I think the notion of not spending enough is aimed at only certain folks. I get it. After a lifetime of carefully watching spending, things can work out far better than expected, but increasing spending can be difficult for savers.
And what more does a person desire? A bigger house does lead to other expenses. So can buying newer more expensive vehicles. We like our neighbors, which is a big deal. Even if our house has a couple unnecessary rooms. Selling and moving can create a lot of expenses too.
I just cannot think of anything that I truly desire that I don't already have (materially). But, I won't be inconvenienced over money if I can help it. In that regard, travel comes to mind.
OTOH, if I need 1x and have 5x, should I be looking to pass on 10x in 20 years, to people whose lives will not be impacted much by a big influx of cash later in life?

Look at the last five years performance for PRWCX. It has underperformed both VWELX and VBINX. High fees and TROW’s inability to attract and retain talent in their research analysts division has led to underperforming funds. This trend will continue worsening.

I don't think we think outside the box at all in retirement. We worked hard to prepare for retirement. We built up a significant amount in our bank accounts, maximized our company retirement accounts into a significant amount, paid off all major debt, researched and selected a good Medicare Advantage Medical Plan. We have no annuitized income except for a very small monthly check my wife receives from the state of Texas, plus our Social Security payments. We live comfortably, but not extravagantly, in retirement, traveling frequently, with family and friends. We have more money in our banking accounts and IRAs now, than we did when we retired. In the last few years, we have transitioned to a preservation of principal approach, hopefully to cover future expenses. One of the things we are discussing is the possibility of selling our relatively large house and downsize to a smaller, newer and more manageable house for persons of our age, however that is tough for emotional reasons as we have a lot of fond feelings for our home.

So said Irving Fisher many years ago. Today I read that there is a new normal on Wall Street. Dinky linky.

strategists are rethinking what normal looks like for today’s market.
Bank of America equity strategist Savita Subramanian is among those making the case.
“Perhaps we should anchor to today’s multiples as the new normal rather than expecting mean reversion to a bygone era,”
/snip
Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at CFRA Research, told Yahoo Finance that while valuations remain elevated compared to long-term averages, they look more justifiable when measured against the past five years — a stretch marked by megacap leadership and strong fundamentals.
“Over the past 20 years, the S&P 500 is trading at roughly a 40% premium to its long-term average on forward estimates,” he said. “But on a five-year basis, when mega-cap tech began to dominate market cap and earnings growth, that premium shrinks to a high single-digit range.”

1. I'm waiting to read the magic words.
2. It's really interesting to see what lengths people go to to find reassuring patterns in data.

Because the bond market is so fragmented, active bond ETFs have been around for years, while active equity ETFs is a relatively new development.

For clarification - by “housing upgrade” I meant buying a larger or more extravagant house.
But thanks @msf for the insights into home improvement. I recently replaced the last existing non-insulated (60s era) window in my home with the more modern / energy efficient ”thermal pane” type. Unfortunately, the newer type occasionally fail and fog-up inside, requiring expensive replacement. So, that money saved on heating costs sometimes flies “out the window” years later.

In the case of housing upgrades you’re looking at higher costs for insurance, heat & utilities, maintenance, property taxes, and probably other.
Housing extensions could very likely trigger higher taxes and insurance. Upgrades, maybe not.
One of these years we will have to replace our HVAC's condenser (cooling unit). When we do, we will upgrade to a heat pump. It will be more efficient resulting in lower utility bills. We might use the heat pump to replace our furnace as well.
We are just south of climate zone 5 meaning, in theory, we can do without a special cold climate heat pump. That may or may not lower heating bills (depending on how gas prices move relative to electric costs), but it would be better for the environment.
We're also looking at upgrading (renovating) our whole kitchen. That could include replacing our gas stove with an induction stove (for health reasons). If we make our home gasless (no gas furnace, no gas dryer, no gas stove), we can cut our connection to the gas company and save monthly connection charges.
I'm not suggesting that these sorts of upgrades are cheap. (This is how you spend down your investments.) But some of them have the potential of lowering utility costs. And they shouldn't affect property taxes the same way as adding on a room would.
Unfortunately others and various charitable and environmental organizations can enjoy what I have reaped after I pass.
I would like to contribute more than we do to various organizations now, except ...
LTC for 2 people can go through a sizable nest egg pretty damn fast. Two in LTC could be $200k+/year!!
And there are also family responsibilities assumed voluntarily - helping out with extraordinary medical expenses, education, and being available as a resource of last resort. Definitely not a complaint - I'm glad we're fortunate enough to be able to help out. But it is a good part of the reason we don't donate more now.

