@Crash The table on page 2 of your second link shows this is 10% total (not per year) over 10 years, increasing very slowly to 10% total over that period.

Some of you might recall me mentioning that I have citizenship in Ireland as well as the USA. So a 10% tax-free return interests me! I've sent an inquiry to them by email about eligibility, since I do not reside in Ireland. The term is 10 years on this one. I expect it will compound through the years. The "AER" (Annual Equivalent Rate) = 0.96%.
Links:
https://www.statesavings.ie/media/pdf/nsb-general-terms-conditions.pdf
https://www.statesavings.ie/media/pdf/ss-brochure-4_10yr.pdf
https://www.statesavings.ie/our-products/10-year-national-solidarity-bond
https://www.statesavings.ie/about-state-savings
Just thought I'd share, in case anyone else can find a way to get your foot in the door. I've already received an auto-reply from them by email. After the holiday, I'll hear back from someone over there.

Calm, I'm looking at Morningstar info 3 years thru dec 22...data shows hsgfx outperforming prwcx...noting that if you look at hussy just stonk portion of hsgfx since 2000 he outperforms spy by something like 400 bps year average....
Not a hussy fan boy, but we'll see....

@fd1000. Totally understand your perspective regarding experts. What's your perspective if I stated hussy hsgfx has outperformed fan favorite prwcx groovy guireaux over the past 3 plus years?
My point being the experts you referenced had no way of knowing the 40 + trillion or so the global central banks would be pumped into the markets. Now that go bye bye maybe just maybe a more realistic investment approach is called for? Maybe all the newer bloggers and podcasters weren't the experts after all and maybe hussy, arnott and the grey beards will prevail?
Thoughts?
Merry Christmas to all
Baseball fan

Just wondering : Instead of going with a CD or treasury for two years, investing in equities? As of now one CD for 1 year & 2 Treasuries, 1 year, & 1- 2 year maturities.
Currently 7 CD's or Treasures coming due through 5/1/23.
Can anyone see interest bearing instruments bearing close to 5% for much longer ?
Fed meeting in Feb. will probably set the plate for 2023.
Just my 2 cents, Derf

I found this on LTCI premiums from tax-deferred plans from KPMG summary. However, meaning of "high-quality" LTC plan isn't clear, so we have to wait for clarification.
Section 334, Long-term care contracts purchased with retirement plan distributions. Section 334 permits retirement plans to distribute up to $2,500 per year for the payment of premiums for certain specified long term care insurance contracts. Distributions from plans to pay such premiums are exempt from the additional 10 percent tax on early distributions. Only a policy that provides for high quality coverage is eligible for early distribution and waiver of the 10 percent tax. Section 334 is effective 3 years after date of enactment of this Act.
https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/us/pdf/2022/12/tnf-secure-act-section-by-section-dec20-2022.pdf

Agree. 2022 is a great example and few (if) guessed it is one of the worst year in recent years.

