If one likes energy company prospects but does not like the high volatility of energy equities, one can look into finding funds with a portfolio that combines utility and energy stocks. GASFX is one such fund, which I never owned and have not research into but it has an M* analyst rating of Negative. I used to own GLFOX many many years ago. I treat GLFOX as a downstream vertical; whereas, GASFX as a upstream vertical.
I currently own SWX in my trading account.

"Take note that calculating your RMD works a bit differently if your spouse is the only primary beneficiary to your account and is more than 10 years younger than you. In this case, you must use the IRS Joint Life and Last Survivor Expectancy Table. You can also find this on IRS Publication 590. However, your life expectancy factor would be based on the ages of you and your spouse. But the formula doesn’t change. You’d still follow the same IRA withdraw rules listed above."
Just discovered this. My spouse is indeed the only primary beneficiary, and is more than 10 years younger than me. Does that work to my advantage?
"...The IRS has other tables for account holders and beneficiaries of retirement funds whose spouses are much younger."
I still have 4 years until reaching age 73.
....And just try to locate those withdrawal tables (and alternative withdrawal tables) re: "combined life expectancy." I dare you. Your tax dollars at work. Geniuses, everywhere:
https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-publication-590-b

@FD1000 In other threads haven't you also advocated for owning IOFIX at times, a bond fund with an extraordinarily high for bonds 1.50% expense ratio? You've also suggested PRWCX, which, while an excellent fund, isn't cheap but average expense ratio wise and more expensive than American Funds' competitors. So it might help if you explain why these previous statements don't quite add up when combined with this one.

Yes, years ago I used to own a lot of IOFIX. I have a system that works for me and is not recommended to anybody. I don't care too much about ER, I'm a trader.
On the other hand, there are funds that can be great for other investors with a decent ER, such as PRWCX, PIMIX at its best and others.

How time has changed with American funds. By the time we invested with American, the R6 (retirement accounts) were available - no load and no 12-b-1 fees. AF has served us well especially during drawdowns. Today, we moved to their newly created ETFs (less than 2 years old) with attractive expense ratio of 0.47-0.33%.

I listened to the Clark Howard show (https://clark.com/)in ATL in the early 90s. Clark has been a great advocate for consumers and promoted index funds. This is when I read my first investing book Random Walk..I didn't know much about investing but I knew expenses should be very cheap. I started investing in 1995 and opened my first account at Vanguard. Several years later with more experience and knowledge I looked at other options.

As for loads, front-load, class A aren't the worst. A good thing is that the firms can simply waive them for 3rd party noload/NTF platforms. This is simpler than firms like American Funds that create new classes for every niche segment.
Backend load class B has disappeared. Brokers found those easy to pitch to customers but there were complaints, including about improper disclosures, when it came time to sell (the selling broker may be gone from the firm by them but the firms are stuck with liability). Brokerage firms hate liabilities and arbitrations. So, class B has almost disappeared.
The WORST class by far is class C, the steady or spread load. Firms recover the front load within 5-7 years but high class C loads continue forever. There was some talk to auto-converting class C into class A after 5-7 years, but that rule/law got stuck somewhere. Some firms allow frequent trading in these, so some fund traders say that this isn't a bad class for them. But it's a bad class for most.
The best may be the newest no-load, no-ER class W, but the catch is that it's available only through advisors. Some ER may be shown but all of it is waived for retail buyer. However, the firms get a cut from the advisory fees - some firms make W class available only through its affiliated advisors.

In my opinion, no one should ever pay 5%, and most should not pay even 1% annually when Vanguard's annual fee is 0.35% for its all-index investment options and 0.40% for an active/index mix. A good adviser can and should have a clear plan that lasts for years, and only make changes in major events, and why most who need advice should do it every several years or in major events.

On this, we are in complete accord. IMO front-end loads are a relic of the "old days" and have no business being charged on people today. If I knew then what I know now, I never would've agreed to buy them -- but they've more than recouped the loads over the past 20+ years so I'm not complaining.
Generally speaking, with very few exceptions, my desired target is .60 or better on active management fees for mutual funds and with no 12(b)-1 fees thrown in. How some funds (including AF classes, like 529-series and some R-shares ) can still charge 1.X or more per year blows the mind, though I realize that by paying more, those people are allowing me to invest in a 'cheaper' or 'much cheaper' share class.
.

Hank, I keep a library of "experts" (and most are very famous) predictions for decades and it's not pretty. Only fools try predicting the future, but that's what keeps the media going.
I don't know why you are surprised that we agree on something. Over the years I got thousands of private emails where I helped these people with any questions from small to a full portfolio, all for FREE, based on THEIR risk, goals, and want. I don't promote or discuss my unique system with them, actually, I tell them not to use it.

@FD1000: You can sit there and blather whatever you want. It doesn't change the fact that coming from middle-class families with little inherited wealth we can now sit here without any financial worry, and that our American Fund financial advisor played a significant role in that.
American Funds never charged any load when selling and reinvesting in a different fund. You would have us believe that you know everything about everything, but your world view is so self-centered that all that you accomplish is pomposity and arrogance. Hubris... how pathetic.
But I'm pretty sure that many others have already commented on that.

I don't why you got offended. I asked several questions I didn't know the answer to. I also didn't say anything about your investment ability, nor did I post anything about my past record. I'm glad you are doing well and hope you will do great in the future.
In my opinion, no one should ever pay 5%, and most should not pay even 1% annually when Vanguard's annual fee is 0.35% for its all-index investment options and 0.40% for an active/index mix. A good adviser can and should have a clear plan that lasts for years, and only make changes in major events, and why most who need advice should do it every several years or in major events.

