Jon raises some great points about large cap blend. If you already hold SPY then you probably have this area covered well. But it is a wonderful fund. We all have our different favorites. I'm curious what funds you have as your international holdings. International has underperformed for so long now that I find that to be much more difficult in terms of fund selection. My main fund here is MIOPX which has great performance over the long term but has lagged some this year because of China. One fund that I'm currently evaluating is WCM focused International Growth. However, I would love to find a strong international blend fund. The performance just hasn't been there though for that asset class over the past 10 years. Would be interested if anyone has found a good one.

Here ya go...added comments
WCMIX (Int'l Gowth) - Great performance, Concentrated
CIVVX (Int'l Value) - True to their Style
PRIDX (Int'l Small/Mid) - One of my favorite funds and categories
GQGPX (EM) - Replaced Harding Loevner 2 years ago
In my other accounts ...I have a Roth IRA with Vanguard and own VWIGX, My 401k has DODFX, BUFIX, ARTJX and ARTYX

Jon raises some great points about large cap blend. If you already hold SPY then you probably have this area covered well. But it is a wonderful fund. We all have our different favorites. I'm curious what funds you have as your international holdings. International has underperformed for so long now that I find that to be much more difficult in terms of fund selection. My main fund here is MIOPX which has great performance over the long term but has lagged some this year because of China. One fund that I'm currently evaluating is WCM focused International Growth. However, I would love to find a strong international blend fund. The performance just hasn't been there though for that asset class over the past 10 years. Would be interested if anyone has found a good one.

Your comment above has (not surprisingly) more intelligence and substance and less unhinged alarmism than the Roth guff.
At least until you get to the '50% fall' and 'important question' parts. :)
I did not say anything about Zweig.
The article is stupid because of what it says:
Try to imagine what would happen if stocks lost 70% and stayed down for years.
What useful or actionable comes from such imagining? To anyone?
And what would have been the conditions for such? Asteroid? Worse plague?
I’m pretty certain that you’d feel a lot of regret ...
Jeez louise.
I do recognize that anxiety-churning is a major motive for journalism and especially financial journalism. But Roth is juvenile even by today's standards of mega-fret-mongering.

Hey when I look at the trailing p-e of QQQ and it’s over 40 and the trailing p-e of IVV and it’s over 33 when the long-term average for stocks is about 15, it seems surreal to me. And this isn’t off trough earnings either. This is after massive amounts of stimulus when the tech sector, the dominant one in both indexes, did quite well. How much ammo does the Fed have left to prop things up if things go wrong? And if you read Zweig’s article—not a dummy by any means—he would argue that even the 08-09 bear was short by historical standards. I think it’s important to put things in perspective and I liked the fact the article showed how different asset classes performed well in different kinds of bears. That’s very important for investors to understand—what might work depending on the kind of bear we will have. Stocks could fall 50% from here and still not be at historical norms. And it’s an important question whether such a decline lasts a few months or several years. So, I’m not sure why the article is stupid.
From Zweig's piece:

With the exception of a 100-day rebound after an interim drop in early 2009, [the 2020 recovery is] the fastest-ever recovery to a prior peak. The S&P 500 has fallen at least 20%—the conventional definition of a bear market—26 times in the past nine decades, according to Dow Jones Market Data. Recoveries to previous highs have typically taken almost three years, often much longer.

My asset allocation for this portfolio - 56% Domestic Equity, 22.5% Int'l/EM, 20% Fixed Inc. I am 13 years from Retirement and all of my equity holdings are a healthy split across Style and Market Cap.

@KHaw24 It's hard for me to comment on choosing PRWCX over PRDGX not knowing your specific situation in terms of age and how close to retirement you are, how you are currently allocated, and what your other holdings might be. They are both excellent funds. Personally, I have been wanting to add PRWCX for a number of years and plan to buy it if/when it opens up again. For me, however, if I were to select a large cap blend fund, I would probably invest in PRBLX. If you run the screen on MFO Premium you'll find that PRBLX is a Great Owl, has stronger APR over the past 5 and 10 years as well as lifetime of the funds, has less max drawdown, and has performed better in bear markets.