Here's KPMG's description of every section of Secure Act 2.0 that made it into the omnibus bill (19 pages).
https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/us/pdf/2022/12/tnf-secure-act-section-by-section-dec20-2022.pdf
Full text of bill: https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/JRQ121922.PDF
Since Forbes offered opinions about some of the sections, I'll try to explain Kiplinger's observation that "other [supporters of the legislation] have expressed concern that some provisions in the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 primarily benefit high-income earners."
https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/bipartisan-retirement-savings-package-in-massive-budget-bill
Section 107: raising retirement age. This is a tax break for high earners; Forbes notes: "This provision mostly impacts people with wealth who don’t need their RMD and can leave the money to grow."
It might have made more sense to treat IRAs and 401(k)s the same - don't require RMDs so long as you are working. Otherwise, you are retired and thus should be drawing from retirement accounts.
Wonder why increasing the age to 75 won't happen for a decade? It's because these laws only have to look ten years out when considering budget impact. This change in RMD age is said to be the most costly provision of the SECURE Act, but most of that cost escapes scrutiny. Accounting gimmick. (See also JCT analysis of SECURE 2.0 Act.)
Sections 108, 109: increasing catch up amounts. According to a current Vanguard study, only 2%-3% of those earning under $100K max out even with the limits already in place. 37% of those earning over $100K max out.
Section 202: raising QLAC limits. Currently $145K (inflation indexed) up to 25% of account balance, will be raised to $200K (inflation indexed), with no percentage cap. QLACs are basically insurance policies against living "too long". There is a strong correlation between income and longevity.
Section 325: No more RMD for Roth 401(k)s. This section comes under Title III - Simplification and Clarification of Retirement Plan Rules. There's a lot of good cleanup in this Title. Section 325 makes the RMD treatment of Roth 401(k)s and Roth IRAs the same. Complete simplification would have made the treatment of RMDs the same for everything - Roths and Traditionals, employer plans and IRAs.
Being able to leave more money in tax-sheltered accounts mostly benefits those who do not need to take money from those accounts. So while this section doesn't add benefits for the better off, it doesn't address this disparity of benefits either.
Sections 603 and 604 come under Title VI - revenue provisions. They are more accounting gimmicks to make it look like tax revenue is being increased. By moving some contributions (high wage earner catch ups and some employer matches) from traditional to Roth, these provisions increase immediate revenue while moving the costs largely outside the 10 year budget window. At best, the present value of those costs is break even; more likely these changes are revenue losers.
Analysis of earlier but similar Senate Bill (EARN):
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/senate-retirement-bill-would-cost-84-billion-without-gimmicks
Section 603: High earner catch up provisions must be Roth. Since this doesn't affect anyone earning $145K (inflation adjusted) or more and rhus constitutes a new restriction on high earners, simple logic says this is not a change that benefits high earners. But it's not the onerous provision that Forbes suggests. Effectively it is a forced Roth conversion.
Higher wage earners rejoiced when they were finally permitted to do Roth conversions starting in 2010. While those conversions were not forced, converting some savings was generally regarded as a positive. Especially since pre-paying taxes enables one to enhance the post-tax value of tax-sheltered accounts.
https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2010/jan/20091743.html
This legislation has much to commend it, including changes that encourage participation and make it easier to participate. Though in terms of dollars and cents, it is skewed toward those who are already contributing and can afford to contribute more.

The suit isn't strange if you consider whether Microsoft, which owns XBox, will allow users of Sony Playstation to continue playing updated versions of extremely popular Activision games like Call of Duty after the merger is done. Microsoft's promise to allow Call of Duty specifically to be on Playstation for ten years should alleviate some of those fears. But there are also World of Warcraft, Guitar Hero and others.

Why do people think foreign looks best over the next ten years? Valuations? I've heard that for years now.
Seems to me there are a lot of headwinds from inflation, and collateral damage from the war in Europe. Neither of those has a predictable end point.
That being said. I do own some IHDG and FYLD just in case. ;>)

Some pundits have been touting foreign stocks in recent years.
There is currently plenty of negative sentiment for foreign equities due to macro headwinds.
I don't know if foreign stocks will finally outperform US stocks over the next decade.
Since I don't know the outcome, foreign equity allocation is maintained as somewhat of a hedge.
From a performance perspective, foreign exposure increased my 2000 - 2009 ("lost decade") portfolio returns.
However, foreign stocks have really underperformed since then.

Why do people think foreign looks best over the next ten years? Valuations? I've heard that for years now.
Seems to me there are a lot of headwinds from inflation, and collateral damage from the war in Europe. Neither of those has a predictable end point.
That being said. I do own some IHDG and FYLD just in case. ;>)

Matt Levine, Part 2:
If you are delinquent on a car loan to Wells Fargo, eventually some system at Wells Fargo decides to repossess your car. There is some delay between when this system sets the repossession in motion and when someone actually takes the car. In the meantime, if you make a payment, or sign an agreement with some other person at Wells Fargo to avoid repossession, then some other system at Wells Fargo knows that Wells Fargo should not repossess your car. Do those systems talk to each other? Does the person signing the agreement, or the mailbox receiving your payment, have a way to stop the repossession that is lurching into motion? Meh, sometimes, maybe, but not all the time.
Again, this does not seem like rational profit-maximizing behavior by Wells Fargo; repossessing the car is surely more of a pain than having the borrower start making payments again. No one at Wells Fargo was like “bwahahaha, a clever trick would be to repossess people’s cars even after they start paying their loans back.” Wells Fargo just did it anyway. It is an emergent feature of Wells Fargo’s bureaucracy, and its computers.

