This fantastic ride for I-Bonds started on Nov 1, 2021. There have been skeptics all along - from "too good to be true", to "this cannot last", to "they may be bad few years from now", to "it is only for $10K/$20K/$25K", etc.
Well, enjoy the ride, and if it ends, sell in a year, or two, or three...with penalty for 3-mo interest (-:)
I got on it as soon as Treasury Direct could confirm my new account (by 12/2021).

In 2022, both stocks and bonds had bear markets simultaneously. This caused heavy losses in allocation/balanced portfolios as well as risk-parity portfolios. Bonds failed to moderate declines due to stocks and, instead, contributed significantly to portfolio losses. Reasons were many - rapid Fed tightening, strong dollar, high inflation, post-pandemic fragile economies, recession fears, Russia-Ukraine war, supply-chain disruptions, chaos in oil/gas markets, etc. Purpose here is to record how bad things were by 2022/Q3.
Allocation/balanced portfolios were the 2nd worst with -21% 2022YTD (the record was -27.3% for full 1931). Other bad (full) years with double-digit % declines were 1930 (-13.3%), 1974 (-14.7%) and 2008 (-13.9%). Table below is from Twitter LINK1
Risk-parity portfolio performance was among the worst in history. These portfolios try to equalize volatilities of stock and bond portions and then use leverage. Twitter LINK2
There is growing appreciation for multi-asset funds that include stocks-bonds-alternatives. Prominent examples of these are FMSDX, VPGDX. These have to be battle-tested in future, but by 2022/Q3, their performance was FMSDX -16.80%, VPGDX -16.12% and that compared well with traditional moderate-allocation index fund VBINX -20.85% (active moderate-allocation funds were around this).
It was bad, but far from the worst year for SP500. Twitter LINK3
Image with 60-40 Table https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FeJ8OKuXwAMqguu?format=png&name=small

"SWR (which is type of payout...that hopefully last a lifetime) should have in it's SWR methodology considerations for performance ( in both up and down markets)."
I'm surely not math gifted but how could that could be done? How could a Safe Withdrawal Rate methodology possibly predict what types of market conditions, either good or bad, might exist in any given time span?
Yes, one can construct a bracket of simulations that cover a range of overall market conditions in a given number-of-years time frame, and in fact I did exactly that over a span of fifty years prior to retirement. That helps one to see what range of asset mixes would be required to insure a decent retirement over a given length of time.
But that's a different animal than a projection that yields a number that guarantees an optimal withdrawal percentage over an entire retirement time span. If such a projection erred substantially in predicting poor market conditions, the retirement pot would be underfunded. If it erred substantially in predicting unusually good market conditions, then the retirement scheme would provide significantly less income than possible. "Safe", yes, but not terribly efficient.
Seems to me that there's no such thing as "one ring to rule them all" in financial projections over a long period of time.

@msf, thanks for the details on I-Bonds.
I didn't check beyond the history published by Treasury Direct. One can see there also that for a while the limits applied separately to paper and electronic Savings Bonds but those were unified later.
My Twitter post was a response to Jason Zweig's WSJ article that has been cited by many secondary stories on this issue. My purpose there was that the limits have fluctuated over the years and were quite high at one time. Twitter has severe word/character limits.
I used legacy TD system years ago and only last year opened the TD account online.

How many of those Vanguard defined contribution accounts are held by people who have only worked for their employer a few years? How many of those participants have other DC accounts at former employers or have additional retirement savings in IRAs?

Vanguard estimates that a typical participant should target a total contribution rate of 12% to 15%, including both employee and employer contributions. Forty-seven percent of participants had total employee and employer contribution rates that met those thresholds or reached the statutory contribution limit.

https://institutional.vanguard.com/content/dam/inst/vanguard-has/insights-pdfs/22_TL_HAS_FullReport_2022.pdf
If one were to include IRA contributions, the percentage of participating employees meeting the recommended thresholds would be higher.
------
Hulbert grossly misread the BC study, or I did. That study contains only a single graph with a 12% figure in it. That is the rate of coverage by both defined contribution and defined benefit plans. The study says that 73% of workers were covered by DC plans alone in 2019.
As far as actually participating (having accounts) in DC plans is concerned, the BLS reports that in private industry (in 2021), 68% of workers had access to retirement plans. 75% of those participated. In other words, a majority of workers in private industry had retirement accounts.
Government workers? Even better. 92% had access to retirement plans, and 89% of those participated. over 4/5 of government workers had retirement accounts.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2021/68-percent-of-private-industry-workers-had-access-to-retirement-plans-in-2021.htm
--------
A statistic from the Vanguard plan that I find informative is that only 2-3% of participating employees with wages under $100K max out (Figure 49). The figure would be even lower if we included the 1/3 of employees who aren't offered a plan, or the 1/4 of those who have that option but don't participate.
For all the consternation about limitations on contribution amounts, it's almost exclusively the higher salaried employees who would benefit from increasing the limit.