"Good"? A preposterous fright article seems more like it. Zero substance.
(And ... teddys include 2.5y and 1.5y dips?)
What would cause a protracted bear market? Fundamentals (overvalued) aside, if the market fell as he scarily suggests is possible but without giving reasons, the buying eventually (pretty soon) would be astonishing in its quickness, as quick as or quicker than the selling.
Q: Who here would use a financial advisor who told you with a straight face:
"... just recently, the Japanese stock market recovered from its 1989 high—that’s 30 years! If you think that can’t happen here, I suggest you rethink your position—and I’d do it sooner rather than later"
"Try to imagine what would happen if stocks lost 70% and stayed down for years. It might mean things like:
You cannot afford to send your kids and grandkids to college. In fact, you need to take back those college 529 accounts you set up for them.
You must sell that vacation house even though the market is quite depressed.
You must either sell your home or take out a reverse mortgage to have cash to live on.
You must figure out how to cut your monthly expenditures in half even though you say only 20% is discretionary. Maybe one of the kids will let you live with them?
Embrace the pain you would feel. Even if you didn’t need to cut things out, I’m pretty certain that you’d feel a lot of regret if you were heavily in stocks and lost more than half of your net worth."
" ... protect your financial independence from a bear market that doesn’t resemble the last three. "
... "I’m afraid of grizzly bears—they are fierce!"
Booga and boo!
Worthless. Is there a point? A plan? Ah: bond ETFs? Got it. Yeah, that'll work.
Maybe he just meant to say Don't use levered equity ETFs. That person he met in the lede made him lose his mind. I sure hope he did not get paid any folding money for writing this.

Good article: https://etf.com/sections/etf-strategist-corner/preparing-grizzly-bear
Of particular interest is the subject of "teddy bears," which investors have gotten used to lately.

Intellectually, we know a bear is coming, but I don’t think people understand it emotionally. And people have gotten used to what Jason Zweig of the Wall Street Journal called “Teddy Bears.” These bears recovered very quickly.

Look at this chart:

Another quote:

Intellectually, we understand recency bias, and most of us know a bear can be fiercer and hang around much longer. Zweig noted U.S. bears have lasted nearly 20 years. And just recently, the Japanese stock market recovered from its 1989 high—that’s 30 years! If you think that can’t happen here, I suggest you rethink your position—and I’d do it sooner rather than later.

Here's Zweig's article referenced in this one: https://wsj.com/articles/what-happens-when-stocks-only-go-up-11619794810

Funds can and often do drift across category boundaries. I would not want to see a fund whipsawed between categories every three months (funds disclose portfolios quarterly) just because it added (or subtracted) 3 or 4 percent in equities, or edged just over the line between value and blend.
That would make comparing funds difficult, let alone even finding a fund using a screener. If funds were classified based solely on their current holdings, a fund could wind up classified as a 2* 70-85% fund one quarter, a 4* 50-70% fund the next, and a 2* 70-85% later the same year.
Instead, M* incorporates some lag, and yes, some human judgment when classifying funds. Enough time to see whether the change is "transitory" (to use the word of the day), or something more permanent.

Chad Lowry: The reason why we use three years of information is, we really – we want our classifications to be stable over time and reflect what the manager is intending to do and what your performance is going to reflect over a long period of time and a timeframe that most people who own a fund would have that in their portfolio. We can tolerate slight drifts outside of the classification on the most recent portfolio if the manager tends to go back within that range, which has been demonstrated over time.
Okay. So to that point, so if there are sort of recent portfolio changes, it is not necessarily going to result in a change to the Morningstar Category?
Paul Justice: Yeah, not necessarily, and that’s where our analysts really step in and want to make an assessment to make sure that is this a temporary phenomenon or is there really a strategic change at the fund. Which is going to indicate that they are going to perform same or like a growth fund than they have been as a value fund in the past.

