It is the 10% probability that the homeowners will need the insurance against natural disasters including fire, wind storm and others. Several years ago our house was damaged by a large tree fallen on the side of the house. The total bill came to about $30K. I expect homeowner insurance will rise again given the replacement cost of our home has gone up considerably.
Given the global warming, flood insurance is on the rise on southeast coast as the major cities faces several hurricanes per year. Living in Pacific Northwest we experienced wildfires last year.

@OldJoe, dunno if you're responding to me or not, but I was talking about investing. All of us should expect to see prices going up on anything related to ag commodities; after six straight years of negative returns (which does NOT mean food prices didn't rise then), DBA is up 18% this year so far. Get ready for more.
Meanwhile, I'm sticking with my decision not to add to commodities or other inflation assets. If you're concerned about food prices, though, maybe you could think about buying some ag commodities to help offset your costs.

I found the original article pretty underwhelming scandal-mongering.
For the record, the system that favors Bezos also favors me -- I have a very small number of shares in a boring old-tech company that were gifted to me a number of years ago which I (foolishly) never cashed out when I first received (and was a struggling student). As such I have modest paper wealth as well that I'm not paying tax on.

Call me dense on this subject, but ISTM we already have virtual dollars. Years ago, when the government printed money, it really printed it. Now the Fed just adds virtual dollars electronically to banks' reserves. Voila, instant, albeit virtual, cash. Obviously these virtual dollars are tied to "real" dollars because they're denominated in real dollars.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/081415/understanding-how-federal-reserve-creates-money.asp
https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2017/november/does-federal-reserve-print-money
The Digital Dollar piece linked to above claims that "Transfer payments, such as those provided by governments to people during the Covid-19 crisis, would be made faster and easier if that money could be deposited directly into digital wallets."
"Digital" currency wouldn't have made them go any faster, because the payments were already made electronically at least to some recipients.
What we don't have (yet) are virtual wallets. So called "virtual wallets" now are just software layered upon existing payment systems.
A prepaid, rechargeable card comes close to a virtual wallet. Conceptually, it stores cash value on the card, like a physical wallet stores paper money. Potential loss is limited to the amount on the card, as is potential loss from having a "real" wallet stolen. They can be recharged with cash without using a bank. (I suspect the reality is that prepaid cards still rely on being connected to a server. That would mean less anonymity than advertised, and a greater possibility of failure as compared with pulling a dollar bill out of your wallet.)
In short, so long as "virtual" dollars are linked to "real" dollars, I don't see a big difference between them and the current, largely virtual system. There are significant concerns (notably in privacy and access) with a cashless society. But that's a different question, one that arises as virtual dollars supplant physical money.

That very thing has made my blood boil for many years: deceptive packaging that gives the appearance (or almost the same appearance) as the last time you bought, but the CONTENTS of the package has shrunk. Price? Same or higher. Gov't inflation numbers are indeed BS. Ice cream. Triscuits. ANY box of crackers, really. Soup. You name it. ...

"...Demographic trends mean that women are controlling a greater share of financial wealth, since they live longer than male partners. At present, women control about 53% of investible assets; by 2030 this will rise to two-thirds, according to a study by the Family Wealth Advisors Council. ‘Making the industry more women-friendly has to be a clear priority,’ Jones says."
Is the goal to manage money and grow it, or to make women feel comfortable? Wise decisions are key. Men trade much more often, says the article. That may be true. So, they're shooting themselves in the foot. Seems to me, however, that it's not gender that matters, but a thing called WISDOM. I just made my first and only trade in YEARS the other day, buying a VERY small position in a foreign electric utility company. *The most recent "Wealthtrack" show with Consuelo Mack featured Dan Rosenberg. Right now, he's suggesting UTILITIES because they are currently out of favor. (Gretzky: "I don't skate to the puck. I skate to where the puck is GOING TO BE.")

I have several accounts which I treat each separately but with an eye on overall allocation. My primary accounts withover 50% of my assets is an IRA Rollover with 14 Funds focusing on low correlation, distinct style boxes, asset allocation etc. I rarely update this portfolio and have allocations to both Growth and Value in Domestic Large, Mid and Small. Also, I like to invest in Int'l Gorwth and Value where most investors pick one Int'l Fund. I also own EM and Int'l SMid, Fixed Inc Core Plus, Multi-Sector Fixed.
I have a Roth @ Vanguard with 3-4 Index Funds. My current 401k is my tactical portfolio with another 10-12 funds & ETF's.
I will consolidate over the next10-15 years as I get closer to retirement.

I guess I felt obligated to caution the uninitiated about the volatility of this sector. There’s lots of different ways to play the inflation card - if you think that’s where we’re going. Bullion is tamer than the miners, and there’s lots of allocation funds with limited exposure.
Adding up the string of 5 consecutive red (loosing) years for OPGSX beginning in 2011 I get north of 120%. Ouch! Who has the stamina to ride something like that out? (And it’s “5 stars” at M* - which should make you wonder about those ratings).
OK - I did my civic duty.

