the manager has a 15 year track record with another fund. the index did better. the reason I say I would rather own the index is because of the massive overlap in holding this fund has with the index. I am simply betting on lower costs. Also I understand the intense desire to find the manager with the secret sauce. I fell for it with SEQUX. They haven't beat the index in last 5 10 or 15 years.
It's weird that expressing an opinion on something, I warned you it would ruffle feathers, is now considered a "drive by".

contrary opinion. if I had to pick this or voo and hold for next ten years I would pick voo. qlty is a high cost index fund. over 15 years the spy beat it.

QLTY is a month old fund and is an actively managed (not an index) fund. Not sure where you are getting your 15 year numbers and calling QLTY an index fund from.
GQETX a cousin of QLTY (a US equity fund) and is allocated 20% to International stocks. To give you the benefit of doubt, I compared GQETX with SPY (same as VOO) and its total return is slightly higher than that of SPY (let us call it even) over a past 15 years. However, over the life of GQETX and over the last 10 year period, GQETX handily beat SPY. GQETX is also less volatile.
As an opinion, one can pick VOO over QLTY for a future investment. Yes, one can have an opinion (contrary or concurring) about the future but it is not possible to have contrary (or alternate) facts about the past.
What is the purpose of the drive by shooting?

contrary opinion. if I had to pick this or voo and hold for next ten years I would pick voo. qlty is a high cost index fund. over 15 years the spy beat it.

QLTY is a month old fund and is an actively managed (not an index) fund. Not sure where you are getting your 15 year numbers and calling QLTY an index fund from.
GQETX a cousin of QLTY (a US equity fund) and is allocated 20% to International stocks. To give you the benefit of doubt, I compared GQETX with SPY (same as VOO) and its total return is slightly higher than that of SPY (let us call it even) over a past 15 years. However, over the life of GQETX and over the last 10 year period, GQETX handily beat SPY. GQETX is also less volatile.
As an opinion, one can pick VOO over QLTY for a future investment. Yes, one can have an opinion (contrary or concurring) about the future but it is not possible to have contrary (or alternate) facts about the past.
What is the purpose of the drive by shooting?

Ah, thanks guys for the info. I thought maybe there was some shenanigans going on.

If you have access to streaming futures data, the time 1359-1402 is always fun on Fed day to see markets in action. The wibbles, spikes, drops, and microsecond volatility is *insane* as places jockey to position prior to the announcement and then after once it sinks in. 'Fading the rally' often was a great strategy in years past if I was tempted to play on Fed day instead of sitting and watching -- I'd sell S&P futures at a best-guess point higher and usually could be in/out of a nicely profitable trade in under a minute or two. Even better were the huge pops to the upside which then reversed over the next few hours during the press conference into the close. (of course that was before Big Algo(tm) took over trading desks and killed the fun of intraday futures trading....)

contrary opinion. if I had to pick this or voo and hold for next ten years I would pick voo. qlty is a high cost index fund. over 15 years the spy beat it.

QLTY is a month old fund and is an actively managed (not an index) fund. Not sure where you are getting your 15 year numbers and calling QLTY an index fund from.
GQETX a cousin of QLTY (a US equity fund) and is allocated 20% to International stocks. To give you the benefit of doubt, I compared GQETX with SPY (same as VOO) and its total return is slightly higher than that of SPY (let us call it even) over a past 15 years. However, over the life of GQETX and over the last 10 year period, GQETX handily beat SPY. GQETX is also less volatile.
As an opinion, one can pick VOO over QLTY for a future investment. Yes, one can have an opinion (contrary or concurring) about the future but it is not possible to have contrary (or alternate) facts about the past.
What is the purpose of the drive by shooting?

Per M* data, ARTFX "People":
Bryan C. Krug
Years in Strategy
10 Years
Industry Experience
23 Years
Tenure Performance
5.64%
Index Performance
1.44%
Investment AUM
$ 8 Bil
Bryan C. Krug, CFA, is a managing director of Artisan Partners and a portfolio manager on the Credit team. In this role, he is the portfolio manager for the Artisan High Income Strategy, the Artisan Credit Opportunities Strategy, and the Artisan Floating Rate Strategy, all of which he has managed since each strategy's inception.
Gender: Male
B.S. Miami University
Current Investments Managed
Mar 2014— Artisan High Income Advisor
Mar 2014— Artisan High Income Institutional
Mar 2014— Artisan High Income Investor
Dec 2021— Artisan Floating Rate Advisor
Dec 2021— Artisan Floating Rate Institutional
Dec 2021— Artisan Floating Rate Investor

contrary opinion. if I had to pick this or voo and hold for next ten years I would pick voo. qlty is a high cost index fund. over 15 years the spy beat it.

