Isn't being rich a moving relative target? So if most Americans had $2.4 million in personal net worth, wouldn't that amount cease to be the one necessary to be rich? Then being rich would be $62 million. The article also of course--like most financial propaganda pieces--doesn't mention that wages for the poor and shrinking middle class have stagnated when adjusted for inflation for over 35 years, especially for the poor who have seen wages decline when adjusted for inflation. Invariably these pieces blame people for spending too much on avocado toast, lattes and cell phones when the situation is far more complex and also inequitable than that.

Another Samuelson quote:

What then is it that, since 2007, has caused Wall Street capitalism's own suicide?At the bottom of this worst financial mess in a century is this: Milton Friedman-Friedrich Hayek libertarian laissez-faire capitalism, permitted to run wild without regulation. This is the root source of today's travails. Both of these men are dead, but their poisoned legacies live on.

I am gonna trademark 'recession on horizon'

Possibly, similar to putting-off a hangover by drinking more? :)
OK - I’ve now complied with your request for more sophisticated posts and have read the article. It’s very technical in its approach to analyzing current attitudes of credit managers and other financial gurus. Suspect this is the kind of research based analysis of current financial opinions money professionals, including fund managers, get paid to digest.
Relevance to ordinary investors? Negligible. However, the excellent comments from several board members makes this thread of value.

Fascinating fund. About the best investment you could possibly have made over its first 17-18 years of life (1965 onward) as it profited from one financial disaster after the next. After that, not so sweet as the stock of disasters dried up a bit. The fund has now posted a net loss over the past 3, 5, 10, 20 and 30 year periods.

Related. Bonds market
Despite surge of market volatility, ‘junk’ corporate bonds are beating high-grade debt. What gives?
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/despite-surge-of-market-volatility-junk-corporate-bonds-are-beating-high-grade-debt-what-gives-2018-06-27

Another financial writer who doesn’t take into consideration total return when computiing performance for ETFs. Far from being down (1.9%). YTD, HYG is actually positive YTD on a total return basis, albeit barely. . A fairly large discrepancy for those of us who are into attention to detail. The other large junk bond ETF is down YTD to the tune of 0.61%. The YTD total return for LQD of a negative 5.8% is also inaccurate. The gist of the article was correct however in that junk is outperforming investment grade.

@DavidMoran
OK, you're right- I (we?) didn't read down to that part. Note that it states that each couple "have a minimum household income of $75,000 or at least $100,000 in investable assets". Well hell, that's your average American "couple" for sure.
Here's some of what Fidelity actually said:
"Fidelity® Couples Study Uncovers Disconnects on Retirement Expectations"
"43 percent, up from 27 percent in 2013) couldn't correctly identify how much their partner makes—and of that, 10 percent were off by $25,000 or more. Which begs the question: if so many couples can't get this most basic item in their financial lives correct, what other disconnects exist that are unknowingly causing cracks in their financial foundation"
"When asked how much they will need to save to maintain their current lifestyle in retirement, nearly half (48 percent) have "no idea"—and 47 percent are in disagreement about the amount needed. This level of disagreement is highest among those who are closest to retirement—Baby Boomers (born 1946-64)."
"74 percent say they worry about being able to afford unexpected health care costs in retirement, up from 70 percent in 2013. More than half (51 percent) worry about outliving their savings in retirement, a number that is significantly higher than what was reported in 2013."
"Despite these concerns, only 21 percent have developed a retirement plan to ensure they do not outlive their savings"

It's going to be interesting when their "feeling" that "their financial health is in good to excellent shape" meets reality.

Yep - Those working class stiffs are making out just fine. Retire on Social Security alone (if it’s still there) and then live another 30 years. What could possibly go wrong?

It's going to be interesting when their "feeling" that "their financial health is in good to excellent shape" meets reality.
You just know that this was a well-designed survey, right? Thanks Ted, for more worthless garbage.