"There are so many media outlets, some posing as expert voices,
that paint everything in the US as if it’s going down the drain.
In my opinion, some people make investment decisions based on politics
and the grim stories the media feeds them."
Some people do make investment decisions based on politics — often to their detriment.
The subject is off-topic for this particular thread.
"Isn't the US the best place to invest LT?"
The U.S. has been the best place to invest over the past 15 years or so.
Will it be the best place to invest over the next 10, 15, or 20 years?
Frankly, my crystal ball is cloudy — I don't know the answer to this question.

I know why I don't' spend it down. I live comfortably and do mostly what I want but LTC for 2 people can go through a sizable nest egg pretty damn fast. Two in LTC could be $200k+/year!!

Long-term care is extremely costly to pay for over the years, and when you finally need it, you often face loopholes and delayed payments. Most people can’t afford it, and many who can don’t really need it because they already have sufficient funds.

Just a thought, but maybe some momentum to beat tariffs/inflation is still driving high-income spending? Either way, a big market drop might put an abrupt end to that spending.
My spending has been rather high for over 5 years as I address home maintenance/upgrades prior to retirement. The threat of tariffs accelerated that somewhat. Much of that comes to an end this year for us. Basically running out of things that need to be done/bought.

There's a fair amount hidden under the covers here. Not that the conclusions aren't sound, but some of the reasoning bears scrutiny.
Thinking in terms of COLA annuities, I agree with the conclusion that "buying" more SS by delaying benefits is better than buying a commercial annuity with COLAs. Though looking at the reasoning ...
In saying that 10% should be allocated to delaying SS, the paper seems to be saying that this 10% represents the cost of that delay. It calculates that cost for the typical investor to be $108K. Does that mean that the paper is assuming that a typical investor has a $1M portfolio at age 66? Mixing dollars and percentages is confusing at best.
Commercial annuities with fixed COLAs (e.g. 2% of 4% adjustment per year), are dismissed as having higher risk, citing Blanchett.
Blanchett's analysis shows that for these annuities

The expected benefit of including the COLA is negative. This is primarily because the retiree has to deplete the portfolio faster earlier in retirement for the annuity with the COLA due to the lower initial payment. The portfolio has a relatively higher return, which benefits the retiree as well. The COLA does the best only when inflation is relatively low and life expectancies are notably longer.

This analysis would seem to also apply to delaying SS benefits. With a commercial COLA annuity, the investor is accepting lower monthly payments at the start in exchange for higher (adjusted) payments later. With delayed SS, the investor is accepting even lower zero monthly payments for four years in exchange for higher payments once SS starts.
There are differences between commercial COLA annuities and SS but this question of possibly increasing inflation risk by delaying SS is not discussed or dismissed.
People's propensity to spend income but not principal, even as that principal appreciates faster than inflation is not exactly ignored. It's finessed rather than addressed directly.
The suggestion is made that because some companies use what would be dividend money to buy back shares (and boost their prices) you're not really selling off principal when you sell shares. You're just capturing these "dividends". As opposed to companies that plow profits back into their businesses, thus raising their value?
I don't have significant disagreements with the conclusions. And it's hard to clearly articulate reasoning in a limited space.

