I don't understand why this is considered a "silly question, silly answer". It's a question that I've asked myself many, many times over the last couple of years as I've watched the equity market continually rack up gains.

A few of the perks that come with being ultrawealthy.

“Families with wealth of $100 million or more can borrow at less than 1%,” said Dan Gimbel, principal at NEPC Private Wealth....Yachts and private jets have been especially popular buys in the past year
Loans also allow the ultra-wealthy to avoid the hit of capital gains taxes....“Asset-backed loans are one of the principal tools that the ultra-wealthy are using to game their tax obligations down to zero,”
Some private banks offer mortgages on homes for as long as 20 years with fixed interest rates as low as 1% for the period.

Cheap Credit

Anyone who has ever invested in FI CEFs or knows of their inherent volatility understands that they carry a risk level commensurate with stocks.
Dick and other LT M* FI CEF Forum posters provided me (and many others) with a paint-by-numbers strategy for making profitable FI CEF trades. I traded them for about 2-3 years under their guidance with very good success, but ceased trading them after one too many violent, out-of-left-field price movement shocks to my system.
100% bond OEF Investors seem more than capable of justifying TO THEMSELVES that their strategy is a worthy one. Using Dick as an example though is one of the more creative ones, but does little to convince me that what they're doing remotely resembles "smart" investing.

Everyone is different. The "bucket" approach has alot of followers, although it is hard to track down M* Christine Benz's original articles anymore.
Still, from a purely intellectual basis, it makes sense to set up priorities
1) Money to live on. The amount you keep in cash depends on how much you want to be able to spend and how necessary it is, but it's purpose to to keep you from selling equities at a market bottom.
Then you have to decide how long the bottom will last. Using the longest bear market since my college years, 3/24/2000, it took seven years for the SP500 to recover.
1/11/1973 to 7/16/1980 was 7.5 years.
So I think five years may not be enough, although if interest rates were higher, you could count on replenishing this account with dividends and interest.
2) Everything else ie equities

I owned OSTIX for many many years, and M* chose to place it in the multisector bond category during those years, even though it held almost exclusively high yield bonds. Supposedly, the reason from M* had to do with its prospectus statements about flexibility to invest in a wide variety of assets, besides High Yield Bonds. During those years, its portfolio looks almost identical to what it holds today. However, a couple of years ago, M* chose to move OSTIX from the multisector bond category to the High Yield Bond category, even though it continues its same basic investing strategy, as it historically has used.

Obviously the Diamond Hill HY team is great, I've been with them for years and very happy. My existing Brandywine fund (LFLAX) has been just as great in its own right.

You might want to explain what you mean by "just as great in its own right." It must include metrics beyond TR but I'm not seeing how any other metrics could cause someone to see these two HYB funds as "equally great."
TR 1yr, 3 yr, 5yr, Life
DHHIX: 17.3%, 10.6%, 10.3%, 9.1%
LFLAX: 5.6%, 7.0%, 5.9%, 6.2%

LFLAX is not a HY fund. It's a multisector bond fund. Compare it to its category and you will better understand my comment.

Oh, my bad. As the thread is about OSTIX, a HYB fund, I guess I incorrectly assumed that any comparisons/suggestions would be HYB funds.

Obviously the Diamond Hill HY team is great, I've been with them for years and very happy. My existing Brandywine fund (LFLAX) has been just as great in its own right.

You might want to explain what you mean by "just as great in its own right." It must include metrics beyond TR but I'm not seeing how any other metrics could cause someone to see these two HYB funds as "equally great."
TR 1yr, 3 yr, 5yr, Life
DHHIX: 17.3%, 10.6%, 10.3%, 9.1%
LFLAX: 5.6%, 7.0%, 5.9%, 6.2%

LFLAX is not a HY fund. It's a multisector bond fund. Compare it to its category and you will better understand my comment.