She's done well by being in the right place at the right time when tech stocks shot the moon in recent years. Frankly I think she's reckless with other people's money, trades in/out of things too bleepin' much chasing momentum, and has far too much faith in one sector. The ARK article (ARKticle?) in this month's MFO commentary describes it in very stark terms.
I also tend to avoid any money manager who becomes a 'rock star' in the finp0rn media --- Rob Arnott, Michael Hassenstab, Bill Gross, etc. They end up believing their own soundbytes before dramatically flaming out.

@Baseball_Fan -
What is your advice for a 25 year old working individual who has a 401-K tax deferred option available at work and who does not expect to need to withdraw any funds for at least 40 years and who likely will not need all the funds for at least 50 years, assuming you would not advise investing a large portion, if any, in equities?
Where are you going with the lengthy diatribe directed towards equities? Would you advise such an individual to invest his or her retirement money instead in cash? In bonds? Divide it into cash, bonds and equities? Or to seek to time the markets? Would that all of us at 25 were so blessed with those market timing skills that we might glide easily in and out of the most “profitable” investments of the day over the next half century.
For some reference - 50 years ago the DJI was around 750. The hand held calculator hadn’t yet appeared on store shelves. Most of us watched black and white TV and the cassette player was about to replace the 8-track as state of the art music. A gallon of gas cost 25 cents. $3500 bought you an upscale sedan off a new car lot. A modest home in many areas sold for $20,000 - $25,000. Computers were the size of a room and generated immense heat - yet were less powerful than an iphone today. Your 1970s dollar’s buying power today? One shudders to think.

The problem, as I see it, with academic research like this is that it emphasizes the theoretical and ignores what has actually occurred. Had these same researchers performed the same analysis 40 years ago would they have come to a different conclusion? I doubt it (not when your data base extends back to 1890). And if someone had based their withdrawal strategy on this conclusion back in 1982 that person might well have lived penuriously and died leaving behind not a small but an enormous fortune. So I'll go on the record and call this bunk. Ask me in 30 years which of us was right.

Couple things to ponder re "stocks for the long run"...
article in Marketwatch, Statman, June 2017...
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Samuelson argued that the advocacy of time-diversification is built on framing errors that mislead investors into an illusory happy ending, as if the probability of losses over the long run is zero.
To understand the nature of these framing errors, consider an investor who invests $1,000 in a portfolio with a 50–50 chance to gain 20% or lose 10% each year, as laid out in Figure 1. The investor has a 50% probability of losing money if her horizon is one year, but she has only a 25% probability of losing money if it is two years.
If risk is framed as the probability of losing money, risk declines as the horizon increases, but if risk is framed as the amount of money that can be lost, risk increases as the horizon increases. The investor might lose $100 after one year, but she might lose more, $190, after two years.

from Wishful Thinking About the Risk of Stocks in the Long Run: Bodie, March 2020
By looking at the average rate of return rather than the amount of wealth at the end of the holding period, the impression is created that risk declines with the length of one’s time horizon. The standard deviation of the average rate of return declines with the length of the time horizon because it is an average.
The problem is that, although the principle of diversification works across securities and
asset classes, it does not work over time. Even a highly diversified portfolio of stocks does not become safe in the long run. Yet here is the kind of thing customers are told on a typical website: Invest in stocks, either individually or in mutual funds, for long-term growth. While in any given year stocks can be more volatile than other investments, over time, they have typically outperformed all other types of investments while staying ahead of inflation. Stocks should be the core of a long-term investing strategy. If stocks are so great for the long run, then why don’t the same firms offering this advice offer a performance guarantee to pay at least what a customer contributes to a diversified equity portfolio adjusted for inflation? After all, the firm managing the fund is in a much better position to evaluate and manage the risk than the customer is. If the firm believes what it is saying, it ought to offer a free guarantee for its product. That’s what other industries do. Of course, option-pricing theory shows that such a guarantee is far from free.
My thoughts/questions/concerns"
If stocks are "safer" in the long run why Puts cost more, the longer the strike date is?
We as humans are not generally wired to hold thru large downdrafts...I saw many corporate types happlily retire in 06' then come crawling back begging for their old jobs in 09'...they weren't real happy, nor real motivated to say the least...
Why sit thru the downdraft? Who cares if you leave some schekels on the table getting back in
Even if I was 25 years old, I would max hold 65% stocks..first downdraft, you will sell, saw it over and over in 07', 08' with younger colleagues at work
Markets since early 70s, have seen relatively political stability, rule of law, etc...things are looking kind of squirrely now at best...who knows what will happen

