then Roth IRA) were few.
The overwhelming response was the "markets" were too complex and they were not willing to use small pieces of their time to learn.
More recently, being since the market melt; finds remaining damage to household finances and problems finding jobs that pay a decent wage. This current period also contains those who do not trust market investments.
So, there are those households who have the monetary ability to invest; but still do not take any actions.
Ten percent of base pay seems are reasonable and easy path with which to begin; but I still don't see enough takers among educated and well paid 50 year old folk today.
Pretty sad and frustrating to and for me.
Good evening,
Catch

The other link to this story seems to have been deleted now. Myself, Ol Skeet, msf (and perhaps others) had commented on it. As I mentioned on that thread, interest rates have pretty much been trending downward since the early 80s when Fed chair Paul Volker jacked up short term rates to stop runaway inflation. The 10 year treasury topped out north of 15% around than. As we know, declining rates increase the value of longer dated bonds, while rising rates work against bond values. So we’ve had nearly 40 years of favorable rate trends for bond investors (more than half the lifetimes of many of us).
Paul Volker didn’t do this alone. There was the financial crisis and global market meltdown of ‘07-‘09 which compelled central banks to push rates lower by assorted means. Inflation has been subdued thanks to retail giants like Amazon, less powerful labor unions and relatively cheap energy - due to fracking and other advances. Low inflation generally translates into lower interest rates (and improving bond values). Additionally, upward pressure on rates from the baby boomers buying first homes in the 70s and 80s has abated - helping drive rates lower as well. All good if you invest in longer dated high grade bonds.
The lower-quality bond market (ie: junk) has been helped by a record 10+ year U.S. economic expansion and bull stock market which finds itself 3 or 4 times higher than it was only a decade ago. Since lower rated bonds react (favorably or unfavorably) to overall economic conditions (and secondly to long term rates) junk and corporates have tended to follow the stock market higher.
The article is correct that the past 6 months have been “spectacular” for just about any type of bond / bond fund. Missing in the headline, but critical to the article, is that many prognosticators predicted rising interest rates for this year - while in fact rates have trended lower with the 10 year getting below 1.95% recently before closing above 2% at week’s end. I have no major criticisms of the article. However, unless you butter your bread on both sides by trading in and out of bonds - particularly the lower rated ones (as @Junkster does very well) - you probably shouldn’t be too focused on your 6 month bond return. Anything other than cash and ultra-short IMHO is best suited for terms longer than a year or two.
I’m glad Ol Skeet liked the article and kicked it over to the discussions + part of the board.

FYI: “Eventually, I’ll stop working.” Most of us think that and know it will happen, but millions of us worry whether we’re saving enough to live on once we do. We want to know: How much of my earnings should I set aside? What’s the magic number? 3%? 5%? 10%? More?
What your financial adviser won’t tell you:
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-new-math-of-saving-for-retirement-2019-05-22/print

Thanks @David_Snowball for letting us know.
As I recall, Slick joined not long following the death of her husband, more accustomed to making the big financial decisions than she. She was a quick enthusiastic learner. Always most gracious in thanking each and every one who helped in the early going. And, as the years went on, she contributed greatly to the informed civil discussion that characterizes this board. Will be sorely missed.

Dear friends,
With heavy heart, I'm passing along word of the passing of Deb Walters a/k/a Slick. She'd had a long fight against cancer, with good stretches and bad. Her executor, Bill Armstrong, reports that "she went peacefully and she was reasonably comfortable."
Deb has been a constant champion of MFO, even as the events in her life made her less visible here. She was the first person to become an ongoing subscriber to MFO with a generous monthly contribution, she conceived of using year-end challenge grants to motivate support, she herself pledged two of those challenges, and she was working hard to help me find a path toward financial sustainability for MFO. Quite beyond that, she was calm and sharp, both cheerful and a cheerleader on particularly gray days.
While comfort in her passing is hard to find, just now, I'll close with the words of the poet Jane Kenyon.
Let the light of late afternoon
shine through chinks in the barn, moving
up the bales as the sun moves down.
Let the cricket take up chafing
as a woman takes up her needles
and her yarn. Let evening come.
Let dew collect on the hoe abandoned
in long grass. Let the stars appear
and the moon disclose her silver horn.
Let the fox go back to its sandy den.
Let the wind die down. Let the shed
go black inside. Let evening come.
To the bottle in the ditch, to the scoop
in the oats, to air in the lung
let evening come.
Let it come, as it will, and don’t
be afraid. God does not leave us
comfortless, so let evening come.

https://www.financial-planning.com/news/closed-end-funds-from-all-angles
Given the wide range of complex financial options, clients need all the help they can get. That means financial advisors may need to brush up on some asset classes that aren’t currently in the spotlight.

If you continually monitor the M*, Lipper*, etc. charts and keep shifting money away from the poorer performing funds into the better performing ones in each “category” (as a good many do), than I’d say you are a “closet momentum player” - though probably unaware of it.

I wouldn't call that momentum investing @hank. Jumping to the hotter fund is just a good way to reduce your returns over time. Momentum investing is, as I understand it, monitoring and playing trends in a disciplined manner, having a plan to enter and a plan to leave.
Oh, and Hussman is far from a momentum investor. He uses a bunch of stock value and economic data to predict the financial markets are doomed. Polar opposite of letting the trend be your friend.

