There are several references to articles in Barron's. For those interested, I have been doing weekend summaries from Barron's for several years that are released on Saturday mornings. Some recent ones can be found at this link at the open read-access site,
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/board/12/market-insights

A very good point,@yogibear. BRUFX has lost assets every year since 2016. I was one who bailed a couple of years ago.

This is such a great resource for me during distribution season. What are you guys doing with this data? I use it to create estimates of what my clients will receive in distributions before the end of the year, determine which funds to put off buying, and (some years, not this one) tax loss harvesting out of funds that will pay more in dividends than the capital gains would be.
I assume I'm not the only one who is going to these sites and typing the numbers into excel? Next year.... what do you think about also having a shared google sheet?

Love "experts" predictions, see (link)
Example: In 05/2012 (article)
Question:You have become famous for your cyclically adjusted 10-year price/earnings ratio. What do the latest numbers say about future stock market returns?
Shiller: we found a correlation between that ratio and the next 10 years' return.
If you plug in today's P/E of about 22, it would be predicting something like an annualized 4% return after inflation.
FD: reality, the SP500 made 15+% average anually since that date and much better than countries with lower PE10.
==============
I would love if markets collapse because I would be out. I have been doing it for years and why my biggest loss from any top since 2018 was less than 1%. I made money every week in March of 2020.
How do I know? VIX is one of my indicators, the rest is in a lock box.
The key is to be mostly invested. I'm in the market at 99+%(never cash) at 90+% of the time.

In a sense, the whole claims system is a game. The insurers do everything they can to come up with excuses to deny or delay paying the fair amount on claims.
My doctor's office had a claim denied because they had not stated explicitly that the coding was in ICD-10 (the current coding system) rather than ICD-9, which had been obsolete for years. They had to refile with no changes, just a declaration that it was coded correctly.
Medicare Advantage insurers game the government by trying to make their customers appear as sick as possible. The way the system works, "To provide an incentive for insurers to cover sicker patients, the plans are paid commensurately more for their care."
So the insurers push customers to accept a one time in-home visit from an insurer's clinician to find any condition that would get the insurer more money. Of course that's not what the insurers tell their customers the visit is for. And it raises all our costs.
"If you are healthy and the visit results in an increased risk score, you won’t have to pay more for your care. But the higher Medicare reimbursement your insurer receives may contribute to the nation’s rising health care costs."
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/medicare-advantage-when-insurance-companies-make-house-calls-201512168844
In this game, I find I'm more on the side of the providers. Especially PCPs, where as @sma3 noted, margins are razor thin. Which is not to say that I haven't seen gross abuses of the system by providers. But I haven't seen nearly the level of nickel and diming that the insurers do that drives up administrative costs. Just MHO.

Very insightful for sure. I went back to view her YouTube interviews in the last 10 years and they are consistently informative. Toward the end she picked Cathy Woods’s ETF, AKKK as an example of innovation that drive this economy.

Yes, I understand what you're expressing/your point. Charts lend a nice view, for me.
When bonds had more correlation to equity moves, this chart provides an interesting view. If one was really astute about market moves, a sell/buy rotation between EDV (Vanguard long bond) and SPY would have paid a handsome return over the years. From the chart begin (limited by EDV inception) one's money would have returned the same value through March, 2017, for EDV and SPY. Most folks would never guess this, if the question were on an exam.
And yes, one may still make money with hard play in bonds............as in a play between TBT (rising rates) and TMF (falling rates); or others.
You may plug in any of the tickers you listed, as the chart link is an active/to use chart.
CHART

@Catch22 - Thanks for the chart. As you know, TAIL isn’t designed to make money over longer periods. The manager expects negative returns most years. So, not sure what to compare it to in a day and age when stocks only go up.
Others I’ve looked at:
SWAN About 90% treasuries and buys longer dated call options on the S&P (passive management)
DRSK About 90% investment grade corporates and buys longer dated call options on selected stocks.(active management)
FTLS About 70% long and 25-30% short on selected stocks (active management)
Here’s my favorite one conceptually - DFND, which shorts stocks that it thinks will pay lower dividends in the future and goes long on stocks it thinks will grow their dividends. It’s considered defensive in the sense that investors tend to rush into dividend paying stocks during times of market stress. Generally good reviews. The problem is it bounces around a lot and is currently on an uptick. I would only buy in after a prolonged period of weakness.