Though VWELX may be wandering into LB now, but that is not something it did regularly in the past. It was a solid LV balanced fund for a long time, at least since I started watching it from 2005. The trend of Value managers buying growth stocks (making the fund LB) is something that has become common in the last 10 years or so. There are many value managers doing that now. One that comes to my mind is Bill Nygren of Oakmark. These managers are following Buffet's mantra (I believe it was Charlie Munger who convinced him to do that)
“It’s far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price.” – Warren Buffett

Before reading @bee 's comments, I had the same question: are these expenses for a household or for an individual? Bee observes that some categories don't add up, e.g. housing. (In housing, I'm not sure that they're supposed to - one either owns or rents a home, not both)
This dubious arithmetic extends to the bottom lines - they are much greater than the sum of the bolded components. I think that addresses @Derf 's observation that transportation isn't included. Apparently, transportation (including travel?) is not considered a "key category" (see text at top of chart).
Note that these are means, not medians. So while the text suggests that these figures illustrate how your spending might change in retirement, I'm not so sure.
Here's actual data from the 2018 BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey, by age. The numbers don't exactly match the table above, but they're close enough. The difference could be due to the fact that I'm looking at a column labeled "65 years and older", which is not the same as "retired".
https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/calendar-year/mean-item-share-average-standard-error/reference-person-age-ranges-2018.pdf
FWIW, the mean transportation spending by a "consumer unit" with age 65+ is $7,270, while the national mean for consumer units is $9,761.
The BLS defines a "consumer unit" as:

either: (1) all members of a particular household who are related by blood, marriage, adoption, or other legal arrangements; (2) a person living alone or sharing a household with others or living as a roomer in a private home or lodging house or in permanent living quarters in a hotel or motel, but who is financially independent; or (3) two or more persons living together who use their income to make joint expenditure decisions. Financial independence is determined by the three major expense categories: Housing, food, and other living expenses. To be considered financially independent, at least two of the three major expense categories have to be provided entirely, or in part, by the respondent.

https://www.bls.gov/cex/csxgloss.htm#cu
Of course, since we're classifying by age, and a "consumer unit" consists of more than one person, we need to be clear on what "age" means for that unit. It's the age of the "reference person".

Reference person - The first member mentioned by the respondent when asked to "Start with the name of the person or one of the persons who owns or rents the home." It is with respect to this person that the relationship of the other consumer unit members is determined.

https://www.bls.gov/cex/csxgloss.htm#refper

FSDAX has tracked VIS (VINAX) pretty closely historically, but over the last 18 months FSDAX trails VINAX by 30%.
How much of this is virus related?

Prior to the virus (looking back 5 years) FSDAX was out performing VINAX by 47% and from that perspective has retraced those gains to a March 2020 lows. Since March 2020 the two have moved in lock step again.

Not touching bonds of any sort directly. I have no need to, and besides, the past several years even sound companies have levered themselves to the gills in the era of cheap money...

I was for a few years, but cut it lose in 2019 or 2020 as part of a portfolio redo. I liked the holdings but was surprised BA was still (at the time) the #1 or 2 holding - not sure where it is now, but that company is hurting and IMO shouldn't be that high up on the fund.

In the interest of clarification (or perhaps obfuscation if you read the following), Brandywine funds and BrandywineGLOBAL (caps in original) funds are completely different.
As I described in this AMG thread, Brandwyine funds were affiliated with and then acquired by AMG a couple of decades ago. They were rebranded AMG Brandywine, and earlier this year completely overhauled. The original management company Friess Associates was jettisoned as submanager. Friess then relaunched Brandwine funds as Friess Brandywine.
Legg Mason acquired acquired Brandywine Asset Management Inc. in early 1998. On August 17, 1998, Legg Mason launched Brandywine Small Cap Portfolio, managed by Brandywine Asset Management. It was a fund designed for institutional investors ("pension plans, endowments, and foundations"), and was based on a private portfolio managed by Brandywine Asset Management.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1052864/0000950169-98-000952.txt
As of Dec 29, 1999, "Shares of the Brandywine Small Cap Portfolio [were] no longer being offered." Legg Mason's Brandywine moniker seemed to have vanished for several years.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1052864/000095016899003221/0000950168-99-003221.txt
Then in early 2006, Brandywine Assset Management changed its name to Brandywine Global Investment Management LLC. Shortly thereafter, Legg Mason launched what appears to be the first Brandywine Global submanaged fund: GOBIX, then called Global Opportunities Bond Fund.