Good stuff from @MikeM. :)
But allow me to attempt to explain. The fund manager who boosts returns by buying hot stocks (let’s assume “systematically”) is the real momentum player. He / she knows full well what they’re doing. The individual investor who moves money to that fund because it’s been “outperforming” its peers is the unwitting victim of the momentum strategy - thus, a “closet momentum player”. Hussman is a hard one to explain - more like a loose cannonball on the deck of a rolling ship during rough seas I’d say. (No telling where it will go or what damage may result.) However, if folks flock to HSTRX six months from now because they see a “bond fund” that’s been whipping other bond funds by 5 or 6%, they will have bought the momentum kool aid, and likely won’t realize it.
Just MHO. But you make good points. (Folks should be aware that both Mike and I invested with Hussman once upon a time and long ago)

If you continually monitor the M*, Lipper*, etc. charts and keep shifting money away from the poorer performing funds into the better performing ones in each “category” (as a good many do), than I’d say you are a “closet momentum player” - though probably unaware of it.

I wouldn't call that momentum investing @hank. Jumping to the hotter fund is just a good way to reduce your returns over time. Momentum investing is, as I understand it, monitoring and playing trends in a disciplined manner, having a plan to enter and a plan to leave.
Oh, and Hussman is far from a momentum investor. He uses a bunch of stock value and economic data to predict the financial markets are doomed. Polar opposite of letting the trend be your friend.

@Old_Skeet - Thanks for commenting. One of the main problems with bonds is that virtually all of us own them either directly or indirectly. I know I do. Bonds are everywhere. If you own a balanced or asset allocation fund you likely own a great many. There’s a reason why the balanced fund came into existence. It relates to the conventional wisdom which says that when equities decline in value bonds appreciate in value, helping to compensate for the equity losses. However, with rates now so low, bonds wouldn’t seem to have the degree of offsetting value (vs stocks) they would have had 10 or 20 years ago.
If you are investing in bonds for “income” than you (or your fund managers) are probably not holding a lot of U.S. government paper. My initial comment pertained to the U.S. 10 year, which if held 10 years to maturity should generate about 2% per year. I suspect you’re banking on a much healthier income stream than that 2%. There are bonds that produce much more than 2% of course. However, the lower you go on the credit scale the more closely linked to the fortunes of equities those bonds become. And the less immune to carnage during a steep stock market slide they become.
No other single investment class that I can think of so permeates the financial markets as do bonds. They affect mortgage rates and thus the affordability of housing. They affect auto loans and thus the automotive industry. They’re intrinsically linked to the dollar’s value in the foreign exchange markets which affects the prices we pay for everything from clothing and smart phones to gas and oil. And, for older investors, bond rates affect the ability to grow their assets and maintain a decent standard of living during the retirement years.

The linked article reads like an Ad from D&C. While the praise is well deserved, it also strikes me as the anthesis of how they’ve always operated. They place no ads as far as I can tell. Despite their size, they offer only 5 funds. And all are team managed. No star managers. No interviews on CNBC, Bloomberg and the likes. Fund reports are detailed and analytical - but far from flashy or promotional. And they trade little. Some of the latter is due to having such a large footprint in the investment community that any significant buys or sells would drive the security up or down in price. And they offer no money market fund. They’re privately owned (though they seem to shun publicity). Fees are dirt low for active management. I suspect, but don’t know, that compared to other houses their investors are more stable, probably older, and less likely to flee on a downturn. And they’re headquartered in SF - about as far away as you can get from Wall Street and the big East Coast investment houses. In short, they operate differently from most of the fund managers we’re used to hearing about.
I can’t think of DC’s operation but that some salient lines from A Tale of Two Cities come to mind. Here Dickens describes Tellson’s of London, the most trusted financial institution of the day:
“Tellson’s Bank by Temple Bar was an old-fashioned place, even in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty. ... Tellson’s was the triumphant perfection of inconvenience. After bursting open a door of idiotic obstinacy with a weak rattle in its throat, you fell into Tellson’s down two steps, and came to your senses in a miserable little shop, with two little counters, where the oldest of men made your cheque shake as if the wind rustled it, while they examined the signature by the dingiest of windows .... Your money came out of, or went into, wormy old wooden drawers, particles of which flew up your nose and down your throat when they were opened and shut. Your bank-notes had a musty odour, as if they were fast decomposing into rags ...”

@Art,
Fwiw. Your mileage will probably vary.
I have been with Fido for nearly 50y and have not had or found a reason to switch. (Owning both their funds and others'.) V good c/s at our levels, which by this time are nonsmall, I suppose. (As I have written before, with some non-Fido funds, once you hit a given (nonlow) $ level, you can move to a cheaper share class at no charge or fee. This may not be just a Fido thing, though.)
We also are with Merrill, having been w/ BoA and its predecessors for almost 50y. Again at our nonsmall level their treatment is good, zero-commish trading and responsive c/s. Rinky-dink in some respects --- their fractional cleanup settlement is lame, general account sweeping likewise, cash holdings worthless as to interest, and finally they do not permit purchase of some desirable entities. There are often other amateur-hour signs as well. Low speed to their account events, sell then buy, that sort of thing. But convenient and of course integrated w BoA.
Some family members are w Vanguard and Schwab and are not notably happy with either, and these are not picky financial people either. I have been w E-trade and a couple other places in the past, not as slick an experience.
The happiest relative is one who has all her moneys w a UBS guy, I believe, and gets top-tier individual treatment, breaks and discounts, sound advice, management, planning, executions, etc., also sometimes free tickets and whatnot. I do not want to know what she pays for all this and am too cheap to do that kind of thing myself.
Other happy campers have individual indy managers, CFP types, I think.