@hank- If you do, please let me know too. Many years ago I used Google for searches, but I've never used gmail, and I still get pop-ups from many sources asking me to "sign in to your Google account". Like you I use Firefox, but I don't know if that has anything to do with Google. There are no Google cookies in my Firefox browser, but I get the feeling that Google has managed to put some damned "tracer thing" on my computers- somehow/somewhere.

@stay_calm
I was intrigued years ago when GMO was beating the drum about Timber with similar arguments in the Barrons' article.
I found a number of timber companies but most were also paper companies and mills. PCL and St Joe's are the smaller one's I remember. PCL got bought out and FAIRX still owns 75% of St Joes, but is more of a land play I think.
LAND is problematic because they float multiple preferred offerings loading themselves with debt to pay their rich salaries. FPI also has a lot of debt. PCVMX has a sig position so maybe worth another look.
Another reason I shied away was these two focus on fruits and almonds etc that require a LOT of water ( article in WSJ a while back) and are in fire prone California. If your farm is in oats or barley and gets torched I assume you can replant and get a crop next year but if all your almond trees burn...
The private placements may be great if you qualify and want to tie up your oney for a long time. If that is tru you are probably not reading MFO.
The smaller private placements allow you to invest as little as $10,000 but it is all in one property and I do not see how you could make an informed decision.
Maybe better off in Natural Resource fund although I haven't looked at the correlations.

For many years, I've read her stuff and listened to her. Yes, Canadian, but also quite aware and able to address USA issues. I want to tell the interviewer to shut up and let her SPEAK! There's an audio glitch around 9:22, but just momentary. ...Actually, there are a few. I guess it's because of internet speed or buffering or whatever. Holy cow, is she ever ON TARGET! Just look past the ridiculous, sensational headline.

Writing could be clear, but PRWCX is indicated as closed, not PRCFX.
"T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation and Income Fund (PRCFX)
The fund many people wished they were in is T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation (edit PRWCX), but you can’t have it. The fund has been kicking butt, under three different managers, since the 1980s: for every trailing period from one to 40 years, it has higher total return, higher Sharpe, smaller maximum drawdown, and lower Ulcer Index than its peers. And it’s closed.
The fact that the success spans manager tenures suggests it’s the process that works, and TRP has been rolling out a suite of funds that incorporate variations of the discipline. This version (edit PRCFX) is a mixed‑asset conservative fund that seeks total return by pairing income‑oriented fixed income with a risk‑aware equity sleeve, typically keeping roughly half to two‑thirds of assets in bonds and other debt instruments and the balance in stocks..."
Attn @David_Snowball

Buffer funds have become popular in recent years.
Cliff Asness and his colleagues from AQR Capital Management recently published
a review of buffer funds in The Journal of Portfolio Management.
Key Findings
• Buffer funds, options-based strategies that aim to limit downside risk while capping upside,
often underperform their reference assets in both returns and risk-adjusted terms,
despite being marketed as investor-friendly solutions to equity volatility.
• The promised downside protection is inconsistent in practice—realized losses frequently exceed what
investors might expect based on option payoff diagrams, especially outside narrowly defined periods.
• Simple alternatives like mixing equities with cash generally outperform buffer funds on average
and even in drawdowns, raising questions about whether these products truly serve investor goals
or just cater to behavioral preferences.
https://www.aqr.com/-/media/AQR/Documents/Insights/Journal-Article/JPM-Rebuffed-An-Empirical-Review-of-Buffer-Funds.pdf

Fido has another quirk. Often if I begin to sell shares of a NTF fund held more than 60 days a message pops up: "If you believe you may be entitled to a fee wavier contact a representative." I did a couple times. They basically said to ignore the warning. So, if the shares have been held over 60 days I now proceed with the sale without contacting them. No trouble so far. But you'd think over 3 or 4 years they'd have corrected that error message.