One can use Portfolio Visualizer (PV) to see how he arrived at the age 70 investment portfolio values. PV shows slightly lower values. That is possibly because when one asks PV for a 6% rate of return, it doesn't use 6%/12 (0.5 basis points) for the monthly return, but 0.487 basis points (compounds to 6% annually). Just a guess.
Here's the PV setup for 6%. Mouse over the graph for the 8 year (age 62-age 70) result.
On the withdrawal side (after age 70), the video makes two simplifying assumptions:

• You will die at age 90. 5% withdrawal x 20 years = 100%. That leaves longevity risk.
• The real rate of return of the portfolio is zero. This addresses @bee's point that the portfolio grows over time. The video's portfolio does grow in nominal returns at precisely the rate of inflation.

bee does a nice job with PV in showing how one might have invested in the past. Kudos for incorporating a couple of bear stock markets in the mix. That said, there are two implicit, and IMHO fairly aggressive, assumptions made:

• The funds selected (or any fund of one's choosing) will continue to outperform the market. I've added a 60/40 S&P 500/bond market mix (rebalanced annually). This didn't survive 15 years. PV link.
• The markets going forward will produce real returns similar to those of the past 20 years. Schwab is projecting average real returns over the next decade of around 4.5% in the stock market and negative bond returns. And that's before considering higher inflation - the projection was from last May, before inflation took off.

Source page: https://www.schwab.com/resource-center/insights/content/why-market-returns-may-be-lower-in-the-future
With respect to sheltering the portfolio from taxes via a Roth IRA: this assumes that the part time worker is not already putting that money into an IRA (and maxing out), else contributing more to an IRA might not be an option. In any case, one could not contribute even half the age 62 benefits to SS. $1400 x 12 mo = $16,800. Including the $1K catch up amount, the max that one can contribute to an IRA is $7K.
Looking at the Roth conversion option: let's assume one is in the 12% tax bracket, no state taxes. If one converted $140K and somehow managed to remain in the 12% bracket, then that would use up the $16.8K in SS, thus effectively adding that amount to the Roth IRA. In reality, that would move one into the 22% or 24% bracket; hardly a good strategy. Not to mention that this would make more of the SS benefits taxable. Further, in order to execute this plan for eight years, one would need to have $1.12M in a traditional IRA available for conversion.
This has a better chance of being feasible if one is in a higher tax bracket (that would reduce the amount of the conversion necessary to incur $16.8K in taxes). However, given the correlation between income and longevity, the higher income person is also more subject to longevity risk and thus would likely benefit more from the lifetime income guaranteed by SS.

Regarding the annuity option: we don't know where the cost figure comes from, or what type of annuity it is. Though I agree with what I think is @JonGaltIII's assumption - life only, no inflation adjustments. One can buy joint and survivor annuities, but they cost more. I don't believe there are any inflation adjusted fixed immediate annuities left on the market, but there should still be some that provide for annual increases of a fixed amount (say, 2%). Of course those also cost more.
If there is the possibility of a surviving spouse, that just makes SS look even better. With SS, if the spouse with the larger benefits dies first, the surviving spouse gets those benefits instead of one's own. Unless one expects both spouses to live past the break even point (~82 give or take), the optimal strategy is often for the lower benefit spouse to take SS early (62) and the higher benefit spouse to defer to age 70.

@Old_Joe
I retired in 2019 after 40 years in primary care medical practice, both self employed and as an employee.
When I was self employed, my livelihood and the salaries of all of our employees depended on the knowledge and expertise of the billing staff, who worked long hours to get us every dollar they could out of the insurance companies. Despite many hours talking to them, I still do not understand medical billing. We paid these folks good salaries to sit on the phone for hours and wrangle with other staff at Blue Cross for example, over $15 or $20. But we figured if they spent 30 minutes collecting $50 we were ahead of the game.
A lot of physicians don't bother, or hire a billing service, who just tries once. In primary care, however, the margins are so thin ( our overhead never dropped below 55%) every dollar counted.
I think we would have been better off charging $50 a visit, cash. We would have needed far fewer staff, but it was unclear ( and I could never get an answer) if we didn't take insurance, if our patients would have had any of their tests or prescriptions covered. That is where the real costs in health care are, not doctor's salaries, especially primary care.
Once I joined a hospital owned practice, it was their problem, but I can tell you collections and efficiency fell off the cliff.
It is in the financial interest of the insurance companies to make this as complicated as possible, as they live off of the 25% America spends on administrative expenses. Highest in the world!

I think we all need to be aware of the potential catastrophe if we enter a prolonged bear market. People who are depending on their equity returns to live on will be hurt very very badly.
While the 1930s are probably not a useful comparison, as the Fed was nowhere to be seen, many of us lived through the 2000 to 2013 crash. While there was a "recovery" to a previous high by 5/29/2007, within five months things went south again, and did not recover until 2013.
Taking the two periods together, it was over 13 years of no returns. The PE fell from 35 to 8.
While the Fed is obviously more willing to intervene now, with rates at near zero, and the deficit enormous, there may be less they can do.

