Value investing. I can't comment from experience as we've not taken that path over the years.
This David Einhorn 3 minute video interview may provide some new insight for those inclined toward value investments. He's been involved in this world of investments for many years, and is well versed. This short interview is from 1 day ago.
Remain curious,
Catch

I owned OAKIX for years. I'm not sure you should pay any attention to my experience or opinion but since you asked . . . . That fund is exceptionally volatile. Periods of outperformance were always followed by periods of underperformance. Talk about reversion to the mean. Over the past 15 years it has delivered 2% annual returns. (Of course it's in an asset class that has similarly anemic short, medium, and long term returns.) It's awfully expensive for that level of performance. I've sort of assumed that the gold star it gets from M* has something to do with hometown bias. Having sold it all I have no regrets. I went index. That hasn't exactly boomed but at least I'm paying over 90% less in annual operating expenses.

That’s a nice post from @carew388.
Stocks do generally “recover”, although the amount of time to recoup losses and get back to par value can range from days to many years. Depends a lot on how fairly priced they were when purchased. So, stocks bought at a very hefty price will take longer to recover.
Bonds are a very diverse asset class. If you buy an investment grade bond with a predetermined interest rate and term (number of years) you will in nearly all cases receive your coupon (interest payment) along with the price paid for the bond if held to maturity. It’s rare, but exceptions can occur even with investment grade credit.
If you buy sub-investment grade bonds, you have a greater “reward” characteristic (higher interest payments) but also a higher chance the bond will default, leaving you high and dry.
Bond funds, however, do not behave in the same manner as individual bonds. The difference is most stark at the investment grade level. Say your bond fund bought a bunch of 10 year bonds paying 2.5% a year ago when 2.5% seemed like a good return. But now, investors can earn 4% on a similar 10 year bond. So in the open market folks begin selling those 2.5% bonds well before their maturity date. They sell for a loss just to get out of the position and to be able to reinvest their $$ in newer bonds paying a higher rate. So the bonds your bond fund holds fall in value. The fund’s lower NAV reflects the falling value of the bonds it holds. In addition, fund holders may “bail out” as the NAV starts falling, making it hard for the manager to buy those new higher yielding bonds for the fund.
What if you hang tight and don’t sell your bond fund? What will happen? Probably 1 of 2 things: (1) If interest rates fall over the ensuing years the bonds the fund owns should increase in value, They might even come to be worth considerably more than you (through your fund) paid for them initially. So, the fund’s NAV rises. However, (2) if interest rates continue rising, than your bond fund will continue to lose value and a lower NAV should result. Of course, as owner of said fund you should continue to receive interest payments, regardless of the value of the underlying securities. So even in a falling bond market (like now) there is a source of income to soften the hit.
@Anna - Your initial remarks are correct. Except, you seem to be assuming interest rates will continue rising (and bonds therefore “crash”). There is no absolute way to know that. Obviously, conventional wisdom at the moment does suggest your assumption is well grounded. Conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong. Just saying …