Or:
Guaranteed Asset Protection (GAP) contracts are a type of debt cancellation contract (DCC) that generally relieve the borrower from the obligation to pay the remaining amount of the borrower’s loan on the vehicle above the vehicle’s depreciated value in the case of a major accident or theft. The auto dealer markets GAP coverage to the borrower and is paid the GAP fee. However, borrowers often finance GAP fees as part of their auto loan at origination and the GAP contract becomes part of the auto loan contract. If the borrower pays off the loan early, or the GAP contract otherwise terminates, the borrower may be entitled to a refund of the unearned portion of the GAP fee that they financed when first buying the vehicle. Such refund obligations usually are governed by the terms of the GAP contract executed between the borrower and the originating dealer, with GAP contracts sometimes requiring that the borrower make a written request to the originating dealer for a GAP refund. Respondent, as the owner and servicer of the GAP contracts, did not ensure that unearned GAP fees were refunded to all borrowers who paid off their loans early.

That is just, like, Wells Fargo entered into a complicated contract with its auto-loan borrowers, and the contract provided that in certain circumstances, years in the future, Wells Fargo would have to send some money to the borrowers, and Wells Fargo just stuck the contract in a drawer somewhere and ignored it, and so did the borrowers, so it never sent them the money. Very understandable, for the borrowers, who are busy people who have jobs and lives and are not necessarily reading every word of their auto-loan contracts. Less understandable, for the bank, which is a bank.

Or:
Another error occurred from July 2013 until September 2018, when Respondent did not offer no-application modifications to approximately 190 borrowers with Government Sponsored Entity (GSE) loans. Respondent erroneously identified these borrowers as deceased and therefore did not assess their eligibility for modifications. Respondent is paying approximately $2.4 million in remediation to these borrowers.

It is a little hard to tell how that one would work? Like, the rule is something like “certain mortgage borrowers need to be offered this loan modification.” Wells Fargo went through its records to see who needed to be offered the modification, and decided not to offer it to these 190 people because they were dead. They were not dead, so, a failure of record-keeping by Wells Fargo. But also … they were not offered the modification, so they kept paying their mortgages?[1] Like every month Wells Fargo would get a check from these people whom it had erroneously identified as deceased? If you got a check every month from someone who you thought was dead, you would be surprised, and presumably you would update your views. (You might think “aha, they are not dead,” or you might think “wow ghosts are real and very financially responsible,” or you might call them to say “so are you dead or what?”) But Wells Fargo is not a human with normal human intuitions. It is a big bureaucratic institution with databases that don’t necessarily talk to each other in sensible ways, and it blithely went along cashing checks from people while also believing they were dead.
Here are CFPB Director Rohit Chopra’s remarks on the enforcement action:

In the CFPB’s eleven years of existence, Wells Fargo has consistently been one of the most problematic repeat offenders of the banks and credit unions we supervise. …
Put simply, Wells Fargo is a corporate recidivist that puts one third of American households at risk of harm. Finding a permanent resolution to this bank’s pattern of unlawful behavior is a top priority. Today, CFPB is announcing an important step toward that goal: restitution for victims of Wells Fargo’s widespread illegal activities. …
While today’s order addresses a number of consumer abuses, it should not be read as a sign that Wells Fargo has moved past its longstanding problems or that the CFPB’s work here is done. Importantly, the order does not provide immunity for any individuals, nor, for example, does it release claims for any ongoing illegal acts or practices.
While $3.7 billion may sound like a lot, the CFPB recognizes that this alone will not fix Wells Fargo’s fundamental problems. Over the past several years, Wells Fargo executives have taken steps to fix longstanding problems, but it is also clear that they are not making rapid progress. We are concerned that the bank’s product launches, growth initiatives, and other efforts to increase profits have delayed needed reform.