It isn't as easy as it sounds. They make it difficult for you to renounce your US citizenship. If your net worth is over 2 million$, then they make you pay all of the tax that you could possibly pay. Then you are liable for taxes for 10 years after you renounce. Plus, it's not like these other countries will let you get away with paying no tax. Maybe in the Caribbean, but that could change. So you renounce, pay a huge amount of taxes to the US, and are liable for the next 10 years. In Portugal, they have a special deal where you don't get taxed on your foreign income as long as it can be taxed in your home country. That plan is good for 10 years.
The guy you mentioned is Andrew Henderson from Nomad Capitalist. It sounds like he isn't a tax resident anywhere since he has 3 or four homes around the world. He renounced his US citizenship. I guess it can be done legally, but everything is subject to change. Anyway the ultra rich don't need to worry because they get away without paying much tax legally.

YES, that's the guy. He never mentions all of the specifics you detailed. SHIT! Can the IRS really do that to someone? I have no sympathy for the uber-wealthy, but there must be limits upon what they can demand..... Henderson said that he renounced in some foreign US Consulate or Embassy, and they all were quite professional and considerate. And that was that. Wow. ...Yes, he owns homes in a few countries, recently got married. With the St. Lucia citizenship, he'd need a visa to come visit the USA again...

It isn't as easy as it sounds. They make it difficult for you to renounce your US citizenship. If your net worth is over 2 million$, then they make you pay all of the tax that you could possibly pay. Then you are liable for taxes for 10 years after you renounce. Plus, it's not like these other countries will let you get away with paying no tax. Maybe in the Caribbean, but that could change. So you renounce, pay a huge amount of taxes to the US, and are liable for the next 10 years. In Portugal, they have a special deal where you don't get taxed on your foreign income as long as it can be taxed in your home country. That plan is good for 10 years.
The guy you mentioned is Andrew Henderson from Nomad Capitalist. It sounds like he isn't a tax resident anywhere since he has 3 or four homes around the world. He renounced his US citizenship. I guess it can be done legally, but everything is subject to change. Anyway the ultra rich don't need to worry because they get away without paying much tax legally.

I am in bond funds because they offer me the best returns with the lowest risk. Their trend persistency combined with their low volatility enable me to best implement the scale up buying strategy I learned from Nicolas Darvas. My first bond trade was in junk bonds in 1991. It was January 17 one of the greatest momentum days ever in equities. That day the Dow surged some 114 points which at that time was its second best on record. As is often the case there was a lag and a few days later junk bonds went on tear and had 60 consecutive trading days without a decline. That smooth ride upward continued for the next three years until February 1994 in junk bonds as they bested the S@P over that period.
That one LUCKY trade made a lasting impression on me and the way I have traded my capital ever since. Most especially after the tech wreck in March 2000. There have been many repeat performances and exhibitions of unreal trend persistency since 2000 in various bond fund categories. Emerging market debt in the early 2000s, junk bonds 2009-12, junk munis 2014, bank loans 2016, and last but not least the securitized category since last spring - IOFIX, BDKAX, abd SEMPX. IOFIX has had something like only 8 down days since last April 2020 when many of the veteran bond traders re entered. An amazing run over a 15 month period.
Some remember me as a day trader in the stock index futures. Others as a trader in tech funds who also exploited the new fund effect as well as datelining. Yet less than 3% of my total trading profits have come from daytrading and only around 13% from tech funds, new funds, datelining. Meaning almost 85% of my nest egg has come from bond funds - my one true love in the financial arena. I have always said everyone needs a trading or investing niche and I found my niche in bond funds.

Kinda like HollyWood Squares. I'll go with top/center for the win. Does she currently do any business broadcasting? I've not watched that network for years.