I recall that, in the early 2000s, I began to annoy people with passionate conversation about "just in time (j-i-t)" models of manufacturing, a major theme of my required course work with the federal government. I had a broad view of how the government, especially with respect to increasing use of contractors, was implementing a form of the model.
In the 80s when I worked in CA, I talked a bit to engineers who worked for contractors. I asked what happens when a contract mission moves from company A to B. They said that some would be simply hired by company B to continue the project. A few would move with the missions if their expertise was not general enough or their interests aligned with the work. In the 2000s after my required continuous training and after encountering many classes that seemed to treat people as inventories, I realized that the future might very well be one where everyone was either a member of a small group of similar contractors or self-contractors. The advantage for all of business is the ease of exchange of personnel for whatever reason (salary, shifting requirements, etc.). Also, it off loaded the need to offer benefits or to manage paperwork like salary deduction for payroll tax. In short, the bidder on a job would be no different from the larger contractors. And, similar to the large contractors, when a project was over no one was left to anyone but themselves to find something else to do or to retrain for competitiveness.
You can think of many other examples of things for which business would find attractive to drop/shift the burden, but one really stands out - no dead wood or any reason to feel guilty about performance. Contract lost if not meeting time, cost and performance goals. In later years I believed I was seeing another element when, as in the early 2000s, people were being told to embrace self-employment via Internet entrepreneurships. The picture the hype brought was a million Americans running their own small eBay.
I am going on and on, but I am seeing that the younger people don't experience the sense of panic or insecurity that I thought such a shift would produce. The world is changing, and, in the early part of this century, it might be things like j-i-t hiring and running your own income producing shop, but it might grow into something I haven't considered or, rather, imagined.
With some of this, whoever bids for work or self-employed workers will need to build a competitive amount of taxes, benefits and other expenses into their bid or prices. The government will probably find they need to make a legal framework for the growing relationship to avoid a society with a great number of people, including professionals, that are left without enough to cover what is currently covered by payroll jobs (or should be). In today's world many work medial jobs without paying taxes, etc. A house painter wanted work but refused a contract. I would not agree to such an arrangement. Everyone told me I was mean. Government oversite could very well grow with the host of disparate needs that might result.

Interesting.
Remember 2012? That is when Vanguard dumped MSCI as indexer for almost a couple of dozen Vanguard funds because MSCI got too greedy (after its spinoff from MS in 2007) and forgot how Vanguard had nurtured it when it was developing within MS. In 2012, Vanguard switched to then unknown CRSP (origins at U Chicago) for most of these funds and to FTSE for some. I think that Vanguard kept only 1-2 MSCI indexes after 2012.
Now it looks like that MSCI is out of Vanguard's doghouse. Took only 10 years!

Hi Old_Joe
Thanks for sharing the write. I watched her speak several times on Bloomberg and thought that she didn't seem to have a practical thought in her head. She didn't seem to have any connection with the first plans that had been laid regarding taxes and other; and surely didn't connection that to anything as to an impact into the British financial system. But, such is the case for a full blown Libertarian. Not unlike Rand Paul from Kentucky. He decries all the evil programs of the Federal government, but won't say no for aid into his state over the past two years for tornado and flood relief funds .
'Course, this was a lot like the one way false push into Brexit, and IMHO; how the British votes were mislead.

Yes, right now Britain is in the midst of a real mess, thanks in large part to the libertarian-influenced changes introduced by Prime Minister Elizabeth Truss.
Her interest in and links to various right-wing libertarian groups has been known for years, but has not really received much attention currently.
However, a recent perspective from the New York Times takes a look at her background. Here are some excerpts, heavily edited for brevity:

LONDON — For the past decade or more, Tufton Street has been the primary command center for libertarian lobbying groups, a free-market ideological workshop cloistered quietly in the heart of power. In September, it stepped out of the shadows. The “mini-budget” presented on Sept. 23 by Kwasi Kwarteng, Britain’s finance minister and key ally of Prime Minister Liz Truss, clearly owed a debt to Tufton Street.
The plan spooked the financial markets, sent the pound crashing and forced the Bank of England to intervene to halt a run on Britain’s pension funds. It was, in economic and political terms, a disaster — something made plain on Monday when the government, in an attempt to mitigate the damage, scrapped a planned tax cut for high earners. But the package was more than folly. It was the consummation of plans designed on Tufton Street, and of an alliance with Ms. Truss stretching back years. Under her watch, Britain has become a libertarian laboratory.
In Ms. Truss, they found a friend. After a youthful dalliance with the Liberal Democrats, the new prime minister’s belief in small-state libertarian politics has been a mainstay of her political career.
Appointed head of international trade, Ms. Truss seized the chance to staff her operation with libertarians. In October 2020, just a couple of months before the start of Britain’s new life outside the European Union, Ms. Truss appointed several pro-Brexit, free-market figures to advisory bodies in her department.
This battalion of free-market thinkers has now been welcomed into 10 Downing Street. Five of the new prime minister’s closest advisers are Tufton Street alumni, including Ms. Truss’s chief economic adviser and her political secretary, and at least nine Tufton Street alumni are scattered across other major government departments.
Under Ms. Truss, once nicknamed the “human hand grenade” for her ideological obduracy, the libertarian right has detonated the British economy. The cost, for all but the richest, could be incalculable.