https://www.morningstar.com/articles/754147/morningstar-categories-introduction-update-2016

Several months ago, a poster on another forum made the following observation about FMSDX: "With value equities and junk fixed income be prepared to take a hit with this fund if the equity / credit markets turn south [...]"
That was apparent yesterday when FMSDX lost 0.86%, that is more than the S&P 500 index lost. This may not be the "sleep well at night" type of fund for a conservative retiree in today's market environment. Time for me to reconsider and re-evaluate whether or not to keep this fund in my portfolio.
Currently looking at WBALX, a balanced fund in M*'s 30-50%/conservative-allocation category with a lower standard deviation and somewhat lower equity exposure that lost only 0.17%. Total returns over the past 3 and 5 years have been in the 10 to 11% range, quite satisfactory in my neck of the woods.
Good luck,
Fred

One can always go straight to the horse's mouth:
https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/campaign/summit-program.html
This is essentially the same basic information that T. Rowe Price sent to customers last month via email, though it adds a lot in its FAQs. What follows is what I read into this preliminary announcement; I could easily be misinterpreting.
- This appears to be the replacement for T. Rowe Price's "Select Client Services", including Personal Services ($250K min) and Enhanced Personal Services ($1M min). That program used to also include Preferred Services ($100K) - see, e.g. footnote 2 on p. 4 here - that TRP quietly phased out a few years ago.
TRP writes (regarding Select Client Services): "The Summit Program is T. Rowe Price’s revamped benefits program that will offer special access to products and services from T. Rowe Price." It doesn't say explicitly that Select Client Services is being discontinued, though that would be the most reasonable interpretation. Alternatively, TRP might allow existing Select Client Services to remain in that program, much as they appear to have grandfathered Preferred Services ($100K) customers after phasing out that tier.
- It is reasonable to assume that eligible assets (i.e. what's counted toward the min) will be the same for old and new programs, though nothing explicitly says that.
- If this Summit program is replacing Select Client Services, will it still provide free M* premium membership?
- The Summit program, like Select Client Services, will have multiple levels. But what they are and what the minimums are remain largely unstated. Though $250K is the min for the Summit program, so that must be the lowest tier. And $500K is likely the min for a tier because that level qualifies you to invest in I class shares.
- "Preferred access" to closed funds doesn't say what that preference is nor does this say that you'll have access to all closed funds. TRP might operate like Vanguard and allow Summit customers to buy, say, $25K of a closed fund per year. TBD.
- We may expect a flurry of activity from Shadow as TRP updates its funds' prospectuses :-)

