"It’s the end of an era for Berkshire Hathaway as Warren Buffett prepares to step aside as CEO.
Investors shouldn’t worry about the change—in fact, they should welcome it."
"Buffett fans might not like to hear it, but the CEO transition is coming at a good time.
Buffett has slowed down in recent years and grown increasingly cautious.
Berkshire’s massive cash holdings have been a drag on performance; Buffett has been selling stock,
when he should have been buying; and recent acquisitions have left much to be desired.
Berkshire stock has risen 13% in 2025, lagging behind the S&P 500’s 16% gain,
and it has underperformed the index over the past three, 10, and 15 years.
It’s a very un-Buffett-like performance."
"Abel will need to articulate a vision for a post-Buffett Berkshire. It could be something like this:
'I plan to build on the platform that Warren Buffett created and use Berkshire’s durable and ample earnings
for investments, acquisitions, share repurchases, and dividends. Berkshire will be a more focused company
under my leadership, with greater financial transparency, and maintain a Fort Knox balance sheet.
I realize I can’t be Warren Buffett.
But with the help of our talented managers, I pledge to improve our subsidiaries
and turn what is the largest conglomerate in the world into the best-run conglomerate.
My goal is to attract a new generation of investors to Berkshire and position the company
to produce market-beating returns over time.'”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/berkshire-without-buffett-what-s-next-for-the-company-and-the-stock/ar-AA1QoHzR

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/874964/000093041325003441/c114414_497.htm
497 1 c114414_497.htm
THE LAZARD FUNDS, INC.
Lazard Global Equity Select Portfolio
Supplement to Current Summary Prospectus and Prospectus
The Board of Directors of The Lazard Funds, Inc. (the “Fund”) has approved the liquidation of Lazard Global Equity Select Portfolio (the “Portfolio”).
No further investments are being accepted into the Portfolio, except for investments by certain brokers or other financial intermediaries or employee benefit or retirement plans (acting on behalf of their clients or participants) with pre-existing investments in the Portfolio pursuant to an agreement or other arrangement with the Fund, the Distributor or another agent of the Fund regarding Portfolio investments. Promptly upon completion of liquidation of the Portfolio’s investments, the Portfolio will redeem all its outstanding shares by distribution of its assets to shareholders in amounts equal to the net asset value of each shareholder’s Portfolio investment. It is anticipated that the Portfolio’s assets will be distributed to shareholders on or about December 30, 2025.
Prior to the liquidation of the Portfolio, depending on the arrangements of any broker or other financial intermediary associated with your account through which Portfolio shares are held, the Fund’s exchange privilege may allow you to exchange shares of the Portfolio for shares of the same Class of another series of the Fund in an identically registered account. Please see the section of the Prospectus entitled “Shareholder Information—Investor Services—Exchange Privilege” for more information.
Dated: November 13, 2025
Please retain this supplement for future reference.