PRPFX is one of my oldest holdings. About 15 years. Does tend to track gold a little, so having an off year along with gold. I’m encouraged by today’s market downdraft. The NASDAQ is now almost 33% off YTD. A rough guess is we’ve now reached the half-way point on the way to market bottom. Whew. Quite a ride.

@MikeW, the stable value fund I use is a private fund offers through my 401(k), not assessable for the public. For alternatives, I invest in PRPFX after I replaced TMSRX and IAU last year. Also I invest in GPANX (multi-strategies) and PQTAX (managed futures). So far they are holding up much better than those from PRPFX and TMSRX. My goal to have closer to 10% alternatives since their asset correlation to S&P500 are less than 0.5 for the last 2.5 years.
One has to pay attention to the underlying components invested in the alternatives. For example, PQTAX has a healthy % in commodity, metals, agricultural grains, and currencies in addition to the derivatives that Pimco often deploys. Lynn Bolin calls it the “ black box fund”. Commodity futures have done well while tracking WTI prices and natural gas. USD is rising over other currencies. The others are flat. GPANX is a relative new addition, but it is has stay afloat despite the drawdown lately.
To migrate risk of the unknown, I like to build the position to the target % over say 3 months while watching how it responds to S&P500, for example. Consistency over various market cycles is something we are all seeking. Lynn’s article also pointed out recent severe drawdown day and YTD data that provided insights of how these alternatives behaved under those circumstances. The other is the asset correlation to S&P500 and to different types of alternatives.

I liked Lynn’s article on this topic… concerning thing to me Is that a number of these didn’t do well the prior few years.

Thank for sharing your alternatives. I too invest in PRPFX after I replaced TMSRX and IAU last year. Also I invest in GPANX (multi-strategies) and PQTAX (managed futures). So far they are holding up much better than those from PRPFX and TMSRX. My goal to have closer to 10% alternatives since their asset correlation are less than 0.5 to that of S&P500 for the last 2.5 years.
BTW, AQR have a number of alternatives with good returns, but they require $1M even as investor shares.

@catch22
>> I presume you're referencing, in part; a non-spousal inheritance of your Roths, that Secure Act provisions require non-spousal inheritance amounts be withdrawn within a 10 year period, but will not be taxed upon withdrawal. As long as the Roth has been in place for 5 years. Yes?
Sorry I missed your query, but no, or sort of, meaning only that 20y or more ago our trust attorney said 'I don't think I have ever had a client where 2/3 of their total nut had been converted to Roths.'

Sources please. The cut and paste section came from:
https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/michigan-inheritance-laws

Its inheritance and estate taxes were created in 1899, but the state repealed them in 2019.
Its estate tax technically remains on the books

I know my post above wasn't my best writing, but I don't think I wrote anything inconsistent, like saying that a law was both repealed (in 2019) and still on the books.
It appears the law remains on the books, but that because of the way it is linked to federal estate taxation, the maximum amount of the estate tax is $0. Something like the ACA mandate still being on the books, but the amount of the penalty being set to $0.
Quoting from a late (Oct) 2019 bill that would have repealed the Michigan state tax but died in the legislature:

Repeal the law authorizing a Michigan estate tax. For a number of years this tax has not been collected because language in the law links it to a discontinued state estate tax credit in federal law. Should this federal law change the Michigan estate tax could go back into effect.