Like @stillers, I jumped on new issue CDs when rates topped 5%, and I’m glad that I did. I’ve got CD ladders extending out 5 years in several IRAs and our taxable savings, with an overall yield about 5.1%. The last issues I bought were 4 and 5 year terms yielding 5.05 to 5.1%, and the best yields in that range have dropped 0.5-0.8% over the past couple weeks. All my CDs are non-callable except for a few shorter term issues that are unlikely to be called.

Old_joe,
You can invest as you wish, I never said that CD or TR are bad or I will never invest in them.
I know 3 investors with millions, one has over 90% in Munis + 10% stocks, the second has over 90% in stocks, the third has 50% in MSFT, all have been doing it for decades and are very pleased.
In the last 1.5 years I posted many times that ST CD didn't make sense because MM has been doing very well and similar. About several weeks ago I posted that 3-5 years CDs make more sense to me because inflation is coming down, rates are likely to come down and these CDs will still pay nicely and much better than MM.
BTW, looks like several CDs had problems in the past.

@hank- well, Baseball_Fan does make a good point regarding the desirability of having a reasonable amount of secure fixed income for a number of years immediately after retirement. That happened to us- immediately after our retirement the great events of 2009 did a real number on our investments generally. However our SS and pension income allowed us to ride that out without disaster.
We were really lucky, but I do have to say that my spreadsheet planning for some twenty years prior to retirement had included such a scenario. You might remember many exchanges between me and MJG regarding my approach and his vaunted Monte Carlo alternatives.

Already explained the WTF portfolio. If you need less than 3%(2.5% is...I need under 2%) annual withdrawal, then you can do whatever.
Someone who doesn't have enough must take a lot more risk than the above.
I always found better ST trade in bond OEFs and the rest is in MM. MM gives me more flexibility and is easier to trade than CD/TR.
As usual, the red zone DEPENDS. There is a difference between retirement at age 55, 65, or 70.
Never in my life, have I owned a CD or US treasury, as you see at https://fixedincome.fidelity.com/ftgw/fi/FILanding.
From retirement in 2018 to 2022(5 years), I was at 10/90 (stocks/bond OEFs) and did well. In 2023, I'm at 100% bond OEFs doing pretty well. I keep changing my style according to the market. When MM pays over 5%, even 4%, all I need is 3 trades at 2+% to have a great return with very low SD/risk. Owning 2-3 funds makes my life easier.

This low-water situation has been developing over the last few years. The number of ship transits through the canal has been substantially reduced. Additionally, the largest freighters are being required to offload a significant number of containers so as to reduce their depth through the canal and thus not use as much water for the transit.
I've not seen any information regarding possible effects on military ship transit, if in fact there has been any such impact.

@Baseball_Fan, there are several recent studies, including by Pfau, that include basic immediate annuities (SPIAs) in the withdrawal mix. So, that is one way to address the SOR risk.
"Rising equity glide path" indeed follows a lower equity exposure around retirement (few years before and after).

Prudential offers this PDF on The Red Zone: https://www.prudential.com/media/system/cda/rrz/downloads/redzone_brochure.pdf
Many refer to The (Investor) Red Zone as the 5 years prior to retirement. Others, like me, refer to it as the 5 years prior to and after retirement.
We had never owned a dedicated bond fund and were always 95%-99% in stocks until entering The Zone pre-retirement. We bought our first allocation and dedicated bond funds when we entered The Zone pre-retirement. If we had it to do all over again, we would have not bought any dedicated bond funds - for us, a waste of time, money and effort. The only bonds we hold now are via three allocation funds with bonds being less than 5% of total portfolio. We do own a 5-yr CP CD ladder in lieu of any individual bonds or dedicated bond funds.
I think there is likely a tendency of many to become TOO conservative in The Zone, but the prevailing theme of it is better to be safe than sorry, though one's choice may be for one and end up resulting in the other.
Pulp Fiction is oft referred to as a cult classic of director Quentin Tarantino.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/
Musta seen it at least 15 times by now. Stellar cast offers up stellar performances. One iconic scene after another. Not recommended for the faint of heart.

a comment and a question....
Not sure if it was Pfau who stated this...but there's a concept that the riskiest time for investors are 5 to 7 years prior to retirement and 5 to 7 years after retirement...the ole' sequence of return risk...so thinking is to be extremely "safe" positioned in your portfolio during those times...as you can really get dinged with your funds at the worst possible time with no time for portfolio to recover
Also, curious if any of the class annuitized any of their portfolio going into retirement? and please also indicate if you are comfortable doing so if you have a gov't or other pension (reason being is that I consider a govt pension a better than equivalent of an annuity) I also do believe that Pfau has mentioned annuitizing part of one's portfolio going into retirement.
btw..never saw the movie Pulp F...only have seen snippets and always had no idea what if was about or what was going on, LOL!
Best Regards,
Baseball Fan