I’ve never cared much for plain vanilla bond funds. Rate risk is the most troubling aspect. If you’re investing to stay ahead of inflation, rates are likely to rise if inflation picks up which diminishes a bond’s value. There are work arounds like staying on the short end or buying individual TIPS. PIMCO seems to know how to game the system and stand up reasonably well regardless of rate environment. Not meant to exclude other managers.
There are rate-hedged investment grade bond funds / etfs which provide the income stream of longer dated maturities without subjecting you to much rate risk. These sell Treasury’s short to offset rising rates in their long term holdings. IGHG and AGZD are a couple I’ve owned. AGZD is higher quality. I’d probably do a 50/50 split. Of course, if inflation and interest rates fall, as they did for much of the past 30 years, you’re better off in conventional bonds.
And I think that 25+ year period probably distorts a lot of what we perceive when researching funds’ past performance.

@bee: Take a look at FISMX. Similar country allocations to VINEX. Better 5-year performance and about the same 3-year performance. VINEX has better performance over the past 3-years.

26 Sept, '25.
Scarlet Fu again.
High Grade issuance in USA and Europe is at a record, this week. $197B in the States. This week, Junk issuance is at a record, $48B. Busiest week in 5 years. There is a borrowing boom, surely on the heels of the recent FED rate reduction by 0.25%.
There was an A.I. focused conversation and attention paid to Oracle, which issued a rare 40-year bond. Do you really want to own that? Or flip it?
Long bond back in favor. There is a reduction in long-end supply. A lot of FED easing is already priced into 2026.
Inflation is sticky, about 1% above FED target. No recession expected. Labor market cooling, not collapsing.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2025-09-26/real-yield-9-26-2025-video

From Markets A.M. newsletter by Spencer Jakab.
On this day in 2001, Enron CEO Kenneth Lay led an online employee chat
in which he urged the company’s workers to “talk up the stock.”
He declared: “My personal belief is that Enron stock is an incredible bargain
at current prices and we will look back a couple of years from now
and see the great opportunity that we currently have.”
It soon filed the largest-ever U.S. bankruptcy.

I've taken a careful look at CBLDX but like Observant1 don't feel it is good in a core position. Rather, I could use it to stretch risk in my near-cash (0-5 year) sleeve. For that satellite role I find it a close call.

Core has different meanings to different investors.
If DODIX is considered core for many, I would invest twice in CBLDX as my core. I rather have a great manager, with small AUM that knows how to select bonds and navigate markets.
BTW, I have been posting for several years about the following 3 funds managed by Sherman from less risky to more RPHIX(great "sub" MM), CBLDX, and RSIIX.
3 year Sharpe based on MFO...DODIX=0..........CBLDX=1.8 and...RSIIX=1.25.
5 year Sharpe based on MFO...DODIX=(-0.3)...CBLDX=1.8 and...RSIIX=1.4.

So I queried MFO P with my morning coffee, because I like queries. Here is what I came up with:
Basic Info
• Asset Universe: Mutual Funds
• SubType: Bond
• Age, years: 10+
Index? No Index Funds
More Basic Info
• Share Class: All Classes (Note: This option takes longer to load, initially.)
• Fund of Funds? No Fund of Funds
More Risk Metrics
• DSDEV Rating: 1 - 2 Below Average
• Down Rating (In Type): 1 - 2 Bottom Quintile
Purchase Info
• Expense Ratio (ER), %/yr: 1.00 or Less
Bond Info
• Quality: BBB or Better
• Junk Plus Non-Rated: 20% or Less
• Duration: 6 Years or Less
• Effective Duration: 6 Years or Less
I set the time period from 202112. There were few results over three years of effective duration, which is not too surprising given the environment we have been in. Here they are by duration length, then lowest ER of the fund without regard to purchase conditions: FIJEX, PGBIX, SNGVX, VCFIX. HWDVX, FPNIX.
When I looked at the results for the last twelve months there were no funds with a duration over 2.3. It has been a bumpy flight.
So then I dialed out to ten years and ended up with PGBIX, SNGVX, HWDVX, and FPNIX.
I might try dialing up the risk factor a little later today, but I think this post has gone on long enough.