https://www.michiganvotes.org/2019-HB-4922
That's why it matters whether the estate tax was repealed (no longer off the books) or merely dormant. (Think of another old law in Michigan, this one from 1931, that was nearly resurrected when Federal law changed this summer.)
The more interesting piece IMHO concerns the Lady Bird deed. This piece came from the Rochester Law Center, and as such the errors and omissions on that page are somewhat disappointing.
https://rochesterlawcenter.com/services/michigan-lady-bird-deed/
A Lady Bird deed is not a type of quitclam deed (though depending on how it is written, it could be used as one). The salient feature of quitclaim deeds is that they enable the person transferring property to do so while disclaiming any title. That is, "I give all my interest in BlackAcre to A, whatever that interest is, which may be nothing at all. Lots of luck."

Quitclaim deeds offer no warranties of title, and title companies may offer very limited coverage or none at all if asked to issue a title policy based on one. A ladybird deed may transfer title with warranties in the deed whereby the grantor warrants that he has full ownership of the property at the time of the conveyance

https://legalbeagle.com/8083490-comparing-deeds-lady-bird-deeds.html
Most of the advantages stated for the Lady Bird deed (i.e. the ones apart from being able to change beneficiaries) are the same as for the simpler (once and done) non-enhanced life estate deed. IOW, had the Law Center said, rather than a Lady Bird Deed being a type of quitclaim deed that it was a type of life estate deed, it would have been essentially correct. But see below (notable Medicaid difference).
All life estate deeds, enhanced or not, keep the property out of probate. In this respect, there's nothing extra special about the enhanced (Lady Bird) deed in avoiding Medicaid recovery.
What differentiates an Enhanced Life Estate Deed from a (nonenhanced) Life Estate Deed is that the grantor retains control over naming beneficiaries in the former. That is sufficient to make the gift (deeding the property to the life tenant and the remainderman) "incomplete".
Rochester Law Center writes: "a Lady Bird Deed allows for you to qualify for Medicaid benefits while preventing the government from going after your home. " That's misleading. In looking at assets to determine Medicaid eligibility, Michigan doesn't count your home if your equity interest in it is under $636K.
https://www.medicaidplanningassistance.org/medicaid-eligibility-michigan
However, and this is where the Lady Bird deed can come into play, any asset that is transferred, including a home, within five years of applying for Medicaid, does count.
https://www.michiganlawcenter.com/blog/2020/august/transferring-assets-to-qualify-for-medicaid/
But since the Lady Bird deed is an "incomplete" gift, even though the home is transferred it isn't counted as an asset for Medicaid eligibility purposes.
Finally, though this has focused on Michigan, it's worth noting that Michigan is one of only five states that allow Lady Bird deeds. There are 30 states (Michigan isn't one of them) that allow TOD deeds.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lady-bird-deeds.html
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/avoid-probate-book/chapter5-1.html

Let's all detail out the steps that we have taken and suggest other steps that should be taken.
Maybe if we raise enough stink to the SEC or the State of NY or the NYPD or the FTC or the FBI maybe something will happen.
Here are the steps and results I have taken so far:
Contacted several attorneys and recovery agencies....I am still vetting them, but I have gotten good information from one attorney. He is a former USMC and spent 14 years with NYPD in Brooklyn. 10 years with a unit: Street Crime Suppression. He suggested I call NYPD since it looks like these criminals operated in NYC. He said
"call NYPD Midtown North Precinct 212 767 8400. Tell them what has happened, the FBI has been notified and ask if they can check and see if there is anyone from that company still at that address. It is an apartment building per picture on Google."
I called NYPD but they were not very helpful. The detective I spoke with just kept saying to call my local police (I am local to Dallas TX).
But I finally pressured him for a name and he gave me the name of Detective Criollo. Corillo is in charge of cyber crime and fraud for that division. So I will call him on Monday.
I have filled out the form at IC3 and also with the FTC. No response from either yet. I need to contact the SEC on Monday.
I have contacted the 2 banks that I used to wire and send the checks out (so pissed) and they have started their steps. They are trying to recall the wires (obviously the money is gone but that is their process) and they are also filing complaints with the receiving banks for the wires and the checks. I also asked my banks for all original documentation for the wires and checks. Just so I have all the paperwork.
It looks like my wires went to 2 different banks. Fifth Third Bank and Wells Fargo Bank. I will try to contact both of them and raise a stink.
If I think of more I will post. Sorry again to all who have been victimized. We could all come together and hire a lawyer or a Private Investigator? Just thinking outloud......