Re TAIL (etf)
I’ve come upon a better description of the strategy. In particular, the fund (TAIL) relies on intermediate, rather than long term treasuries (as I earlier stated) for ballast, while purchasing put options. The manager explains that under normal conditions, the fund is expected to lose money.
Excerpt: “The Cambria Tail Risk ETF seeks to mitigate significant downside market risk. The Fund intends to invest in a portfolio of "out of the money" put options purchased on the U.S. stock market. TAIL strategy offers the potential advantage of buying more puts when volatility is low and fewer puts when volatility is high. While a portion of the fund's assets will be invested in the basket of long put option premiums, the majority of fund assets will be invested in intermediate term US Treasuries. As the fund is designed to be a hedge against market declines and rising volatility, Cambria expects the fund to produce negative returns in the most years with rising markets or declining volatility.”
Source https://www.cambriafunds.com/tail
Here’s a related bit of information cited in “Up & Down Wall Street” (Barron’s, Nov. 15). Eric Metz, an options trader is credited by Randall Forsyth as providing the following advice:
“Metz (recommends) taking advantage of a current anomaly in the options market. Premiums on calls on the Nasdaq are higher than those on put options—the reverse of the usual skew. Typically, hedgers pay higher premiums on puts to ensure against the downside of their holdings. But bullish enthusiasm currently is making for higher premiums on upside calls.”

@Observant1: the PV charts are really helpful. I had noted MIEIX and SCIEX as good performers when I looked rapidly for LB international funds. What strikes me is how relatively poorly the investor in international equities has been rewarded over the past 10 years and beyond as measured by the Vanguard Total International index on your linked chart. Very revealing.

Why not file at 62 and invest 8 years of benefits.

Comment:
What the video misses is the fact that the dollar amount of a 5% withdrawal changes as the invested portfolio continues to be invested (during retirement). An investment needs to maintain its value over time. The best investments maintain their inflation adjusted value over time while also providing an income (withdrawal).
I fiddled with this scenario...please critique.
I assumed a 7% return investing after tax SS from age 62 to age 70, netting a portfolio balance close to $200K.
Now, if I died tomorrow my estate is worth $200K more taking SS early verses if I waited until 70 to take SS. This gets rid of "short-evity" risk (dying early). Also, I continue to work part time between ages 62-70 and add all of my SS funded contributions into a Roth IRA, (Roth 401K), Spousal Roth or through Roth conversions along the 8 year investment window (age 62-70). Since my SS income is $15K less at age 70, I take Roth withdrawals which are tax free. This seems to make good tax sense.
Using PV, I run three scenarios using different types of investments.
VWINX=Conservative Allocation
PRWCX = Moderte Allocation
PRBLX = Managed All Equity Fund - Aggressive Allocation
I start the simulation in 2001 to include two nasty downturns (Tech bubble and GFR) early on in the simulation.
Portfolio value is $200K (what was saved from SS). Year one pay out @ age 70 is $15,200 (the difference between early and late SS filing). This withdrawal will increase 2% a year for inflation going forward (COLA).
PRBLX & VWINX - Lost portfolio value throughout the 20 year time frame (70-90).
VWINX - Was ready to bust at age 90.
PRBLX - Was worth about half its orginal value $106K adjusted for inflation.
PRWCX - Lost portfolio value briefly during the GFR, but recovered and gained value.
PRWCX- Fared much better than the conservative allocation (VWINX) and the aggresive allocation (PRBLX).
PRWCX - At age 90, this portfolio had a inflation adjusted value of $200K...pretty good.

My PV Link

A couple of more to consider. Blackrock International is a foreign large blend that scores in the top 10% across most time frames for its category. Impressive fund. Grandeur Peak Global stalwarts has had a very nice couple of years in the Global Small/mid cap space. David has written a lot about this fund family. Thanks for the advice on MIEIX @Observant1. Wasn’t aware of that one. Great candidate for a taxable account too. I’m personally leaning to starting an account with WCMIX. I will be reading up more on these other funds too. BGAIX is also interesting but it’s very high PE multiple gives me pause.