Imagine being the sort of person who gets ahead in banking and becomes a senior executive at Wells Fargo. One of your subordinates comes to you to be like “I have an idea for a new product that will attract a lot of customers and bring in a lot of revenue.” Another one of your subordinates comes to you to be like “sometimes we charge people late fees even after agreeing not to, because our systems don’t talk to each other very well; I have an idea for how to modernize them to make sure that doesn’t happen. It will cost a lot of money, but in exchange we, uh, won’t get to charge as many late fees?” Which subordinate would you want to spend more time with? Who sounds like more fun?

When it launched, we referred to it as "Mr. Miller's retirement present from Legg Mason."
He's collecting a 0.77% management fee on $1.1 billion in a fund that - per Morningstar - is in the 100th percentile for the past week.
Month.
Quarterly.
Year.
Three years.
Five years.
Fifteen years.
- - - - -
The key is the "alpha or omega" performance that Mark alludes to. The fund trails only 84% of its peers over the past decade buoyed by top tier performance in five of those years and anchored by three dead last years.

@BenWP @LewisBraham
Since October first, BRTRX has sorta decoupled from TSLA ( after marching in lock step for years) , down 17% vs TSLA -48%, so it looks like Baron has trimmed the TSLA exposure to less than 50% reported at the end of September. But he probably still owns huge amount
While TSLA cars are apparently quite innovative, I do not think you can use it's previous growth rates as an indicator of what the future might hold. TSLA share of EV market has been declining, especially if you look at non luxury cars ( under $50,000)
https://electrek.co/2022/11/29/tesla-owns-us-ev-market-but-losing-market-shares-data/
The major safety problems with fires etc, the impossibility of autonomous driving anytime soon all are a concern. Would you put a TSLA battery in your house for energy storage? What if it caught fire?
It is hard to quantitate the impact Musk's behavior has on sales and the stock, but it can't be popular on Wall Street and with major banks. Who in their right mind would lend this guy money?
Maybe the problems are factored into the stock price, but how can you possibly know what the next shoe to drop from Musk will be ?

HAINX did well with Castegren, but after he was gone, Harbor stuck with Northern Cross for another seven years (2011 - 2018). Harbor wasn't quick to pull the trigger here, as outflows and poor returns piled up.

The firm was axed from the fund following what Harbor referred to as ‘a sustained period of underperformance.’
The fund had lagged its benchmark, the MSCI EAFE NR, in every calendar year from 2013 to 2017, according to Lipper data, although was ahead for the year [2018] at the time of the termination.
...
The fund had also experienced outflows with investors pulling money in every quarter from the last three months of 2014 onward. In total, over that time to the end of Q2 2018, the fund suffered net outflows of $28.9 billion, according to data from Lipper.

https://citywire.com/pro-buyer/news/boston-pm-shuts-shop-months-after-losing-20bn-subadvisor-spot/a1188410
Harbor similarly stuck with PIMCO as manager of HABDX for seven years after Gross left in 2014. Here that perseverance made sense. Despite the outflows, the fund turned in solid if not earth-shattering performance over that period.

The fund suffered heavy outflows in October 2014 following Gross’s abrupt exit from Pimco and has seen money leave in the vast majority of months since then. Over the last five years [through 2021], it has returned an annualized 4.43%, ahead of the Morningstar Intermediate Core-Plus Bond category average 4.12% and the Bloomberg US Universal’s 4.0%.

https://citywire.com/pro-buyer/news/harbor-drops-pimco-from-1-6bn-bond-fund/a1592923

We bought a bed and side table when we first got here. Great financing: zero interest for five years. Through Wells. Can we do this through any other source? Nope. Shit, OK, then. And they sent us a credit card we NEVER have used. Wells is a cesspool. Almost finished with the payments. Then I cancel that card!