Great explanation of Musk sales
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matthew-s-levine?cmpid=BBD111121_MONEYSTUFF&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=211111&utm_campaign=moneystuff&sref=OzMbRRMQ
Copied below if interested if you cannot open paywall
Oh Elon
Well here you go sure sure sure:
Tesla Inc. Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk unloaded $5 billion of stock in the electric-car maker, shortly after restoking a social media debate over the tax treatment of billionaires’ shareholdings.
The world’s richest person so far has disposed of more than 4.5 million shares this week, according to regulatory filings. Those were his first sales in more than five years.
Musk, who frequently stokes controversy on Twitter, created a firestorm over the weekend with a survey asking whether he should sell part of his Tesla stake. While he portrayed his proposal as having to do with debate over the ultra-wealthy avoiding taxes, the filings released Wednesday show some of the transactions were pre-arranged in mid-September -- weeks before the poll. He also didn’t mention in the tweets that he has millions of stock options that must be exercised before next August, when they expire.
There are two sets of sales. On Monday, he exercised 2.15 million stock options that were granted in 2012, paying about $13.4 million to acquire 2.15 million shares; then he sold 934,091 of those shares for about $1.1 billion. The Form 4 disclosures for the exercise and sales are here and here. Footnote 1 of each of Musk’s Form 4s says: “The transactions reported on this form 4 were automatically effected pursuant to a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan previously adopted on September 14, 2021 and established by the reporting person for the purpose of an orderly sale of shares related to the exercises of options scheduled to expire in 2022.” Actually it says that in all caps. I like my readers so I rendered it in sentence case for readability, but now I’m going to say it again in all caps, for accuracy but also for emphasis: “THE TRANSACTIONS REPORTED ON THIS FORM 4 WERE AUTOMATICALLY EFFECTED PURSUANT TO A RULE 10B5-1 TRADING PLAN PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2021 AND ESTABLISHED BY THE REPORTING PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN ORDERLY SALE OF SHARES RELATED TO THE EXERCISES OF OPTIONS SCHEDULED TO EXPIRE IN 2022.”
On Tuesday and Wednesday, he sold a total of about 3.6 million of the 170.5 million shares that he already owned (i.e. not shares subject to options), for proceeds of about $3.9 billion. There are a bunch of Form 4s for these sales (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here).[1] They do not mention a prearranged 10b5-1 plan; presumably he decided to sell them this week, and then did.
Some background. First, in September, a few weeks after he put this Rule 10b5-1 plan in place, he said publicly at a conference that “a huge block of options will sell in Q4 — because I have to or they’ll expire.”[2] He has 22,862,050 options in the tranche set to expire next August; he exercised 2.15 million of them on Monday, leaving him with about 20.7 million options in that “huge block” that he plans to “sell in Q4.”
Second, this past Saturday, Musk tweeted a poll. “Much is made lately of unrealized gains being a means of tax avoidance,” he wrote, “so I propose selling 10% of my Tesla stock. Do you support this?” In a second tweet, he said “I will abide by the results of this poll, whichever way it goes.” The poll closed on Sunday, with 57.9% of the votes in favor of Musk selling 10% of his stock.
It is not clear what “10% of my Tesla stock” means. At the time of the poll, Musk owned about 170.5 million shares of Tesla stock. But he was also, for legal purposes, the “beneficial owner” of another 73.5 million shares underlying options; Tesla’s filings show him owning 244 million shares. So if Musk were to sell 10% of his stock that would mean selling somewhere between 17 million and 24 million shares, give or take.

@msf
I am not advocating setting up an LLC for I bonds alone, unless you live in a state where there is no annual fee for the LLC. Even then the legal fees and accounting are probably not worth it for the ability to invest another $10,000 in I bonds.
To pay expenses out of the LLC you have to have cash in the LLC, and you indicate, a profit after expenses, at least in most years.
I have not set up a sole proprietorship with a separate tax ID, but if this is feasible and as easy as you say, getting the additional TIN would allow you to buy more I bonds. IT will be at least five years before you can realize any return however without an interest penalty.

Great discussion. Have you guys seen anything recent about PRWCX opening to new investors? With the split in Price companies I’m hoping this happens soon. I’ve been waiting for 5 years to get in. Thx

Stillers, Thanks for the feedback - Definitely buying PRWCX regardless...my wife has owned it as her sole holding in her Roth IRA for 15 years.
I'll wait for additional thoughts...

I have owned PRWCX for several years. My highest allocations are to PRWCX and FBALX.
If I only owned two funds they would be these two that just so happen to work pretty damned well in concert with each other.
Cutting to the chase: If I didn't own PRWCX and now had an opportunity to BUY it, I'd sell anything else I own to do so. If it were me, I'd BUY it and HOLD it as long as Giroux is at the helm. It's really that simple (for me at least).
Aside: I have a smallish CD maturing next week. Proceeds are going to PRWCX.

Nice morning update @hank. I think the only significant green I saw yesterday was my gold and silver ETFs. Inflation hedges.
As far as bonds go, I know there are many here that don't feel any change is needed in their portfolio, but I've worked to eliminate most of my categorized bond funds through 2021. I'm holding short and ultra short funds in my safe (withdrawal) bucket but no bond mutual funds of any kind in my main self managed portfolio. I guess after a couple years of the boy calling wolf many think bonds will continue to do just fine. I'm not one of those people.
Good luck. I think 2022 may be a very interesting year.