@Lewis -- I would argue that ARKK also engages in a form of value investing if you broaden the definition of value as paying for something today that you expect to sell for higher tomorrow. ARKK is obviously using growth and discount rate assumptions different than what "classic" value investors do but it's all value investing the way I see it
@Balu, @Dennis -- I bought at Schwab through a grandfathered eligibility situation which might not be available to everybody. I've been watching this fund since February when I just missed buying into it before it publicly closed. Strategy is quant + fundamental as described at https://www.invenomic.com/_files/ugd/8592d8_c3a2c82a2bdd4701b77dcfdf2100a230.pdf Currently net 25% long positioning which I'm good with. Invenomic provides monthly commentary which is not common. Standpoint's Eric Crittenden provides monthly commentary too
Per portfolio visualizer inception to date performance is over 22% vs. SPY which is over 9%. 3Y performance numbers starting 10/01/2019 are 34% and 8% respectively. Any performance numbers below 3 years I don't pay much attention too but BIVIX has been on fire in 2022 YTD 30% vs. -23% for SPY

From JohnN’s above post:
“ … long term investors absolutely need dca /buy now.”
I suppose it depends on your definition of “long term investors” - among other things.
- If 25 years or more from retirement / needing the money one might ask why they are not already 100% in good equity funds.
- If we shorten the definition to mean 7-10 years from needing the money, I’d still argue for adding some equities at today’s levels, the degree of which dependent on the individual’s risk tolerance.
- Some folks consider only 3-5 years “long term”. With that short a time horizon the prospect of adding equities at today’s (still arguably elevated) valuations becomes much dicier. I probably would, but it’s far from a done deal.
(Not intended as advice)

reminds me of a prof i had for a class many years ago. smart, interesting, but with a voice that was smooth and so soothing, i could not help falling asleep. i went back and listened again, twice. that was some great shit. well worth listening to. thank you.... he recommends diversifiers right now, like EM debt. and commodities. even local currency EM debt. i'm out of EM debt. have been for a long time. it was PREMX. It once upon a time served me very well. but between PREMX and AGEPX, the latter certainly looks like a better deal today. ... as for commodities: he's been reading my own book: I've been averaging-into NHYDY. Vertically integrated. ALUMINUM. They even mine their own bauxite. cutting back on production lately. expected fall in demand. recession.
"Aluminium is the world's largest exchange commodity for metals in terms of trading volumes. It accounts for nearly a third of all contracts made on the LME."
https://investor.morningstar.com/quotes/0P000102MI
https://investor.morningstar.com/quotes/0P00002PHU
https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/NHYDY
Forgot Real Estate. PSTL.
https://www.barrons.com/market-data/stocks/pstl/research-ratings?mod=quotes#subnav
And here's one I continue to track but do not own: SCHN.
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/schn
***Confirmation bias, anyone...????????? Hmmmmm? ***
Anyhow, I can't take credit for following Arnott's advice before ever hearing it.

The fund website indicates about 150 companies each on the short and long side. That is 300 companies. They use technology to screen companies to hold in the portfolio. Is it fair to call this a long-short quant fund?
If you readily have the links, could you please direct me to info that confirms the fund strategy is long value companies and short growth companies? M* does show the fund in the value box for all years since inception.
The fund's performance since inception is good, though the fund's negative performance since June 8, 2022 gives me a pause if in a malaise whether cash is not a better option. If we are already getting closer to the bottom of the current bear market, is this the right fund to be in to spring up. I think this is a good fund but I will have to think if now is a good time to get into it, giving up cash.
With current money market fund yields in the 3-4% range, the fund should be able to cover its ER from the cash it holds (net long seems to vary 20-30%).

@BaluBalu
Individuals like Putin don't stop with "just a little bit". Button pushing for more won't stop. What's to lose???
Not unlike Hilter doing a bit of government rework for the country of Czechoslovakia in 1939.

@catch22,
Until I saw @Crash post, I assumed that you understood what I thought about Putin - that he is not to be trusted and he will take whatever he can get and more. Just to be clear, I support Ukraine to pursue its dreams and aspirations and the West to stop Putin and not surrender to his threats (nuke or not). I personally like to see Putin defeated and removed from power ASAP because of the societal cohesion it might bring in our own country.
Notwithstanding my personal desires, I still have to consider the probabilities of various outcomes of the war based on 20+ years of West's dealings with Putin, even when I personally dislike some of those outcomes.