Prior to April 30, 2012, the fund was a series of a corporation named Legg Mason Charles Street Trust, Inc. ... Effective October 5, 2009, ... the fund’s name [was changed] from Global Opportunities Bond Fund to Legg Mason Global Opportunities Bond Fund. Effective May 21, 2010, ... the fund’s name [was changed] from Legg Mason Global Opportunities Bond Fund to Legg Mason BW Global Opportunities Bond Fund.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1474103/000119312512175846/d296312d485bpos.htm
The insertion of BW was the first time "Brandywine" seeped into the Legg Mason funds' names. But it was cosmetic; nothing about the management of the funds changed.
On Dec 29, 2017 the rebranding was complete, though again it was merely cosmetic:

Effective December 29, 2017, the fund will be renamed BrandywineGLOBAL – Global Opportunities Bond Fund.
* * * * * *
The change to the fund’s name is being effected as part of a rebranding of Legg Mason funds subadvised by Brandywine Global Investment Management, LLC (“Brandywine Global”). Legg Mason Partners Fund Advisor, LLC continues to serve as the investment manager to the fund, and Brandywine Global continues to serve as subadviser. The fund’s investment objectives, strategies and policies are not changing as a result of the name change.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1474103/000119312517331311/d473516d497k.htm
The point of this story is that BrandywineGlobal funds are from Legg Mason. And unlike funds from other Legg Mason subsidiaries like Western Asset Management or Royce, the BrandywineGlobal funds are purely Legg Mason creations. There were no publicly offered BrandywineGlobal funds before Legg Mason launched them.
That makes DHHIX different from other BrandywineGlobal funds. It is more like the Western Asset Management funds that carried on after the management firm was acquired. Here, Legg Mason (now Franklin Templeton) isn't acquiring Diamond Hill, but it is hiring the fund's complete management team.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/57682/brandywine-global-investment-management-llc-to-acquire-diamond-hill-s-focused-high-yield-corp-cr

Obviously the Diamond Hill HY team is great, I've been with them for years and very happy. My existing Brandywine fund (LFLAX) has been just as great in its own right.

You might want to explain what you mean by "just as great in its own right." It must include metrics beyond TR but I'm not seeing how any other metrics could cause someone to see these two HYB funds as "equally great."
TR 1yr, 3 yr, 5yr, Life
DHHIX: 17.3%, 10.6%, 10.3%, 9.1%
LFLAX: 5.6%, 7.0%, 5.9%, 6.2%

Obviously the Diamond Hill HY team is great, I've been with them for years and very happy. My existing Brandywine fund (LFLAX) has been just as great in its own right.

Hi @bee
Yes, FRIFX was replaced a number of years ago; when we moved more towards growth equity holdings. The fund remains quite unique for it's holdings in the real estate area and continues to be well managed in this sometimes erratic sector. The mix generally holds about 50/50 for equity, and for the most part, real estate junk bonds.
FUND COMPOSITION

At some point in the next five to 10 years, when each of us becomes the owner of a sovereign-backed digital currency, we will look back on the summer of 2021 as a turning point.
The message delivered last week by the Bank for International Settlements in its annual report could not be more clear. Most central banks will soon issue their currency in digital form, making it directly available to each of us on our mobile phone and instantly exchangeable over long distances — just like email.

central banks will soon issue their currency in digital form

@bee, thank you. Should included the ticker symbols in my discussion.
Thanks for remindering VMVFX. I left the fund when the original manager left and the portfolio underwent considerable changes that did not make sense. Moved the asset to a growth oriented international small cap several years ago. More volatile for sure, but the fund has a shorter recovery period and about the same % drawdown as VMVFX in 2020. GISOX has a hard close when the fund is held outside of Grandeur Peaks.
PRIDX is closed to new investors. There are not many good international small cap funds.

I remember we had that discussion several years ago. Since this fund focuses on large cap value stocks, I pair this fund with Vanguard International Growth (a large cap growth) and Grandeur Peaks Int’l Stalwart (small int’l growth). Few overlaps between these funds and they perform quite differently in the last 3 years.

@Charles : would it be possible to provide a list of Great Owls that have retained that honor through years 1,3,5,10, & 20 years? I tried ,but believe funds were listed that made the list at least in 1 years. I found a list from 2013 & would like to compare
Thanks you, Derf