FA(financial advisers) catch 22. When your knowledge is below average, you can't distinguish between a good FA to below average/average one.
When your knowledge is above average, you don't need a FA.
I never invested with AF funds. Suppose I start with 1 million using an American financial adviser.
1) The FA invested in 3 AF funds. Do I pay 5% = $50K?
2) After 3 years, international stocks look great and I want to invest 0.5 million in it. I sell 0.5 million from the funds I own and buy the new fund. Do I pay a new 5% for the new fund?
3) Can you invest in other fund families? Do you pay any commission to buy Vanguard/Fidelity funds?

I agree with respect to the zillion share classes at AF. When we were investing there I just stayed with the "A" class. Fortunately after a few years we were able to invest there with diminishing loads, and finally without load. Load funds were not uncommon in those days, but I never did think that charging 5% or so to buy into a fund was really justified.
We knew nothing about funds then, but fortunately we had a very good AF advisor who helped us understand the ins and outs, and what the whole thing was all about. Part of that 5% paid his salary, and I have to concede that he was a big factor in our present financial well-being in retirement.

In the last 20+ years, I read/heard many times about other indexes, they come and go but VOO or VTI are the golden standard. The way these two are calculated is another plus.
Goldman: Stock valuations are justified, even in the face of rising rates (link). Very Typical to get these predictions after a rally. Just as we got similar views at the end of 2022, when VALUE was better than growth, and many "experts" predicted that VALUE supposes to be better...just to find out in 2023 that growth hugely led.

Thanks, everyone, for your kind words. It may interest you to know that Primecap was founded many years ago by folks from American Funds and they built a similar multi-manager structure for POAGX, POGRX, POSKX as well as Vanguard Primecap funds where managers run sleeves of the portfolio on their own. Although more collaborative, Dodge & Cox also has a deep team approach.

American Funds seem to be the darlings of 401, 403, 457, etc. retirement funds. I owned them for many years, as part of company retirement programs, and was on Company Investment Committees that helped select them. They have huge AUMs, guided by large investment teams, but seem to stay pretty competitive. I have not owned any of their funds since I retired, but I know they have a large and loyal fan base that believe in them.

"You can’t avoid the S&P completely if you’re in domestic equity funds."
Well … I didn’t mean that quite literally … No intent here to avoid them completely. For example, DODBX likely has some exposure to the S&P. That alone wouldn’t deter me from owning it. I don’t think they’re especially enamored by it either, having held a small (2-3%) short position on the S&P within the past couple years. And they may well be hedging S&P exposure with some other holdings.
What would be helpful would be an app or website that would analyze a given fund and sort out for simplicity the % of assets it currently has in components of the S&P 500.

Yes, American Funds / Capitol Group was our main asset-building fund group, and over the years I used at least eight of their funds. I would change the allocations periodically depending on market conditions. At this point we have transferred all of the assets there into three AFAXX money market accounts- two IRAs and a revocable trust account.

I’ve tried to avoid the S&P as much as possible over the years (unless things were really depressed). But don’t typically share my investments. You can’t avoid the S&P completely if you’re in domestic equity funds. BTW - That’s not a market call. Just a desire to try to avoid any potential herd mentality, which tends to affect the major U.S. indexes to a greater degree. I hope everybody, including you FD, make lots of money with whatever they’re invested in.
Not picking on you. Just tired of every Tom, Dick and Harry talking or writing about ”the stock market” as if it were all one big single entity. Kripes. How about some attention to specifics when so writing? There are of course many many different stock markets.

There are only far and a few star managers, these managers do well in most markets for 1-2 decades and are flexible enough to change. The first that comes to mind is Giroux managing PRWCX.
A reasonable way is to invest in top-performing categories/funds, just as stock traders find top-performing categories and then look for stocks in that category.
From my experience after watching and researching funds for decades, most times, managers that outperformed, it's because their style fit markets in that period...or...they found a niche that worked well.
These types of markets can last for years:
2000-2010: the SP500 lost money; value, SC and international did much better(FAIRX,SGIIX)
2010-2021: US LC growth did better than most (QQQ)
PIMIX took advantage of the broken MBS of 2008 and had several years of better performance than stocks + better performance than many bond funds for more years + better SD = better Sharpe ratio.
Basically, invest in the market you have, not the market you wished you have.
BTW, the above does not mean fast trading and/or trading 100% of your portfolio.

From the article:
"As discussed in our 1Q23 letter, capital flows favor assets with the highest risk-adjusted returns. Investors that have been large buyers of investment grade CLO debt are now able to earn significantly better yields in newly issued commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS)15 debt of comparable quality. In the AAA tranche, CMBS debt offers slightly less spread for much higher credit quality based on loan-to-value (LTV). For tranches below the AAA tranche, CMBS yields are, on average, significantly higher with better LTV"
"At the same time, we are selectively nibbling in the CMBS market. Based on our expectation of increasing volatility, the portfolios are likely to continue experiencing above normal turnover as we adapt to reflect the changing environment"
Music to my years.

@hank, the higher sum is from January to June, as I said in my post. The more time that goes by, the more the disparity grows. Start the comparison from 2021 and the disparity is now 164 bucks.
Where you start and stop your year also matters. For example, at M* you can chart the two against each other for the past year,and the difference is 57 bucks. Take a look at the chart in the new link I posted. At the end of December 2021, the discrepancy from January is 63 bucks.
The difference of .25 is not just a drag on the upside. It also sinks the fund deeper on the downside. As you can see in the link, at the end of January 2021, GLFOX is 13 bucks behind. And it will never catch up. It will fall inexorably behind.
I don't need to take IRA distributions for six years. If I back test the two funds for six years the CAGR for GLIFX is 8.63 vs, 8.35 for GLFOX. And the difference in dollars is 562 if 20K were the amount invested.