It frustrates me when a thread can quickly deteriorate into "silly ass" discussion. The thread topic is simply "How would you invest $100,000 now?". Just answer the question, give your reasons for that choice, and move on. The answer to the OPs question will vary from one investor to another, but it is an "investment" question, not a frivolous spending question.

This thread jumped the track days ago. I’ve been watching largely for amusement. But I respect peoples’ right to post what they will. Either @Baseball_Fan or the board moderators, ISTM, have discretion to allow / disallow certain comments or topics of conversation. You and I do not.
I must take exception to the new requirement that posters “give your reasons for the choice”. Neither @Baseball_Fan, who started the thread, nor @Gary152, who amplified the requirements (in all caps), mentioned giving reasons. In fact, Gary stressed the need to keep answers short, saying: “The question was simply how would YOU invest it NOW …”. I agree with that interpretation..
Books have been written on the subject of broad diversification (Albeit, it’s only one way to invest.) Anyone who has adhered to this approach for 50+ years hardly needs to explain or justify it. I’m sure everyone here understands the basic concept. As far as I know, I’m still the only poster who broke $100,000 down into exact dollar & cents amounts spread across several ass-it classes. I recommend others do the same so readers might see what $100,000 looks like when broken down into different types of investments (ie: domestic stocks, foreign stocks, fixed income instruments, cash / cash-equivalents, precious metals, etc.)

Earlier this year, Romick delivered the keynote at Morningstar’s investment conference, reflecting on his 30 years of successful investing across multiple cycles.
We asked Romick to share insights and lessons learned navigating major crises like the tech bubble, financial crisis, COVID crash, and 2022’s meltdown. Interestingly, he believes Crescent has survived by “first considering what can go wrong.”
Hear Romick’s wisdom on defensive investing, managing risk, contrarian thinking, and preparing for an uncertain future—a rare chance to learn from a legendary investor.

Definitely-a $100,000 windfall would certainly cover the bulk of tuition and room and board for 4 years at PSU, UM, UW, Cal-Berkeley, UNC and probably some other state universities I didn't research !

Huh ??

Definitely-a $100,000 windfall would certainly cover the bulk of tuition and room and board for 4 years at PSU, UM, UW, Cal-Berkeley, UNC and probably some other state universities I didn't research !

@Devo, the OP question was fund's average holding period. Annual turnover (if stable) sort of indicates that.
100% turnover means the entire portfolio is changed in 1 year.
50% turnover means that about half the portfolio is changed in 1 year, or once in 2 years.
Problem may be in averaging widely different turnovers turnovers.
Also, if there is a change in portfolio manager, then the turnover that year is typically high. Most new managers want to start fresh as their clock starts when they takeover until they are promoted or fired.
The way turnover is defined, the effect of inflows or outflows is reduced. So, in an extreme case, say, there are only redemptions in a bad year, but no purchases, then turnover would be 0%. IMO, that is a flaw in the definition.

Suppose one knew all those turnover numbers from last 10 years annually. Assume also no inflows of outflows. What would you then try to divine from those numbers? Is there a different way of getting that place?

"$100K is not meaningful to change someone's life."
A total disconnect to the reality of human life. And there we see a person for what he really is. Not pretty.

The above is a disconnect from the subject. We are discussing how would you invest $100K.
Examples:
If you are 35 years old and saved $100K already and it's in stocks, now you got another $100K, you should invested in stocks again.
If you are retired, age 65 with $400K and invest at 50/50, you would probably invest the extra $100K in the same way.
Hence, in many cases one wouldn't change his/her portfolio meaningfully.

“100k is not meaningful to change someone’s life”. I am sure all of us here disagree but that money could pay for life saving medical treatment,,,, put your kid thru four years at a decent enough state school, free a family from debt,, have a down payment and closing costs on a house in some places. Start a retirement account for a young person that will grow over the next 40 years. We all know this with the exception of one person here so I thought I might give him a few reasons why he is so wrong.

M* Fund Reports include a fund's turnover rate for the past 10 calendar years.
You may be able to access M* Fund Reports online via your public library system.
I'm not aware of any websites which provide annual turnover statistics spanning multiple years.