"Interesting though, in that while some financial advisors insist that no one
should have more than a small number of funds, the M* 401k has quite a few."
Morningstar's 401(k) lineup includes Vanguard's entire Target Retirement suite.
Mr. Kinnel mentioned that the following funds are also available:
American Funds Washington Mutual
Dodge & Cox International Stock
Harbor Capital Appreciation
Oakmark Select
Vanguard Developed Markets Index
Vanguard FTSE Social Index
Vanguard Institutional Index
Vanguard International Growth
DFA International Small Company
Primecap Odyssey Aggressive Growth
Royce Small-Cap Special Equity
Vanguard Selected Value
Vanguard Small-Cap Index
Wasatch Small Cap Growth
American Funds New World
Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index
Invesco Developing Markets
Vanguard Short-Term Inflation-Protected Securities Index
Pimco Commodity Real Return Strategy
Vanguard Real Estate Index
Dodge & Cox Global Bond
Pimco Total Return
T. Rowe Price High Yield
Loomis Sayles Bond
Vanguard Total Bond Market Index
It does seem that some funds could be removed to streamline the lineup without adverse affects.
Here are a few quick examples off the top of my head.
Remove either Vanguard FTSE Social Index or Vanguard Institutional Index since both funds are similar.
American Funds New World is not a pure-play EM fund — some of its developed market holdings
will also be found in the three large-cap international funds available. Remove it.
REITs have provided scant diversification for U.S. equities since the turn of the century.
Vanguard Real Estate Index is therefore of limited use and can be removed.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/809593/000113322825012021/abamaf-efp19173_497.htm
497 1 abamaf-efp19173_497.htm AMERICAN BEACON AHL MULTI-ALTERNATIVES FUND - 497
American Beacon AHL Multi-Alternatives Fund
Supplement dated November 12, 2025, to the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus, and Statement of Additional Information
each dated May 1, 2025, as previously amended or supplemented
The Board of Trustees of American Beacon Funds has approved a plan to liquidate and terminate the American Beacon AHL Multi-Alternatives Fund (the “Fund”) on or about December 30, 2025 (the “Liquidation Date”), based on the recommendation of American Beacon Advisors, Inc., the Fund’s investment manager.
In anticipation of the liquidation, effective immediately, the Fund is closed to new shareholders. In addition, in anticipation of and in preparation for the liquidation of the Fund, AHL Partners LLP, the sub-advisor to the Fund, may need to increase the portion of the Fund's assets held in cash and similar instruments in order to pay for the Fund’s expenses and to meet redemption requests. The Fund may no longer be pursuing its investment objective during this transition. On or about the Liquidation Date, the Fund will distribute cash pro rata to all remaining shareholders. These shareholder distributions may be taxable events. Thereafter, the Fund will terminate.
The Fund will be liquidated on or about December 30, 2025. Liquidation proceeds will be delivered in accordance with the existing instructions for your account. No action is needed on your part.
Please note that you may be eligible to exchange your shares of the Fund at net asset value per share at any time prior to the Liquidation Date for shares of the same share class of another American Beacon Fund under certain limited circumstances. You also may redeem your shares of the Fund at any time prior to the Liquidation Date. No sales charges, redemption fees or termination fees will be imposed in connection with such exchanges and redemptions. In general, exchanges and redemptions are taxable events for shareholders.
In connection with its liquidation, the Fund may declare distributions of its net investment income and net capital gains in advance of its Liquidation Date, which may be taxable to shareholders. You should consult your tax adviser to discuss the Fund’s liquidation and determine its tax consequences.
For more information, please contact us at 1-800-658-5811, Option 1. If you purchased shares of the Fund through your financial intermediary, please contact your broker-dealer or other financial intermediary for further details.
****************************************************************************
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
AHLMA-11122025

An excellent article. Interesting though, in that while some financial advisors insist that no one should have more than a small number of funds, the M* 401k has quite a few.
Of course that may be a different animal because of the size of the M* 401k.

I previously owned RLBGX in my employer's H.S.A. plan.
CGBL is an interesting fund which is somewhat similar to RLBGX.
I may use CGBL in my H.S.A. account (now at Fidelity) sometime in the future.
But it's not really a global fund.
The following data is from 10/31/2025.
U.S. Equities: 55.4%
Non-U.S. Equities: 7.6%
U.S. Bonds: 31.8%
Non-U.S. Bonds: 3.4%
Cash & Equivalents: 1.8%
Information Technology: 18.3%, largest sector exposure
Financial: 10.9%, second-largest sector exposure
https://www.capitalgroup.com/individual/investments/exchange-traded-funds/details/cgbl

Were I to start from scratch or advise a new investor on the original question, I would go with CGBL, the Capital Group’s fairly new global balanced ETF. I think the fund has adequate exposure to growth sectors and sensible FI exposure. I’m impressed with the team approach and the long-term records of American Funds to be comfortable with a new vehicle. Whether or not there’s enough tech or financial, that’s the managers’ job and they are a lot smarter than most individual investors.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act most likely initiated the pages and pages of fine print that we must plow through when we engage in financial service consulting associated with a bank. Oddly, I could never pay my financial advisor's fee electronically via my bank's checking account; he needed to establish a cash "Sweep" account in my IRA in order to pay himself, which was a significant "opportunity cost." Was that a ramification of the GLB Act as well?
Btw, after 7 years learning from my advisor's actions (positive & negative) and establishing a consistent portfolio paradigm, I moved everything to Schwab and moved forward without those significant "opportunity costs."