Not directly related ... But the “talking heads” this morning (Bloomberg) appear to be on steroids. Or maybe caffeine overdose? “Primal screaming” cited by one re yesterday’s trading. LOL
What happened yesterday?
- 30 year treasury bond came to life and bounced significantly higher. But is still under 2%. Interest sensitive intermediate-term (and longer) bond funds took a small hit. Mine were off between .33 & .50%. Looks like the less creditworthy issues held up somewhat better.
- “Dots” not yet connected by the pundits ... with the U.S. bond market closed today, some of the interest rate momentum upward yesterday was in anticipation of not being able to trade today - and with equity markets open.
- The more aggressive equity growth funds seemed to get hit hardest - although TSLA gained 4% following a recent 10% down day. TRBCX dropped 1.4% as one example. Precious metals and miners spiked.
- For once, movement across asset / fund classes in my portfolio was similar - with the moderate growth portion losing .40%, The investment grade paper was off .20%. The 3 alternatives combined fell about .30% in combination.
- HSGFX gained .49% putting it about break-even for the year.(I don’t own it.).
- To the crux of the OP, it’s probably a combination of baked-in inflation and transitory coming from temporary supply / labor shortages. I’m not expecting 6+ % annual “official” inflation over the next few years (using CPI figures). Admittedly, a fool’s errand to try and predict what inflation will be in the next 1-3 years.
- TAIL, which I’ve owned only a few weeks, has around 90% in LT treasuries and most of the remainder in “puts” on selected components of the S&P - if I understand correctly. That’s why it struggled yesterday, losing about a half percent. Time will tell how much of a drag that bond exposure is during major downturns. I view it as a short - intermediate term hedge. Could “screw the pooch” with this one. :)
- TMSRX held its own. Lost a penny or two.
- PRWCX held up remarkably well (-.42%). Giroux’s high cash level and avoidance of long term bonds paid off.
- Miners look hot again today. Up around 2% in pre-markets. Can flip on a dime. The more broadly based miners (like NGLOY) are screaming hot this morning.
- DKNG? / NY State granted it permission to operate in the state along with 5-6 competing outfits. But revenue will be taxed at 51%. I guess the news broke Friday, the same day I unloaded my small spec position. Looks like it’s off between 5-8% since than.

If you do not try to deduct expenses that have no relationship to the purpose of the business, I don't think the IRS cares what you do with it.
The IRS does care. If it regards your business as a mere hobby, e.g. because you've failed to turn a profit for years (along with other factors), then it will disallow expenses regardless of whether they're related to your "business". For example, if you make a few bucks selling photos as a hobby, you will not be able to deduct the cost of making your prints as a business expense.
With recent tax law changes, one cannot even deduct hobby expenses as misc expenses.

The itemized deduction for hobby expenses is completely eliminated under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-you-deduct-your-expenses-from-hobby.html
LLCs are strictly state entities. At the federal level they're treated as sole proprietorships (if they have one member) or partnerships (with more than one member), unless they elect to be taxed as a corporation.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/single-member-limited-liability-companies
So again I suggest that there's no point in going through the process of setting up an LLC in order to get an EIN to invest in additional savings bonds. The sole proprietorship (or partnership) serves this purpose just as well without the state law/process overlay of an LLC.
I would probably ask an accountant or lawyer before I set up a sole prop for the sole purpose of buying I bonds.
At the federal level, a single member LLC is a sole proprietorship, so the same recommendation should apply to LLCs.

Thanks for all the input and interesting ideas.
I missed the M* article, but I have dropped a lot of their stuff as it is all nonsense.
How can you take a firm that claims to be aimed at individual investors seriously, when it includes funds (GCCHX) with $5,000,000 minimums?

M* started out as a firm focused on individual investors.
Their focus has shifted more towards advisors and asset managers in recent years.
I find value in M* Fund Analyst Reports, FundInvestor newsletters, Portfolio X-Ray, The Long View podcasts, and various articles.
However, not all of their content is high-quality.
Some M* content doesn't quite measure up.