Gary: Doesn't really matter at all how it affects anything. It is HOW YOU WOULD invest it. If I had $10m I would go buy something nice.
C'mon FD....you never once said how YOU would invest it.
FD: I thought I did, maybe in another thread. I would just add to my current holdings now an all the way when I started years ago.
$100K is not meaningful to change someone's life.
Buying something isn't investing.

@dtconroe- Exactly- same here.
However...if answering this question prior to maybe five years ago the answer would have been entirely different. The financial positioning is entirely different when comparing accumulation years and preservation years.

Exploring for Lithium seems like our modern day "gold rush".
LAC = Lithium Americas Corp and trade on the NYSE. GM (General Motors) owns 10% and is its largest holder of stock.
FifthDelta Ltd (a Hedge Fund?) is LAC next largest stockholder. Interestingly, FifthDelta is the largest stock holder of Blackberry. Here's some of their other holdings.
https://whalewisdom.com/filer/fifthdelta-ltd
Lithium News
Yahoo Finance News:
colossal-cache-lithium-found-us

McDermitt Caldera (Nevada/Oregon Border) was formed after a massive magma eruption approximately 16.4 million years ago, dredging up untold scores of lithium and other metals. A lake eventually inhabited the caldera, which deposited a layer of sediment spliced with the lithium that today is over 600 feet deep. The result: a clay called smectite.
But that was just the first lithium injection. Eventually, as volcanic activity heated up again, hot brine containing additional lithium was driven up into the existing smectite, infusing it with even more of it. Now, the clay was no longer just smectite, but a uniquely lithium-rich illite.
"They seem to have hit the sweet spot where the clays are preserved close to the surface, so they won't have to extract as much rock, yet it hasn't been weathered away yet," Borst told Chemistry World.
This is good news for miners. Not only is this particular illite more rich in the metal, it's supposedly easier to separate. Plus, the deposits are mostly concentrated in one spot at the southern tip of the pass, limiting the area impacted by mining.
At least in theory. The extraction of lithium can, depending on the methods used, emit vast amounts of CO2, contaminate groundwater with dangerous heavy metals, and guzzle tons of fossil fuels. Its environmental toll shouldn't be overlooked in the rush to green transportation infrastructure.

From Science Advances (In depth Article):
https://science.org

This back-of-the-envelope estimation is calculated using caldera-wide extrapolation of publicly available drill hole data from Lithium Americas Corp. and Jindalee Resources Ltd. and is not a reporting code-compliant mineral resource estimate that considers economic viability. Even if this estimation is high due to variations in sediment thickness and/or Li grade, the Li inventory contained in McDermitt caldera sediments would still be on par with, if not considerably larger than, the 10.2 MT of Li inventory estimated to be contained in brines beneath the Salar de Uyuni in Bolivia (12), previously considered the largest Li deposit on Earth.

Yup. DARPA, IARPA, etc. are places where some nifty bleeding-edge tech comes to life. Might go somewhere and change the world (eg, the internet) or might not do anything -- but often very interesting and exciting stuff. I did some OTE work for DARPA several years ago, and their research RFP/RFIs cross my university inbox regularly....but I've not worked on any DARPA projects recently.

I haven't looked at DARPA efforts for years. I briefly reviewed proposals for them (eons ago) and had a small startup effort funded that wasn't renewed. I am pleasantly surprised if they are getting back to their original mission. For a while, at the beginning of this century, it was my opinion, that DARPA funding was being diverted too much into non-innovative endeavors more related to today's army as opposed to tomorrow's world.

@dtconroe, thanks for the compliment. Wish it were true but it’s not. If I were to believe that I would become full of myself and that has doomed many a trader. All the good traders I knew had particular traits and one was humility. So I try to adhere to that.
You do a great job staying in your lane. I realize many like you are camped out in money market funds, CDs, and Treasuries and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. The returns there this year for many not only pay the bills but for some have added to their nest eggs,
@yogibearbull, yes, three negative years in a row for Treasuries is unheard of. Where go Treasuries goes impacts so many bond categories. So trying to figure out the direction of Treasuries short term (an almost impossible task) is always on my mind. Last year rising short term and long term rates negatively impacted everything in Bondland. That hasn’t been the case in 2023” Just look at the performance of bond funds such as HOBIX, DHEAX, BDKAX, to name just a very few. Even junk corporates have more than hung in there especially @Crash favorite TUHYX and one of my favorites CSOAX.
Edit. The good traders are the ones who can adeptly trade stocks. While I have more than successfully daytraded stock index futures, equity mutual funds in days gone by and bond funds, my particular trading style doesn’t work for individual stocks. In other words, I can’t trade stocks. I realize my limitations there. It is a risk tolerance thing. Any successful trader or investor needs to find their particular niche and stocks aren’t my niche, That has always frustrated me because many of the thrust indicators I monitor have been spot on calling major bottoms over the past many years.