I've been with firstrade for many years, never had an issue and they provide access to institutional shares of many mutual funds at low minimums and transaction cost free.

Barron’s Funds Quarterly (2022/Q3–October 10, 2022)
https://www.barrons.com/topics/mutual-funds-quarterly
(Performance data quoted in this Supplement are for 2022/Q3 and YTD to 9/30/22)
Pg L3: Good ACTIVE mutual funds that are OPEN, BROAD-based, in the TOP 20% of peers in various timeframes, have average ERs and have manager succession plans: LC-growth OLGAX, FDSVX; dividends PRDGX, IHGIX; SC-value BRSVX, AASMX; international MIEIX, DPWRX; fixed-income DODIX, SCCIX.
Pg L10: Large-cap GROWTH funds have disappointed in 2022 (-4.1% in Q3; -32.1% YTD to 9/30/22) and there were outflows (but some related ETFs had inflows (VUG, SPYG, etc)); as expected, there were funds that did much better (BPTRX, etc) or worse (MSEQX, etc) than the averages. Large-cap VALUE also disappointed in Q3 (-5.9%) but was relatively better YTD (-16.6%). Several funds with large losses and outflows may have large YEAREND CG distributions (bad in taxable accounts; not relevant in tax-deferred/free accounts). MANAGED-FUTURES did well (after several disappointing years) and attracted inflows (QMHNX, PQTAX, etc). COMMODITY funds also saw inflows (DBC, FTGC, etc). Interestingly, despite the market selloff in both stocks and bonds, several INDEX funds had inflows, stocks (VOO, IVV, VTI, etc) and bonds (TLT; IEF, BND, LQD; SHY, VCSH, etc) (bulls will point to this as strength, bears as lack of capitulation yet). (by @LewisBraham)
EXTRA from Part 2: Pg 22: Katrina DUDLEY, EUROPE TEMIX. Things couldn’t be worse for Europe but that is how opportunities develop. Costs have risen sharply due to supply-chain disruptions, energy crisis, Russia-Ukraine war. However, Europe wasn’t overvalued before all this, jobs are holding up so far, and any recession may be short and shallow. Be selective as countries are following different paths. Lower currencies (vs DOLLAR) are hurting the returns of the US investors. She LIKES telecom, energy, industrials, insurance, aircraft leasing, etc; she is AVOIDING travel, entertainment, etc. CHINA will remain a global growth engine despite pause or slowdown, so European companies with China exposure would be fine. RISKS include the ECB polies, energy crisis.
Pg L37: In 2022/Q3 (SP500 -4.88%): Among general equity funds, the best were SC-growth -1.61%, MC-growth -1.65% (yes, it was BAD Q3, following terrible Q2) and the worst were equity-income -5.75%, multi-cap-value -5.64%, LC-value -5.60%, MC-value -5.45%; ALL general equity categories were negative. Among other equity funds, the best were short funds +6.54%, Lat Am +5.28%, and the worst was China -21.55%. Among fixed-income funds, domestic long-term FI -2.72%, world income -4.16% (not very refined in Lipper mutual fund categories listed in Barron’s).
LINK