This has been an extremely challenging year for the traditional 60/40 portfolio.
It's very rare for stocks and high-quality bonds to both be down for two or more consecutive quarters.
From Ben Carlson:
"The 6 month returns for a 60/40 portfolio were in the bottom 2% of rolling returns going back to 1926.
This means 98% of the time, returns have been better than what we just lived through.
It was also just the 4th time over the past 100 years or so that stocks and bonds were down two quarters
in a row at the same time.
The last time U.S. stocks and intermediate-term bonds were both down two quarters in a row occurred
in the first two 3 month periods in 1974."
Link

I read Hussie commentary for many years. Good writer and it all made sense and I was invested with his fund for many years but turned out to be a money loser.
In investing, unfortunately one has to be right and get the timing right too.

@Hank -
I don't believe HSGFX is a bear fund, but does attempt to adjust market exposure due to the market via examining certain metrics, valuations etc. He has been wrongly positioned during the past years primarily because his models didn't account for the Central Banks pumping money into the system. No funds invested their for me now but have to say every time I read his commentary it makes sense, at least to me.
I guess my point was many funds who have received accolades and done well with the wind at their back and some were arguably positioned correctly but still lost investors money due to outside influences...now let's see how they do when that outside influence, the insane largess of the CBs goes away...meaning QT, rate hikes etc. In other words, the tide is going out, who is wearing swim trunks?
Not sure about a Great Depression, I sure hope not, but quite possible, maybe likely an extended malaise ala the Jimmy Carter years...it does seem crazy that many believe rates get hiked, mistake is made, market crashes, then QE and up go the markets again...I'm not certain that will be the case this go round.
Best Regards,
Baseball Fan

The author at that link ends with, "[U]nder any reasonable strategy, using the weapons is unthinkable and so threatening their use is by definition a bluff."
I would not be so sure. If he has to give up any territory he wants to control (probably smaller than what he claims to be Russia but making Russia contiguous to Crimea which has all along been his goal of this war (NATO threat is a red herring)), he will use all means. He has already made massive areas of Ukraine (he does not want / care for) uninhabitable; nuke is just a word. This war has been in the making for at least 10 years - he played a long, incremental game. USEIA shows Europe substantially increased its energy dependence on Russia after Crimea annexation, clearly sending Putin a signal that Europe is too selfish to stop him. ISTM, as long as he is in Power, either Ukraine gives up or there is going to be no resolution to this war. Does the West really have the resolve to isolate Russia and strangle its economy for at least 10 years if he does not withdraw from Ukraine to pre-2014 borders? It was not easy to strangle South Africa and Russia is a whole different ball game. The West are still working on getting Sweden and Finland into NATO - shows who is in control.
ISTM, if there is a peace agreement in Ukraine, he will give up some of the Ukraine territory he claims to be Russia but does not control or need. IMO, the [most likely] outcome for this war is not much different from Russia's last war with Finland. Any agreement he enters is only as good as how much of it he wants to adhere to - we know how his agreement with Georgia is being implemented. There never was a Putin or Hitler, without enablers. In Putin's case, there have been plenty of enablers both inside and outside Russia.
I hope my assessment is wrong for the world's sake and hope there is a speedy resolution to Ukraine's misery, but the above is how I am investing. A positive consequence of the Ukraine war has been that we now have far fewer serious cyber attacks from Russia. Let us hope Russia forgets how to do those for lack of practice!

“Anyone care to comment that Hussy, HSGFX is in fact AHEAD of PRWCX for the past 3 years now? What's that, oh go back more years, ok I get it, I hear you, fair point, but let's see what happens going forward when the CBs globally are not pumping in trillions of dollars and the fund managers need to navigate the markets and invest.”
Sure. I’ll comment. HSGFX is a bear market fund. It should surprise no one that the fund has soared in a year in which the S&P has fallen 25% in a mere 6 months and the NASDAQ more than 32% during the same period. If your point is that HSGFX is a better fund than PRWCX over multi-year periods, than you should buy it. However, past performance doesn’t support that.
It is certainly possible we’re entering another Great Depression era during which markets will continue falling for multiple years and than not recover / return to “break-even” for 2 decades - as in the 30s and 40s. If that’s your call, than invest your $$ in bear funds, Personally, I refuse to believe that’s where the U.S. and global economies are heading for the next 20 years. But that’s just my largely uninformed optimistic outlook - perhaps the unfortunate consequence of having watched far too many Louis Rukeyser programs during the 70s, 80s & 90s. Your money. Your call.

PRSIX (“T. Rowe Price Conservative Allocation Fund”) is down 17.14% YTD after today. A good bell-weather to watch. I’ve followed it for years and have always admired the firm’s demonstrated management prowess. It’s highly unlikely the folks at TRP have started taking “stupid pills”. So, other thoughts might be entertained as to why that fund suddenly fell out of bed in the course of a short 9 months. Might be some lessons there …

Rough year for sure. Perhaps one silver lining is for Roth conversion at the market low.

Yup. It’s called “making lemonade out of lemons”. :)