Fidelity's seems to apply short term redemption fees FIFO. So even if you've recently purchased shares, a sale may not trigger the 60 day redemption fee. So long the shares you're selling could be older ones (regardless of how you identify them for tax purposes), Fidelity seems to say this is okay.
When you got this message, had you purchased any shares recently? I could see a situation where one bought 900 shares a decade ago, 100 shares last week, and now wanted to sell 100 shares. As I understand it, no fee would be due.
But, if you said you wanted to sell $1000 worth, the system would not know fer sure that you wouldn't have to sell 901 shares (including 1 "new" one) until the actual sale went through. That's because it doesn't know the closing price at the time you enter the order. So I could envision the system warning you about the possibility (however remote) of being charged a short term redemption fee.
Just guessing here.
Fidelity speaks of "holding period" without clarifying how that is calculated. I believe that this is FIFO. OTOH, Vanguard is very clear, and not so generous:

You'll also pay a $50 early redemption fee for all sales executed within 60 calendar days of the trade date of your most recent purchase of the same fund

That is, LIFO.
https://investor.vanguard.com/client-benefits/brokerage-fees-commissions

Todd Combs is ambitious and had the dual role of BRK sub-portfolio manager and CEO of Geico. I thought that he was well integrated within BRK.
Insurance head Ajit Jain may be retiring soon. So, it could be that Todd Combs wasn't seen for that role, or potential hires for that role didn't want to leave out Geico.
Interesting that Todd jumped to JPM to manage a $10 billion initiative (initially) at JPM that may grow to $1.5 trillion (easy talk). Todd has been on JPM board for several years, so he may also be considered as a potential replacement for Jamie Dimon - watch who starts leaving JPM.
I thought that Ted Weschler, who has kept low profile as a sub-portfolio manager at BRK, may be the one to leave.
After Warren Buffett announced that the incoming CEO Greg Abel will also supervise the entire BRK stock portfolio, may be Todd and Ted assessed their relationships with Greg.
Anyway, the transition at BRK has started.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/08/berkshire-hathaways-todd-combs-investment-lieutenant-to-buffett-and-geico-ceo-is-leaving-for-jpmorgan.html

Hi, guys.
Lynn does exceptional work, especially in trying to look at where the puck is going to be. Great analyses of portfolios that might survive a crash and lessons for 200 years of bear markets.
We also offered two Launch Alerts for MFS Active Midcap ETF (the ETF version of a solid if not spectacular MFS fund) and GMO Domestic Resilience (a niche that I'm not 100% sure is worth exploring: at base, a play on reshoring industrial production).
We also reviewed the performance of over 1000 "rookie" funds (more than one year, less than two) and nominate 10 as distinguished performers with at least decent downside protection. Rather a lot of them are the ETF clones of successful funds, which is interesting from two perspectives: 1. the migration continues and 2. there's evidence that migration works.
The publisher's letter is a bit ... thoughtful? A new version of a 2014 essay that looks at the domestication of Christmas and the reminders it offers. A reflection on Mr. Buffett's Thanksgiving letter (which contains rather a lot of "the medical news has not be excellent, but I made it to 95" hints and on heroes. And a potential explanation for why the market continues, against all logic, to rise. Short version: it's possible that the kids have sort of given up on long-term compounding and home ownership and are defaulting, in uncomfortably large numbers, to gaming the market instead of investing. There's more (and more detail) coming in the New Year's edition.
Wishing you all the best,
David and Chip

Amusing. Hard to argue here. But his "long term" time-horizon (as to what works) appears to be only 5-10 years. Who's he kidding there? The term alternative is pretty broad. Generally used to describe gimmicky funds. TMSRX had a favorable start but quickly faded. And BAMBX looked like a sure winner at one time. Great write up by LB in Barron's perhaps 8-10 years ago. A dog lately.
What is left unsaid is people look to alternatives as insurance against steep short-term losses (ie -50% on the S&P). And insurance is always a losing proposition - unless and until you need it. I like L/S funds for risk-averse investors. Don't know if they are considered alternative funds or not. It's a name game

MFOP shows BUFTX has had 88% net outflows in the past 5 years. Quite linear with time.

"Although companies are spending hundreds of billions of dollars in a race to fully capture the benefits
of artificial intelligence, the history of technological advancements argues for caution in estimating how
quickly and effectively this investment will pay off. If the anticipated AI-driven productivity gains fail to
materialize in the next couple of years, the U.S. could face more inflation, labor challenges,
and reduced economic activity."
"That leaves productivity growth to do the heavy lifting.
Yet the Congressional Budget Office projects that annual productivity gains will average just 1.3% through
the end of the decade. As a result, most economists expect U.S. GDP growth to fall in coming years below
the 2% rate considered healthy for advanced economies. Economists surveyed by FactSet expect
the economy to grow by 1.8% in 2026 and 1.9% in 2027."
"Slowing productivity growth, together with growing government obligations, could force policymakers to make
difficult decisions around taxation, public spending, and entitlement outlays, Vanguard’s Schickling says."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/u-s-productivity-is-about-to-slump-why-ai-won-t-come-to-the-rescue/ar-AA1RsLdg

Fido has another quirk. Often if I begin to sell shares of a NTF fund held more than 60 days a message pops up: "If you believe you may be entitled to a fee wavier contact a representative." I did a couple times. They basically said to ignore the warning. So, if the shares have been held over 60 days I now proceed with the sale without contacting them. No trouble so far. But you'd think over 3 or 4 years they'd have corrected that error message.