[also posted at Bogleheads.org, and maybe a few more to come, but I've gotten good value here at MFO and wanted to post it to give back.]
Here at the end of the 3rd quarter, the statement has become true, period, with no qualifier other than “as regards investment grade bond markets in the US and Britain.”
The statement can be evaluated over four time frames, in all cases treating the first nine months of 2022 as if these were 12 month returns. Tickers used to determine 2022 returns are in parentheses. All are nominal total returns and year-to-date as of 9/30/2022.
1. Since December 1972 (total bond, BND)
2. Since December 1925 (intermediate Treasuries, VGIT, and long Treasuries, VGLT)
3. From January 1793 to January 1926 (long investment grade bonds, mostly governments, BLV)
4. August 1753 to December 1918 (British Consols, EDV as the comparison)
Charts and brief discussion follow,. Red dashed line shows 2022 return, bars show historical returns over rolling twelve-month periods.
 
[b]Total Bond[/b]

This one is a staple of 3-fund portfolios and Vanguard Target Date funds. It’s probably the most shocking outcome within the Boglehead universe. As of 9/30, BND was down 14.50%. The worst previous 12 month return on the Bloomberg-Barclays Aggregate was the 12-month roll through March 1980 at minus 9.20%.
I think it fair to say that few 3-funders had any conception that BND could decline by double-digits in the space of a year.
But then again, a fifty-year record is not a lot to support a claim like “ever.”
 
[b]Intermediate Treasuries[/b]

This is where investors go if they find BND holds too much risk for comfort, whether duration risk or credit risk. VCIT is down 11.46% in 2022. That’s head and shoulders below the worst previous 12-month return of minus 5.55% ending in October 1994. So much for “safe.”
And 96 years maybe does qualify for “ever.”
 
[b]Long Treasuries[/b]

VGLT really took it on the chin in 2022, down 28.51% thus far. It’s a reminder of why long bonds have a bad reputation in the eyes of some. Maximum duration, maximum price decline in an adverse environment. Turns out, the bad times in the 1960s and 1970s don’t really hold a candle to 2022. The worst previous 12-month return on the SBBI long bond was minus 17.10% for the period ending March 1980. That’s in nominal terms, as are all these comparisons. I’ll look at real returns at the end of the year, since most of the older inflation data (pre-1913) are only available on an annual basis.
Again, 2022 produced the worst return on long Treasuries seen over any 12-month period in the past 96 years. By far.
 
[b]Long bonds[/b]

This is a spliced series:
1. My index of long corporates from 1925 back to 1897; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3805927
2. My aggregate of corporate, municipal and Treasuries to 1842;
3. Municipals to 1835; Treasuries and municipals to 1825; Treasuries to 1793.
You have to go back over 150 years, to the 1840s, when states defaulted on their debts, to get a result that even comes close to the 2022 results for BLV (which pegs toward the midpoint of VGLT and VCLT). BLV saw a decline of 28.41% in 2022; the worst previous decline was the minus 22.88% decline for the period ending in January 1842. In April, 2022 was only a contender for worst ever in this bond category; it took bad returns in June and again in September to push 2022 returns below even those seen in 1842.
I’d say 228 years is a good approximation of “ever.”
 
[b]Really long bonds: British Consols[/b]

These were perpetuities, so the proper comparison would appear to be the Extended Duration Treasury fund. EDV got slaughtered in 2022, down 37.40%. That would be a mighty bear market even in stocks, much less safe government bonds.
Nothing in the British Consol record comes close, not even the worst months of the Napoleonic Wars. The chart shows 12-month rolls from 1753 to 1823. An earlier examination December on December annual returns had shown all the worst returns to fall within in this stretch. Later years, in the heyday of the British empire, were mostly fine. WW I returns, nominal, in particular did not plumb the depths of Napoleonic returns.
Consols down 20% plus? Happened more than once in the Napoleonic Wars (and before, in the American Revolution, and almost, in the Seven Years War). The worst case was minus 23.17% for the period ending July 1803. A Consol total return worse than minus 25%? Never happened. Return worse than 30%? Never approached, not even close.
2022 EDV returns stand alone at the bottom of a chasm.
And if 269 years isn’t a good proxy for “ever,” I don’t know what qualifies.
[b]Summary[/b]