Thanks, WABAC.
You've given me lots of homework to do!

That Hartford fund has more derivatives, and what-not, than the PIMCO fund. That's quite an achievement. :-D
Neither are the kind of thing I would go in for. But I had fun with the query.
I might take a longer look at some of the shorter duration funds that showed up. People are a little too comfortable with "inflation in line with expectations" to tempt me further out on the duration limb than I already am.

If you are comfortable with the risk, then ICMUX looks better than CBLDX and RCTIX.
CBLDX=I don't pay too much attention to ratings and a lot more to actual performance,risk,SD. Sherman proved it already.
TSIIX lags CBLDX for 1-3 years. No go.
WCPBX made just 10% in 5 years. No go.
Anything VG bond funds is always a no-go for me, including VCPAX.
BATPX: too volatile. No go
LCTIX: higher SD than CBLDX, lower performance for 1 year. Higher for 3-5.
ENIAX: similar to CBLDX
ICMUX: more volatility but the best return for 1-3-5 years.
Now, it depends on your allocation, style, and how long you hold. I always invested in bond funds with good risk/reward but also great performance. Never high-rated bond funds.

So I queried MFO P with my morning coffee, because I like queries. Here is what I came up with:
Basic Info
• Asset Universe: Mutual Funds
• SubType: Bond
• Age, years: 10+
Index? No Index Funds
More Basic Info
• Share Class: All Classes (Note: This option takes longer to load, initially.)
• Fund of Funds? No Fund of Funds
More Risk Metrics
• DSDEV Rating: 1 - 2 Below Average
• Down Rating (In Type): 1 - 2 Bottom Quintile
Purchase Info
• Expense Ratio (ER), %/yr: 1.00 or Less
Bond Info
• Quality: BBB or Better
• Junk Plus Non-Rated: 20% or Less
• Duration: 6 Years or Less
• Effective Duration: 6 Years or Less
I set the time period from 202112. There were few results over three years of effective duration, which is not too surprising given the environment we have been in. Here they are by duration length, then lowest ER of the fund without regard to purchase conditions: FIJEX, PGBIX, SNGVX, VCFIX. HWDVX, FPNIX.
When I looked at the results for the last twelve months there were no funds with a duration over 2.3. It has been a bumpy flight.
So then I dialed out to ten years and ended up with PGBIX, SNGVX, HWDVX, and FPNIX.
I might try dialing up the risk factor a little later today, but I think this post has gone on long enough.

Thanks, WABAC.
You've given me lots of homework to do!

When I have responded to the OP in this thread I have tried to keep in mind that he just might know his own druthers better than I do.
If I was looking to creep out on the duration limb I might look at similar constraints.
But, you know . . .
So I tacked CBLDX onto my query.
I did not put a duration floor on my query, and it should go without saying that the funds mentioned below will have much less of it.
I'm not making any adjustments in the ranking for multiple share classes.
At five years CBLDX would have given you the better Sharp, but BATPX would have returned 8.2 vs 6.1
At four years CBLDX wins on Sharp, but is outperformed by BATPX, LCTIX, and ENIAX.
At three years CBLDX still leads on Sharp. There are now seven funds ahead in performance one of which is ENIAX only .12 behind in the Sharp race.
At 2.5 years CBLDX falls to 16th place on Sharp. It ties for 6th place on returns.
At two years CBLDX drops down to 20th place on Sharp. It ties for 9th place on returns.
At 1.5 years CBLDX is way down there on Sharp. It's down to 10th place on returns.
At one year CBLDX falls to 29th place on Sharp. It's now back up to 6th place on returns.
MFO Premium works on month to month numbers. If you have a way to track daily performance then your results may differ.
I did the ranks by human-powered eyeball, so let me know if you see an error when you run the query as I have.