Was there supposed to be a link with the OP?
From Bing's AI:
"A full portfolio correlation matrix is a square matrix that displays the correlation coefficients between every pair of assets within a portfolio, with values ranging from -1 to +1. Each cell in the matrix represents the correlation between two assets, where a value of 1 indicates perfect positive correlation (assets move in the same direction), -1 indicates perfect negative correlation (assets move in opposite directions), and 0 indicates no correlation. The diagonal elements of the matrix are always 1, as each asset is perfectly correlated with itself. This matrix is derived from the covariance matrix by standardizing the covariances using the standard deviations of the respective assets. It is a key tool for assessing diversification benefits, as lower correlations between assets generally lead to reduced portfolio risk. The matrix can be used to calculate portfolio variance and standard deviation, which are essential for risk assessment in modern portfolio theory. For a portfolio with multiple assets, the full correlation matrix allows investors to understand the co-movement of all assets simultaneously, helping to identify potential diversification opportunities or risks".
Never heard of it before. Do play with correlations in setting up what is hoped to be a balanced portfolio. Following a wide range of assets over many years is a good way to get a sense of correlations. Doesn't always work. ISTM equities and bonds are thought to be negatively correlated. In '22 that wasn't the case. When an asset enters bubble territory (extreme overvaluation) trying to achieve balance by using correlations may be of little use. Suspect the opposite is also true of broken-bubble (steeply undervalued) assets. I've heard it said that gold is inversely correlated to most other assets. Dunno about that. ISTM it runs in immense cycles lasting 3-5 years on both the upside and downside. Can double or halve in value over a couple years time. Wouldn't suffice for my bomb shelter.
Can it be said cash is the ultimate non-correlated asset?

An interesting line of reasoning from @DrVenture with thoughtful suggestions which have merit.
"I'd like to hear ideas, thoughts, even helpful criticisms. Maybe we can form some more detailed plans/ideas?"
I'm left at this point with many more questions than answers. Some might be disposed to flee to an asset that's tripled in price over the past 3 or 4 years. Not convinced of that escape route either. One thing I'm fairly certain of: There will be more and higher inflation.
PS - Should go without saying that the current game plan is to stimulate the hell out of the economy up until the 2026 mid-terms, now less than a year away. The new Fed chief will quarterback. Look for some giveaways like "tariff rebate checks" to enter the discussion or even come to fruition.
Now back to 1929.

Right!

On the theme of torturing the data...
Typically, when the S&P 500 has effectively doubled (or nearly doubled) in a 3-year window, the subsequent 12 months are often a "hangover" period.
In 6 out of the 7 historical cases, the market either crashed, corrected, or went flat in the year immediately following the peak. The only major exception was the late 1990s Dot-Com bubble, where the market continued to rally for two more years before eventually busting.
...
Summary: History suggests the odds of a negative or flat year in 2026 are elevated, simply because the market rarely sustains a >20% annualized pace for four years straight.

This is my thinking. Call it "mean reversion" or "bubble bursting" or anything at all, it still makes me wary.
On a few notable occasions in my lifetime, I had belated wished I had stepped back and protected gains. And with many bond oefs looking to perform well in a falling rate environment, it may be a little less stressful to step away from FOMO?
One can have a great time, and leave the party early to avoid the hangover. Do the "lessons of the past" apply here? In any case, at 66 years old, perhaps it is time to back off of risk some more and act my age? My current plan is to take another 5-10% off of equities in the next month or two.

"Lastly, it’s pretty obvious you’re not here to talk about investing, because most of your posts focus on politics while the main purpose of this site is investing."
Let me explain: Well @FD1000, I can't talk much about investing at this time because we've made our pile, same as you, and now we're just protecting what we've got, so there's not all that much to say. The old-timers here are fully aware of how we did it, and unlike you I have no need to constantly brag about such things. For many years before you troubled MFO with your presence I participated in investment discussions just like most of us here.
How about YOU, FullyDeceptive? All we ever hear from you is how smart you are and how well you did predicting all the market highs and lows and making great moves accordingly. This will come as a shock, but not too many folks here believe a word of it.