FYI: Most American couples feel their financial health is in good to excellent shape, according to the Fidelity Investments Couples & Money study released Tuesday.
The strong economy of the last few years may be the reason 47 percent of those surveyed said their household’s financial health is very good and another 22 percent went even further to say it is excellent.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/couples-say-they-re-feeling-good-about-their-finances-39431.html?print

FYI: Average on Tuesday, many participants in its 401(k) retirement plan were likely in shock. Over one-third of the plan’s assets have been invested in the shares of General Electric, as shown by the company’s federal filings. Its share price has fallen by 60% since the end of 2016, as the S&P 500 has risen by over 25%.
Similarly, participants in the 401(k) retirement plan at Scana—a natural gas company in Georgia—have suffered heavy losses from inadequate diversification. Over 60% of the plan’s assets were invested in Scana stock, as shown by the company’s federal filings. Its share price fell by nearly 50% since the end of 2016.
As these examples illustrate, holding a large portion of your retirement assets in your employer’s stock is dangerous for your financial health. Such a large concentration undermines the risk-reducing benefits of a diversified securities portfolio. Indeed, a large holding in employer stock doubles your risk: If your company runs into major problems, you may lose your job and your retirement security.
Regards,
Ted
http://fortune.com/2018/06/20/general-electric-dow-jones-401k-retirement/

I've found an AT&T (T) make whole note, coupon 6.5%, maturing 3/15/29, with an asking YTW of 4.991%. (Other maturity bonds are also available; longer ones with higher yields and shorter ones with lower yields.) CUSIP 001957AW9.
On the page you cited is a link to a Bloomberg article from ten days ago:
AT&T Cut by Moody's as Time Warner Deal Adds Billions of Debt

The purchase made the company the most indebted in the U.S., excluding financial companies. AT&T’s debt load will force it to refinance large amounts of debt every year, "making the company beholden to the health of the capital markets," Moody’s said as it lowered the company’s unsecured debt rating one level to Baa2, two levels above speculative grade.

IMHO it's reasonable to hold a ten year corporate bond like this as part of one's diversified bond portfolio. Good cash flow (especially since it's a premium bond). So it does what a bond is supposed to do. Whether it's a good vehicle in which to hold cash is less clear. I suppose that depends on what one's requirements are for cash.

Hi Guys,
I have said this before and I will surely say it again and likely again over time. Monte Carlo simulations are a terrific tool to challenge the survival robustness of a portfolio. What portfolio? Any you own or are likely to own.
There are now many free Monte Carlo simulators available on the Net. I especially like the one offered by Portfolio Visualizer. It provides many options, is comprehensive, is easy to use, and is fast. I have referenced it on earlier posts. Here is a Link to that useful financial tool:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/monte-carlo-simulation#analysisResults
If you want to explore the probability odds of a portfolio's survival, please give this tool an examination. I think you will be impressed with it. Give it a few test runs. You can use it to improve the survival odds of your portfolio. Enjoy and prosper.
Best Regards

FYI: Vanguard Group won a victory of sorts when E*Trade Financial Corp. added 32 of its exchange-traded funds to its commission-free platform. The arrangement allows prospective Vanguard buyers to avoid the $6.95 fee that E*Trade charges to trade funds that don’t make the cut, the online brokerage said in a statement this week.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/vanguard-wins-over-e-trade-with-etfs-despite--no-payment--policy-39370.html?print

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
June 21, 2018
Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
We are celebrating the launch of our Fifteenth Season on Public Television this week! Talk about long-term investing. We are delighted that you are here to share it with us.
Our goal when we started the show was exactly as it is now - to help our viewers build long-term financial security through disciplined, diversified investing, with advice from some of the top professionals in the business. We are continuing that tradition this week.
One of the hallmarks of Great Investors and Financial Thought Leaders is independent thinking. In order to beat the market you have to do unconventional things. This week’s guest is a prime example. He is known for his rigorous research and ability to create strategies that are either non-correlated with market behavior, i.e., they zig when the market zags, or add alpha, a performance edge over the market using more conventional strategies.
We’ll be joined by Cliff Asness, Co-Founder, Managing Principal and Chief Investment Officer of AQR Capital Management, a global money management firm he launched in 1998. It now has $225 billion dollars under management in hedge funds, as well as other alternative and more traditional strategies for clients and its family of mutual funds, which it started in 2009. One of the oldest, the AQR Managed Futures Strategy Fund, which has so far achieved its goal to be non-correlated to the market is co-managed by Asness and has a Morningstar Bronze analyst rating.
AQR stands for Applied Quantitative Research. The firm uses proprietary computer models to forecast returns for a wide variety of assets and geographies using a heavy application of old fashioned human brainpower, which it has in abundance. At last count 11 of the firm’s 26 principals have doctorate degrees and 5 are current or former professors.
Asness is a PhD in Finance from the University of Chicago where he was Nobel Laureate Eugene Fama’s teaching assistant for two years. He has won numerous prestigious awards for his own research including the CFA Institute’s James R. Vertin Award in recognition of his “body of research notable for its relevance and enduring value to investment professionals”.
AQR is known for its value orientation but Asness is quick to point out there are other key strategies employed. During this week’s interview, we’ll discuss the four core strategies AQR has identified over the years that can add a performance edge to portfolios.
If you miss the premiere show of our new season on air this week, you can always watch it on our website. It’s available to our PREMIUM viewers right now and to everyone else over the weekend. We also have an EXTRA interview with Asness about his research on a seldom used but highly effective ice hockey strategy that has investment applications.
Also, if you're looking to take WEALTHTRACK with you on your commute or travels, you can now find the WEALTHTRACK podcast on TuneIn, Stitcher, and SoundCloud, as well as iTunes. Find out more on the WEALTHTRACK Podcast page.
Thank you so much for watching. Have a great weekend and make the week ahead a profitable and a productive one!
Best regards,
Consuelo
Video Clip:

@Art: You've got one hell of a nerve telling the author of a piece of financial writing that he doesn't have the right to comment on the misuse of his own original work.

A headline that I would like to see:
One Trick I Learned from Other Worthless Financial Posts
"One trick I learned from other worthless financial hacks is that if I write a column with "Five Tricks I Learned" in the header some guy named Ted will help me make a living writing useless crap by copying it to MFO".

FYI: Most millennials can’t answer simple financial questions correctly, according to a new nationwide survey. Only 17 percent of working Americans ages 25-40 could answer five basic financial literacy questions from Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. (MassMutual) Foundation’s FutureSmart Digital program correctly, according to the report. The questions were on topics including credit scores, compound interest and investing.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/millennials-lack-basic-financial-knowledge--massmutual-finds-39299.html?print

JG has said repeatedly, as have others, that the corporate debt explosion is looking like it could be the trigger for the next crisis + recession ... although the recession indicators he talks about are not signalling anything dramatic on the near horizon. (That of course doesn't rule out an intracyclical slowdown like, for example, in 2015, the kind of slowdown ECRI is projecting.)
The 6% T comment is the one comment he's made in quite a while that sounds more like an assertion without any real support rather than the usual well-documented insights in his webcasts. Really, to get an idea of what he's up to, someone would need to tune in to at least a couple of full webcasts.
His ego's pretty puffed up, yes, but the economic, financial, and investment insights are mostly close to the mark and overall useful. The 6% thing is a real outlier, IMHO.

Here's a FT article discussing a 2016 CFA Financial Analysts Journal paper studying The Effect of Management Design on the Portfolio Concentration and Performance of Mutual Funds. Here, "management design" means the use of one manager or multiple managers.
Unlike the Bloomberg column that looked only at the ten largest funds in each of three groupings, this paper used CRSP data for the whole US fund market, excluding only funds holding fewer than 10 assets, less than $500K AUM, and funds with under 12 months history.
I think it is worth reading the paper itself (one can skim/skip the detailed analyses and focus on the plain English sections) as well as the FT piece. The paper has many observations, including:

We showed that portfolios of funds managed by a single manager tend to have a higher degree of both within- and cross-sector concentration. A singlemanager management design, on average, achieves a better net performance and has a higher expense ratio. ...
First, all else being equal, equity mutual fund investors may be better off selecting funds with portfolios concentrated in the top one or two stocks (relative to the stocks’ own size) within each sector. Investors could also benefit from selecting funds that are concentrated in a few industry sectors relative to the market portfolio.

My initial impression is that while single management vs. multiple/team management tends to lead to more highly concentrated portfolios, it is that level of concentration more than the management structure that matters. Haven't read the paper carefully enough yet to verify that impression is entirely correct.
Note also that it also observes that older funds run by long term managers tend to underperform. Your guess is as good as mine as to how one picks newer funds run by short term managers.

No strong opinions on teams vs stars, but FWIW the "teams" at American Funds are one of the main reasons that we are comfortably retired with minimal financial concerns.