From Markets A.M. newsletter by Spencer Jakab.
On this day in 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, or the “Financial Services Modernization Act,”
was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, essentially repealing the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933,
which banned banks from the brokerage business.

I just now looked at this whole thread, though I did not read Benz. Like the rest of you, the Maximiser vs. Satisfiser motif is pretty clear to me. And nobody, I bet, would be always 100% one or the other.
Having been "smart enough" to inherit some money, I learn from mistakes, never bet the whole farm on one big play. I've been in PRWCX for 13 years, don't plan to get out unless it falls off a cliff. I think it's helpful to pay attention to the news, financial and otherwise, so that one can be tactical and make a move or two when it is advantageous. Avoiding mistakes makes me a Satisfiser, I suppose. But I do want to take a small portion of the money to exploit new developments--- the falling dollar this year, for instance. In Ritholtz' new book, "How Not To Invest," he very succinctly describes investing as the Art (not science) of intelligently investing the best way you can, into probabilities. This is always done with a backdrop which makes all information imperfect and subject to interpretation. Numbers don't lie, but how might they be manipulated, or inserted out of meaningful context? What does Person X have to gain by convincing you to do what they say they are doing? And on and on...

I check the asset allocations on Portfolio Visualizer. It’s great for the equity side but not as handy for the fixed income. But M* breaks down the unknown parts for F.I. I think that the financial sector has lots of potential problems waiting to surface. So plain old fashioned government and corporate bonds are at least more transparent. Then you have the question of what quality is BBB nowadays.

Following are excerpts from a current report in The Guardian:
Government argues funding mechanism behind Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unlawful

The Trump administration has launched its most direct attempt yet to shut down the top US consumer watchdog, arguing the current funding mechanism behind the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is unlawful.
Attorneys for the administration claimed in a court filing that the agency “anticipates exhausting its currently available funds in early 2026”, setting the stage for it to be dismantled. The CFPB is legally barred from seeking additional funds from the Federal Reserve, its typical source of funding, the attorneys suggested.
Donald Trump’s officials have tried persistently to close the agency, attempting to fire the vast majority of its workforce. These efforts sparked months of legal wrangling. The CFPB has returned more than $21bn to US consumers since it was set up, in the wake of the financial crisis, to shore up oversight of consumer financial firms.
The justice department’s office of legal counsel issued an opinion claiming the CFPB cannot draw money from the Fed currently, claiming the “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System” refers to profits of the Fed, which has operated at a loss since 2022. Several federal judges have previously rejected that argument used by companies attempting to dismiss lawsuits brought by the agency, reported Politico.
Russell Vought, the White House office of management and budget director, said in October that he plans to shut down the agency, and that this would take up to three months. The claim was criticized by Democrats, given previous contrary statements from the administration, and court decisions blocking the agency from being shut down.
“These comments are particularly concerning given that a federal court has specifically blocked you from illegally shutting down the agency,” wrote Senate banking committee Democrats in a letter to Vought. “Your continued attempts to shutter the CFPB are illegal, and American families stand to pay the price.”
Vought has already suspended most of the agency’s work, as the full DC circuit court of appeals is deciding whether to take the case as a lower court order blocked the firings of about 90% of the agency’s staff.
The CFPB did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Comment: Trump and Vought are determined to remove this consumer protection so that they can continue to game the financial system against the little guy. Anyone reading "1929" will immediately recognize the characters operating here.

Thank you, @Sven. I am putting the finishing touches on an article about portfolio performance during the past hundred years of bear markets, and a second article about portfolio performance including the financial crisis to date. It was informative to me.

@larryB, well done with your choices and asset allocation. These are fine choices serving as conservative actively managed global allocation funds. Neither funds mentioned here are overweighed in technology, although Wellington tends to favor financial sector a bit more.