What's 'Morningstar?'
/ducks
(I gave up on them years ago.)

Well … In looking back over 2 years of Grantham threads on MFO it does appear he is largely held in disrepute by this esteemed body. I’d somehow missed that. Feeling the consensus view is generally correct in investing, I will foreswear to never again post Grantham. Should I further entertain his thoughts it will be only as a “closeted” follower.
That aside, thanks for all the comments & recommendations on what better to read and who better to listen to on investing. Glad some found Housel’s book of value.

Grantham has been wrong for over 10 years, but, as usual, scary stories sell a lot more.
Who is going to read an interview with someone who says: I don't know what stocks will do in the next 3-6-12 months because nobody does, and BTW, the SP500 was up over 80% since 1980?
Sure, if someone has been a bear on US stocks since 2010, he will be right sometimes but he missed an unbelievable performance.
Since I have a special place for Grantham, I kept several of his past great calls.
==============
2010 (link)
"Over the next seven years, GMO forecasts large-cap U.S. stocks to deliver a real return (after inflation) of 1.3% annually, while small-caps provide a 0.5% return."
"International stocks also fare reasonably well in GMO's model, up about 4.7%, while emerging markets come in with a 3.9% annualized gain."
FD: reality(link): SPY made 14.4%...IWM 11.9%...EEM 3%. One of the worse misses in the history of predictions.
=====================
10/2012 (link) Jeremy Grantham Warns 2013 Will Be A Dangerous Year For Stocks:
FD: The SP500 made over 32%
=================
2015 (link) GMO's Jeremy Grantham has a relatively gloomy outlook for the markets and economy.
FD: Wrong again and again and again. Why does anybody ask his opinion?

+1
Thanks. All good.
Yes - it was clear you were referring only to your cash position in the August comments. A bit unfair of me to single out one line.
I won’t “lock-in” on any so-called prophet. But like to listen to a wide variety. ISTM Grantham received an outsized amount of attention on this board during the final months of 2021. And to that extent, he helped me, and perhaps others, side-step some of the carnage of ‘22. As he hasn’t been mentioned much recently, I decided to post the interview. Grantham was correct on Japan in late ‘21. Felt they were a good bet. I haven’t followed it lately, but it was a very hot market the first half of this year - perhaps the best of any developed economy.
I have pummeled .John Hussman with criticism over the years. And might react to a post featuring him the same way you did to the Grantham post.
The bottom line here is: I think David Rubenstein is one of the better on-air interviewers today. (Others are free to disagree.) So I’d listen to any interview of his with someone of prominence - be it Grantham, Hussman, Biden or Trump. In other words, it wouldn’t matter whether I strongly agreed or disagreed with the subject of the interview - because I think Rubenstein is that good.
Regards

Hank,
I’m open to opposing views, but journalists promoting those views should also do a little fact checking of the track record of so-called experts. My investments in CDs are irrelevant because they comprise a small percentage of my overall asset allocation. I never said I was going to all cash or suggesting that others do so. My CDs also are being used as alternative to bonds, not stocks.
I have followed Grantham’s view for years because the financial press is enthralled by prophets of doom (Hussman is another example). He has been forecasting poor returns for US stocks for at least a decade, while recommending emerging markets and foreign stocks as better alternatives. He has been wrong, year after year. I know this because I am one of the poor fools who followed his bad advice and bought emerging markets funds that have been lousy investments, even after owning them for many, many years.
I will give Grantham credit for making convincing arguments for his forecasts, even though he’s been wrong. And I fully support his concerns about climate change and the environment.