“ There is a lot of fear mongering ….. Those are worthwhile discussions to have.”
Nicely put. Thanks for the detailed analysis @LewisBraham
I try to read as much of the popular financial press as I can - by no means a comprehensive amount. But what often surfaces in these analyses is: (1) Central banks (notably the Fed) do not want to tank the markets. (2) They do, however, want to curb speculation. Unfortunately, there’s emerged over the years a certain amount of conflict there. When they do attempt to tighten (slow speculation) the equity markets become turbulent and fall or threaten to fall. “Taper tantrum” is the phrase often used. (3) This conflict leads (it seems invariably) to stage #3 in which the central banks / Fed “cave” to the markets and loosen the reins again. Repeat the process. Market players understand the game.
So now after years (decades?) of monetary stimulus we sit at near 0 short term rates with the Fed still buying bonds (albeit at a reduced rate) and talking obliquely about needing to further stimulate until “full employment” is reached. (Have you tried having your home roofed or painted lately?) Meanwhile, the markets march merrily along, The question left unanswered is - What further can the Fed and central banks do to keep the magic market money wheel churning next time the economy and / or stock market begins to shudder? What happens to those elevated asset prices when the stimulus runs out and people begin to realize the tank is empty?
One pundit I follow expects that coming inflation will force the bond market to take control - irregardless of Fed policy. In other words, faced with growing losses of purchasing power bond investors will sell en mass, forcing rates higher and eventually toppling stocks. I don’t necessarily siubscribe to this view, But think it’s one (of many) worth considering.

WCMIX has $29B in AUM and is quite concentrated, maybe a red light. My preference is PWJZX. For Global, I'd put new money into BGAIX, not MGGPX. Heugh's fund also may have become too large, prompting the soft close. The Baron fund has scorched just about everybody in recent years.
I could not identify an international LB fund I would really want to buy. Back in the old days, Harbor International was great. It's hard to beat an index over the long haul. In my retirement account I have a healthy allocation to TIAA-CREF International Equity Index (TCIEX).

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

Nice fund selection!
Personally, I'm not fond of Causeway Intl Value and am unfamiliar with Buffalo Intl.
I would have purchased PRIDX if it wasn't closed to new investors.
For those interested in WCMIX, the fund will soft-close after 11/30/2021.

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?

The Nasdaq peaked at 5,048.62 on March 10, 2000.
From that point it generated a maximum cumulative loss of ~80% until October 2002.
I'm not aware of any major plagues or asteroid crashes during this period.
All that was needed for this to occur was a bit of irrational exuberance!
The Nasdaq did not climb back above 5,000 until March 2015.

There is a lot of fear mongering about the economy and inflation for obvious reasons, but I don't see a lot about the stock market. I think Roth is right to get people to try to conceptualize the risks even if a little ham-handed. Here's Zweig on the subject of optimism:

In February 2020, before the pandemic had fully hit home, these [surveyed Vanguard] investors estimated the odds of such a bear market at an average of only 4%. By April, just after the S&P 500 had fallen by one third, their expectations that the market would plunge again in the coming year nearly doubled to 8%.
Those fears swiftly faded. By last December, investors in the Vanguard survey estimated the probability of another crash in the ensuing 12 months at only 5%. That was slightly lower than their average estimate during the three years before the pandemic.
It’s as if the speed of the recovery had erased the pain of the decline, or made a recurrence seem even more improbable. Just like that, a grizzly bear turned into what feels more like a teddy bear.
That complacency takes a toll—even among Vanguard investors, who tend to be cautious. These people often follow the philosophy of the firm’s late founder, Jack Bogle, who preached patience and repeatedly warned that stocks are risky. If anyone should come through the sharpest market decline in decades unperturbed, it’s the people in this survey—typically about 60 years old, with about $225,000 in Vanguard investments, roughly 70% in stocks.
Yet they didn’t all sit tight. One group in the survey stood out: those who went into early 2020 with the highest expectations for stock returns in the upcoming year. They ended up reducing their exposure to stocks much more sharply during the crash of February and March 2020 than those who had been expecting lower returns.
They also tended to turn around and buy back much of the stock they had just sold—but not until prices had already shot above the March lows.
Investors elsewhere seem to have concluded from the swiftness of the recovery that stocks aren’t risky at all. After last spring’s rebound, Dave Portnoy, a social-media celebrity, declared “Stocks only go up” so often that it began to seem like a magic incantation.
And, for the past year, just about every stock has gone up.
That’s largely because the Federal Reserve has backstopped markets by squashing interest rates toward zero and by buying more than $2.5 trillion in Treasury securities since February 2020, along with other massive interventions. Meanwhile, emergency government programs pumped trillions of dollars of stimulus into the economy.

As for useful actions, I can think of quite a few--save more, spend less being an obvious one. But there are others. Roth's story has a table I can't reproduce here for some reason of which asset classes did well in previous bear markets. It's worth thinking about which might do well in the next one. The I-bond thread already points to an interesting avenue for saving. Options funds if you can find the right one are interesting. Are Treasuries worth it, REITs, high quality value stocks with strong balance sheets? Gold bullion? Cash? Paying down your mortgage or refinancing it? Those are worthwhile discussions to have.