@ Hank. It’s gotta be someplace. Seriously,,, what’s riskier in the next five years, tech or financials? I don’t have FOMO and won’t regret leaving money on the table.

I wish I could answer your question Larry. I’ve been spending too much time reading 1929 lately, which may explain an aversion to putting much risk on the table. I believe there will be better buying opportunities. But, it all depends on risk appetite and time horizon.
Here’s the problem with the two choices: Even if one or the other (tech / financial) is “safer” - that does not preclude that “safer” investment from underperforming for months or even years before the tide turns. Gail Dudack wanted nothing to do with tech for a couple years before the 2000 tech wreck. But tech continued to soar. Became so “out of sync” with the current climate that Rukeyser finally fired her (from her exalted position as a Wall Street Week “elf”). .

Hi @larryB
For the search words: best fund with mix of tech and financial services
A quasi AI answer. Two sections. This first below doesn't include the word 'global', the second section does.
Regards,
Catch
--- Funds that provide exposure to both technology and financial services generally fall under the Fintech (Financial Technology) thematic category. These funds invest in companies leveraging technology to transform financial services like payments, banking, and investing.
Here are some of the best-known and top-performing Fintech ETFs:
Top Fintech Funds
Fund Name Ticker Description
ARK Fintech Innovation ETF ARKF An actively managed ETF that invests in companies at the forefront of innovation in the fintech space, with holdings like Block, PayPal, and Coinbase. It is known for its focus on disruptive innovation and has shown strong returns over a three-year period despite high volatility.
Global X FinTech ETF FINX This fund seeks to invest in companies using technology to help banks and other financial firms digitize their operations. It offers broad exposure to companies involved in payment processing, peer-to-peer lending, and digital banking globally.
Amplify Digital Payments ETF IPAY A "pure-play" on the digital and mobile payments industry, this ETF includes traditional credit card companies like Visa and Mastercard, as well as emerging consumer payment companies like PayPal and Block.
iShares FinTech Active ETF BPAY This actively managed fund invests in a range of innovative companies, including payment processors and traditional financial institutions adopting new technologies.
Capital Link Global Fintech Leaders ETF KOIN This fund invests in a mix of traditional tech companies (e.g., Microsoft, Oracle) that provide the underlying technology for financial firms, and companies that use fintech internally.
Key Considerations
Thematic Focus: These funds are thematic and thus more concentrated than broad market or even single-sector funds. They are designed to capture growth in the intersection of two dynamic sectors.
Risk Profile: Fintech funds can be volatile due to the nature of technology and the evolving regulatory landscape of the financial sector. The performance has been mixed across different funds and time periods.
Active vs. Passive: Some, like ARKF and BPAY, are actively managed, relying on management expertise to pick stocks. Others like FINX are index funds, aiming to track a specific index.
Before investing, consider your risk tolerance and investment objectives, and review the specific holdings and expense ratios of each fund
--- USING THE WORD 'GLOBAL'
Finding a single "best" fund is difficult as performance and suitability depend on market conditions and individual risk tolerance. However, several global funds invest significantly in both technology and financial services, offering exposure to both sectors.
Funds with a mix of Technology and Financial Services
Funds that explicitly target a blend of technology and financial services are often called "fintech" funds. These funds focus on the intersection of the two sectors.
ARK Fintech Innovation ETF (ARKF): This active ETF invests in companies that focus on disruptive innovation in the financial services sector, which inherently includes a large technology component. It has shown strong long-term performance (50.09% three-year total return) but comes with high volatility.
Global X FinTech ETF (FINX): This ETF offers exposure to companies providing financial technology products and services.
Capital Link Global Fintech Leaders ETF (KOIN): This fund divides its investments into two groups: traditional financial companies adopting new technology and technology firms providing the code/hardware for fintech systems. Its top holdings include a mix of large tech companies like Microsoft and financial service infrastructure providers.
General Global Technology Funds with Diversification
Many general global technology funds include financial technology companies as part of their diversified technology holdings. These often have strong long-term performance and high ratings.
Janus Henderson Global Technology And Innovation Fund (JNGTX, JGLTX): This highly-rated fund invests in domestic and foreign companies that benefit from technological advances. It has strong three-year annualized returns (32.4%) and is a good option for global technology exposure.
T. Rowe Price Global Technology Fund (PRGTX): This fund seeks long-term capital growth by investing globally in technology companies. It has a reasonable expense ratio and good performance.
Putnam Global Technology Fund (PGTAX): Another global fund focused on capital appreciation through investments in large and mid-size companies in the technology sector.
Important Considerations
Global vs. US Focus: Most top-performing, large-asset tech funds are heavily US-focused (e.g., Vanguard Information Technology ETF, FTEC, XLK), often with over 60% of assets in the top few large-cap tech stocks like Apple, Nvidia, and Microsoft. Funds with a true "global" mandate will have more exposure to international markets.
Risk: Sector-specific funds, especially in high-growth areas like technology and fintech, can be more volatile than a broadly diversified global index fund.
Expense Ratios: ETFs generally have lower expense ratios than actively managed mutual funds, which can impact long-term returns.
It is recommended to evaluate the specific holdings, risk profiles, and expense ratios of these funds to determine which best fits your investment goals.