”I stumbled across the idea that you start retirement with a low equity allocation and increase it as you age ten or so years ago, although I forgot the source.”
@sma3 - I looked for that same idea online and couldn’t find it either. I’ll hasten to add, however, that from my vantage point it’s not quite as clear-cut or simple as it might sound, So much depends on the price at which one buys in - as much as I profess to loath market timing.
You are correct that those of us with pensions + SS may be able to assume more investment risk. While my 48% equity allocation (per Fido’s Analysis tool) is probably the highest ever during the retirement years (with the exception of late ‘08 / early ‘09), it is being accomplished with the assistance of a 30% allocation to L/S & hedged equity types of funds having relatively high ERs. That’s less than ideal, but does afford a respectful allocation to equities per age. Am always looking for ways to cut down expenses w/o ramping up the risk profile. A 10% allocation to individual stocks is part of the solution, but by no means the entire answer.
Thanks @bee for your earlier submissions to the thread,

@hank
I stumbled across the idea that you start retirement with a low equity allocation and increase it as you age ten or so years ago, although I forgot the source. It avoids loosing 45% of your assets in a massive bear market just as you retire.
Of course this requires you to have enough income from SS a pension etc to survive early years without being forced to withdraw capital to live on.
I felt like a genius when I retired equity light in 2019, as the Covid Bear market hit. The problem now is to decide how soon and how much to increase my equity exposure. I have a much better feeling for our expenses and SS income now than I did in 2019, but domestic equities seem rather overpriced now.
A lot of people unfortunately have to take out a substantial % of their retirement account to survive.

One non interest payment in 15 years. Looks to me to be a very good batting average.

Especially when you consider the number of CDs I've owned over that period (50+), the number of monthly and semi-annual interest payments that represents, and the rare nature of the root cause of my issue, a merger of two banks whose systems were having real trouble communicating at EOY, a period like the BOY that many times can have issues.
Add in that I am anal about this stuff and ALWAYS track EVERY interest payment is received. Meaning, you can take to the bank, so to speak, that this was in FACT the only interest payment issue I had in 15 years! My whole audit manager career thingie is hard to kick.
And hey @Derf, thanks for the kind words here and elsewhere on MFO. Very much appreciated!

On further review of @Roy article, it appears Reckenthaler uses the initial 8 % WD factor to establish all future WDs based on the initial dollar amount ($500k x 8%) or $40k. Instead, I would suggest the retiree applies the 8% WD rate on each year’s ending balance. This one change would keep you from running out of money and would adjust WD amounts based on market conditions...more in up years and less in down years.
This is how RMDs are calculated (age specific actuarial WD rate x each year’s portfolio’s ending balance).
Couldn’t we do the same? This would account for life expectancy (actuarial charts) and allow the retiree to increase their WD rate as they aged (if necessary).
How many retirees take more than their RMDs amounts after factoring in other income sources such as SS, pension, part time work, rental income?
It’s not unusual for retirees to be working in their 60’s, maximizing IRA contributions, delaying SS, and delaying IRA WDs. This may allow that retiree to hold a higher percentage of equities and ultimately consider taking a higher WD rate.

One non interest payment in 15 years. Looks to me to be a very good batting average.

@yogibb said,
Well, tables were turned soon on Ramsey as many on Twitter showed that with Ramsey's advice, anyone who started in 01/2000 would have already run out of money by now, forget about 30-40 years. So, fool was Ramsey. He didn't offer a rebuttal.
Decumulation is very different and less forgiving than accumulation.

I concur. Time is NOT on your side in retirement for recovery. Math is against you t that point.
December article from our MFO contributor, @Lynn Bolin shares his retirement asset allocation, and his reasoning (and metrics).
https://mutualfundobserver.com/2023/12/searching-for-inflection-points/

@Roy,
You will never run out of money (technically) if you withdraw a percentage of your balance each year.
It’s the dollar amount and the purchasing power of those dollars over time that will keep you in or out of the cat food aisle.
I like running PV with a starting date of 2000 (tech bubble) and see how your friend’s portfolio would have fared with his 8% WD over the last 22 years.
Look for yearly increases in dollar amount of these yearly 8% WDs in PV one an indicator as well as a growing dollar amount of the remaining portfolio.