Following are lightly edited excerpts from a current report by the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Consumer banking giant Wells Fargo agreed to pay $3.7 billion to settle charges that it harmed customers by charging illegal fees and interest on auto loans and mortgages, as well as incorrectly applying overdraft fees against savings and checking accounts.
Wells was ordered to repay $2 billion to consumers by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which also enacted a $1.7 billion penalty against the San Francisco bank Tuesday. It’s the largest fine ever leveled against a bank by the CFPB and the largest yet against Wells, which has spent years trying to rehabilitate its image after a series of scandals tied to its sales practices.
Regulators made it clear, however, that they believe Wells Fargo has further to go on that front. “Put simply: Wells Fargo is a corporate recidivist that puts one out of three Americans at risk for potential harm,” said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, in a call with reporters.
The bank’s pattern of behavior has made it necessary for regulators to take additional actions against Wells Fargo that go beyond the $3.7 billion in fines and penalties, Chopra said.
The violations impacted more than 16 million customers, the bureau said. In addition to improperly charging auto loan customers with fees and interest, the bank wrongfully repossessed vehicles in some cases. The bank also improperly denied thousands of mortgage loan modifications for homeowners.
Wells Fargo has been sanctioned repeatedly by U.S. regulators for violations of consumer protection laws going back to 2016, when employees were found to have opened millions of accounts illegally in order to meet unrealistic sales goals. Since then, executives have repeatedly said Wells is cleaning up its act, only for the bank to be found in violation of other parts of consumer protection law, including in its auto and mortgage lending businesses.
Wells paid a $1 billion penalty in 2018 for widespread consumer law violations, the largest against a bank for such violations at the time. Wells remains under a Federal Reserve order forbidding the bank from growing any larger until the Fed deems that its problems are resolved. That order, originally enacted in 2018, was expected to last only a year or two.
CEO Charles Scharf said in a prepared statement Tuesday that the agreement with the CFPB is part of an effort to “transform operating practices at Wells Fargo and to put these issues behind us.”
While Wells Fargo tried to frame the agreement with the CFPB as a resolution of established bad behavior, CFPB officials said some of the violations cited in Tuesday’s order took place this year.
“This should not been seen as Wells Fargo has moved past its problems,” Chopra said.

(Text emphasis added)

Anybody know anything about C Worldwide Asset Management, the portfolio advisor for Harbor’s international ETF, OSEA? I linked what info Harbor provides on the fund’s site. I’m interested because of recent forecasts that favor developed international and developing country stocks over the next 10 years. OSEA seems to be invested in large familiar European companies, judging from the top 10 holdings. Schwab’s FNDF is on my radar also. My international exposure is low at present.
https://www.harborcapital.com/investment-teams/c-worldwide-asset-management

I read Vanguard's Outlook article too. I felt it was useful for me to predict 10 years out given there are number of crucial variables that are in play. For example, did Vanguard predicted the impact of pandemic events?

Several inflationary scenarios were discussed:

Sequence-of-Returns Risk, Explained
What is sequence-of-returns risk? It’s the risk of running out of money in retirement because of losses in the early retirement years. Early losses increase the probability of portfolio exhaustion for two reasons. First, they forestall the stock and bond gains needed to maintain and enlarge retirement funds over time. Second, they can force retirees to sell assets to support their spending at inopportune times—when stocks and bonds boast more-attractive expected returns.
High inflation has accentuated that risk in 2022, as many retirees naturally increase their spending as consumer prices escalate. While this inflation adjustment helps retirees maintain their standards of living, it further ratchets up the pressure on retirement funds and permanently elevates the base spending amount to which future inflation adjustments will be made. After all, today’s currently torrid inflation rate may moderate, but consumer prices are unlikely to go back to previous levels.

https://morningstar.com/articles/1129750/how-worried-should-new-retirees-be-about-market-losses-and-high-inflation