On the theme of torturing the data, some food for thought (via AI, not cross checked for accuracy)
Typically, when the S&P 500 has effectively doubled (or nearly doubled) in a 3-year window, the subsequent 12 months are often a "hangover" period.
In 6 out of the 7 historical cases, the market either crashed, corrected, or went flat in the year immediately following the peak. The only major exception was the late 1990s Dot-Com bubble, where the market continued to rally for two more years before eventually busting.
Here is the performance of the S&P 500 in the 12 months following each of these massive 3-year runs.
The "Next 12 Months" Performance Table
| 3-Year Peak Era | Streak End Date | Next 12 Months Return | What Happened? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roaring 20s | Aug 1929 | ~ -30% | The Great Crash. The market peaked in September and crashed in October. |
| Depression Rebound | Feb 1937 | ~ -35% | The "Mistake of 1937." The Fed tightened rates prematurely, causing a massive recession. |
| WWII Victory | May 1946 | -6.4% | Post-War Adjustments. Inflation spiked as price controls were removed, spooking the market. |
| Post-War Boom | Aug 1956 | -5.6% | The Eisenhower Recession. The market entered a bear market the following year (1957). |
| Pre-1987 Crash | Aug 1987 | ~ -14% | Black Monday. The market crashed 22% in a single day (Oct 19, 1987) just two months after the peak. |
| Dot-Com Bubble | Dec 1997 | +28.6% | The Exception. The bubble kept inflating. The market didn't peak until 2000. |
| COVID Stimulus | Dec 2021 | -18.1% | The Inflation Bear. Rates rose rapidly to fight inflation, causing the 2022 bear market. |
| AI Boom (Current) | Nov 2025 | ? | We are here. |
Key Takeaways
* Mean Reversion is Powerful: When the market runs too hot (75%+ in 3 years), it borrows returns from the future. In almost every case, the market had to "digest" those gains through a decline or sideways movement.
* The "1997" Exception: This is the one scenario bulls hope for today. In 1997, despite hitting high rolling returns, the internet boom was just getting started. The market ignored valuations and surged for two more years (1998 and 1999) before eventually crashing in 2000.
* Speed Kills: The most dangerous peaks (1929, 1987) were the ones where the gains happened the fastest at the very end of the cycle.
Summary: History suggests the odds of a negative or flat year in 2026 are elevated, simply because the market rarely sustains a >20% annualized pace for four years straight.

Thank you both.
If we have number crunchers - data miners in the forum, it would be good to know,
Which one of those 15 Novembers ended with negative to less than 1% gain?
Which one of those 15 subsequent years are mid-term election years?
YBB, a number of instances in the last column show 0.0. Is it not for Max Drawdown during the 13 month period? Clue me in pl.
Edited to fix the missing %age sign.

From the description: Whether you're steeped in quantitative finance or just curious how modern markets really work, this talk offers a simplified (and powerful) lens for understanding the mathematics behind the money.
It's local, but if you're in the area next week, it sounds very interesting. Well, to me, anyway :-) The Museum of Mathematics is focused on making math accessible and fun (yes, really) to all people. Including, e.g. Mark Hamill (use the math, Luke, the math):

MoMath is pleased to announce the 2025 edition of Simplified, a lecture honoring the memory of Peter Carr, a Founding Trustee of the National Museum of Mathematics.
The Black-Scholes-Merton model transformed finance by showing how to value an option using expected payoff and stochastic calculus. But just five years later, Stephen Ross proved that no probability was required at all — just a careful accounting of prices and cash flows over time. In this talk, Keith Lewis revisits and extends Ross’s breakthrough, offering a clean, intuitive framework for understanding derivative valuation. By treating cash flows and prices as equal components of any trading strategy, Lewis shows how we can model and manage risk without heavy technical machinery. Whether you're steeped in quantitative finance or just curious how modern markets really work, this talk offers a simplified (and powerful) lens for understanding the mathematics behind the money.

Thurs, Dec 11 6:30-8:00
225 5th Ave, NYC
Registration required (free)
https://momath.org/simplified/

@hank- Where you at? I'm up to where FDR has just taken office and Mitchell is in big trouble.

I'm in December '29. Muddle through around a chapter a night (audiobook version). ISTM Hoover has been in denial a while. Many are blaming the Fed for allowing speculation to run rampant in the years leading up ...