I have been searching for a global balanced fund to be the single investment for our house. Not because messing around with funds isn’t a great sport but I might depart the scene or lose my mind. I have two candidates, one overweights financial services and the other tech. What would you go with? My final criteria is lower drawdown as opposed to max gains. Thanks for your thoughts.

Yes, they do. Which is why the I calculated the increase in the Humana PFFS plan not as infinite ($0 2025 to $27 in 2026) but as 26%, all in.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/200450/#Comment_200450
Some plans actually "give back" a portion of that Part B premium, so on paper people may pay less, or no, Part B premiums. But that "give back" is a bit of financial legerdemain. It's not dissimilar to annuity "bonus" plans where you get an immediate credit. Either way, the seller gets their money back and often more. Medicare "give back" plans may come with higher deductibles or higher caps or more onerous drug plan fee schedules or ...
Comparing apples to apples is not an easy task. Which gets us back to evaluating insurance plans or funds, trading off one type of risk against another. What might be more important to one person (e.g. max drawdown or max out of pocket) might not matter much to another. That other person might be a long term investor willing to wait for a fund to recover its value, or a healthy young person very unlikely to have large health expenses.

I like the analogy. I understand where you are coming from in terms of risk management.
In both choosing longer-term investments and health insurance, a person's ability to cover unexpected costs (or losses) is a major consideration. When choosing a healthcare plan, the maximum out-of-pocket is something that I look at. And our typical out-of-pocket annual expenses.
Example, I save around $2500 a year by opting for my employer's "standard" health care coverage over the "premium" policy. In a very bad year I might hit the worst case scenario of $6000 out-of-pocket. Meanwhile, the standard plan pays a little less over the year. If our health care expenses were very high, and we hit that maximum often, the premium policy would work out better. That is not the case for us, though. After 10 years of saving $2500/yr, we are well ahead.
Basically, a form of "self-insuring". The same principal applies to high-deductible plans. Which are better suited for younger and healthier people. And those with good financial resources.
msf said: "If you've bought an HMO and you don't want to switch providers, your out of pocket expenses become uncapped." That is a big dice roll, right there. Which is most likely to happen in the event of a catastrophic illness, really adding to stress at the worst possible time.

I don’t see a strong connection between choosing the right Medicare plan once per year and managing investments.
Medicare: I evaluated the risk and reward years ago, and in my county, a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan turned out to be a better option for us. By investing the money we save, the choice becomes even more beneficial.
Investing: We’re in a comfortable financial position, so our overall risk is very low. I can adjust anywhere from 0% to 100% in stocks or bonds, depending on market conditions. Since retiring in 2018, I’ve chosen to focus on unique bond funds to take advantage of current opportunities. This flexible approach has worked very well across different market environments.
Staying flexible, paying attention to current market conditions, and tuning out the noise are essential.