Unprecedented, across the board.
[b]Why has 2022 been so bad?[/b]
One word: duration, my boy, duration!
Technically, modified duration, or the price sensitivity of a bond to a change in interest rates.
Duration is a function of maturity (as everyone knows) and of coupon/yield (which most people forgot or never knew).
1. Long bonds fall more when rates go up.
2. Low coupon bonds fall more when rates go up.
3. Low coupon, long bonds plunge when rates go up.
[b]What that means in practice[/b]
The last big bond bear market occurred at the dim horizon of memory for most investors active today, i.e., in the late 1970s. Rates on the 20-year Treasury rose from about 6% in 1972 to over 14% at one point in 1981.
The 2022 bear market (so far) has seen a much smaller rise in rates, a little more than 200 bp since the beginning of the year. Why then has 2022 clocked in as historically awful?
First, note the pacing: it took nine years for rates to rise 800 bp in that hazily remembered bear market, an average rise of less than 100 bp per year. 2022 saw more than twice that rise in just nine months.
And the real kicker: in that long ago bear market, rates were already higher at the start than almost any observer expects to see in the current cycle. High rate equals more coupon income to defray price drops, and a more favorable total return, since duration is also less at high coupons.
Back to 2022: an achingly low rate to start, less than 2.0%, and a rapid price drop, combine to produce a potent, toxic brew for bond total return.
Next, the last time long Treasury rates were as low as in 2020-2021 falls outside the lived memory of most investors. It was just under 2.0% in early 1946. And it took 12 years of drip-drip declines before that yield rose as high as the current 4.0%.
Now you have some sense of why 2022 has been so much worse for bonds than ever before.

Unlike 2008 and the GFC, I don't have that 'existential sense of dread' that the system was in real danger of coming apart at the seams and that the very fabric of the world economic system was failing. This seems, I think, to be a more 'normal' sort of bad economic times -- at least for the moment. Could that change since the world has gotten used to essentially free money and cheap debt? Perhaps. But I'm keeping my eye on the long-term, mostly buying, and certainly not panicking.
Interesting tidbit: BBG guest (CIO from MS, IIRC) this morning said that existing long-term home mortgages were averaging 3.X% fixed and corporations had refinanced much of their debt over the past several years so she thought both were in 'decent' shape these days. We'll see.

Some of these comments make me wonder if the poster read the MW article (Hulbert is a smart and prudent cookie, in my long experience of reading him) , much less the original paper, downloadable here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4227132 , and hugely sobering if the case.

Still a rank newbie here at MutualFundObserver and I will take instruction as to whether it is appropriate to point to related discussions on another forum.
Hoping that it is, I started a discussion on this paper over at Bogleheads.org: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=387165
Although some posters defaulted to a thumbs up/ thumbs down stance, there are also some quite searching criticisms of the paper. I would say on balance that good reasons were given for not accepting the headline withdrawal rates in the study. Much depends on how to treat war loss years.
I'll monitor any responses here in this thread and respond here if I can.

Hmmmmmm. I have an additional question: The lion's share of our stuff is all in T-IRA. Reported income (SS and Defined Benefit pension) puts us in a "no tax due" status in terms of our 1040. My annual withdrawals from the T-IRA are small enough so that we still owe no tax due. And in a declining market, I will simply not take my customary annual withdrawals. But RMDs will surely have to be paid. (starting at age 72 now, right? 4 years from now, for me.) Does a conversion to Roth make any sense at all for us? Wife is 19 years younger. Her T-IRA is just 5% of our combined total. And after I'm gone, her plan is to move back to her home country. We have a house there already. Expenses will be ridiculously low---- except for the constant begging from the extended family.