Here’s what PRWCX manager David Geroux said recently about IG bonds as an investment:
“What I would tell you about rates today is that the risk/reward on Treasuries or IG [investment grade] is so poor, it gets a situation where if rates stay static, you make very, very low returns. If rates revert back to more normalized levels, you lose a lot of money. And if rates go down, you don't have a lot of room for rates to go down … So, it's a really negatively skewed risk-adjusted return … As a result of that, we have a very short duration in our fixed-income portfolio, probably the shortest duration we've had since I've been running this strategy. Our duration today is 1.5 years” LINK
Your attempts to immunize the thread from mention of PRWCX or manager David Geroux’s views on the question “Why do you still own Bond funds?” sounds to me a bit cocoonish. Why would your view, or my view, or that of anyone else here on the question supersede that of Mr. Geroux as both verbalized by him publicly and as practiced thru his management approach?
-
“David Geroux is a five-time nominee and two-time winner of Morningstar's Fund Manager of the Year award in the allocation category. David’s fund has also won 15 "Best Fund" awards 2 from Lipper. “
Okay hank, I am not attempting to "immunize the thread" from mentioning PRWCX. I am simply stating that PRWCX is not a Bond Fund, it is an allocation fund, in which equities are the focused investment, and bonds are more in the "ballast" category, as a complement to equities. I have been in many thread debates, in which PRWCX investors, do not think PRWCX should even be classified as an "allocation fund", but rather it should be classified as a value oriented equity fund. Giroux has a history of being a value oriented investor, who will decrease equities when he thinks they are overvalued, and use the bond component (or cash) as a way of holding assets, that can be used to buy equities when they are fairly valued. There are many investors who invest in that manner, but the question is what "bond fund" are they going to use as a ballast fund for their equities, or will they just pick their favorite allocation fund, and let that manager choose bonds as they desire. Other investors, are more focused bond fund investors, who will use selected "bond funds" for total return and ballast. When they look to "bond funds", it makes sense to look at those "bond fund" managers, who excel in performance for those bond funds, to meet bond fund objectives, that fit the roles investors using those "bond funds". What I have learned about your posts on PRWCX, is that Giroux is a great "allocation fund" manager, who believes that Investment Grade Bond oefs and treasuries are out of favor for his allocation fund, and the other types of bonds (not specifically identified for this thread) are short duration bond holdings. I choose to emphasize what great bond fund managers, (like Ivascyn, Gundlach, etc.) are doing with their investments, but other posters/lurkers will likely find value in other ways on this "bond fund" thread.

@dtconroe,
Here’s what PRWCX manager David Geroux said recently about IG bonds as an investment:
“What I would tell you about rates today is that the risk/reward on Treasuries or IG [investment grade] is so poor, it gets a situation where if rates stay static, you make very, very low returns. If rates revert back to more normalized levels, you lose a lot of money. And if rates go down, you don't have a lot of room for rates to go down … So, it's a really negatively skewed risk-adjusted return … As a result of that, we have a very short duration in our fixed-income portfolio, probably the shortest duration we've had since I've been running this strategy. Our duration today is 1.5 years” LINK
Your attempts to immunize the thread from mention of PRWCX or manager David Geroux’s views on the question “Why do you still own Bond funds?” sounds to me a bit cocoonish. Why would your view, or my view, or that of anyone else here on the question supersede that of Mr. Geroux as both verbalized by him publicly and as practiced thru his management approach?
-
“David Geroux is a five-time nominee and two-time winner of Morningstar's Fund Manager of the Year award in the allocation category. David’s fund has also won 15 "Best Fund" awards 2 from Lipper. “ LINK

Hey hank, posters have flexibility to take threads in any direction they choose. My point is simply that this thread is about "Bond Funds", not "Allocation Funds". When you introduce Allocation Funds into the discussion, then it inevitably involves a mix of many assets, generally anchored by the % of equities that the allocation fund historically uses. That can lead to a comparison of completely different kinds of allocation funds, who use all sorts of alternative assets, in conjunction with their equity exposure. So if you look at funds like FPACX, VWELX, and PRWCX (moderate allocation funds), those 3 funds have very different philosophies, from very different companies, but all heavily linked to various asset classes, as offsets for equities, and all attempting to "preserve investors principal" over a period of many years. I guess it all has value to a poster/lurker, and they can extract whatever value they want out of the comments in the thread.
I choose to take the thread at its face value--discussions about varying types of bond funds, and depending on what kind of investor you are, those bond funds can be used in many different ways. Clearly, you can use bond funds as ballast options, as complements to your equity exposure. Others can use bond funds in other ways for their portfolios, and there are a few investors like me, who use varying types of bond funds exclusively, without an equity component.

I have 22 investments. 8 mutual funds and 14 ETFs.
There is one fund in my not real large IRA.
There are 3 mutual funds in my somewhat bigger Roth.
My taxable, which is 2/3 of my stash has 4 mutual funds and 14 ETFs.
These are all held in 3 companies, the largest being Vanguard.
I use spreadsheets to keep track of the holdings along with the cost basis in taxable holdings. There is a spreadsheet for my expenses and one more for income for any money that crosses my doorstep that ends up on the 1040.
I keep turnover fairly low to moderate my taxes (12% bracket).
My current spend rate is about 1% of my portfolio. My AA is 70/30.
Since I stopped working 14 years ago, my stash has doubled.
I'm 71yo with not much else to do.

Too much for me to digest tonight. But I trust ProPublica. On YouTube, I've run into a guy who runs a business geared for the ultra-wealthy. He helps them strategize about how to hide money from the tax man. It can get extreme. He mentions that there are countries around the world that SELL citizenship, for a donation into a "National Fund." Alternatively, you could buy and hold real estate for at least 5 years. Then, after 5 years, you could apply for citizenship there. (Until then, you're granted a 5-year "golden visa," residency permit.) St. Lucia. Vanuatu. Dominica. Granada. Trinidad & Tobago. Serbia. Montenegro. Portugal. Ireland. (Got that one covered.) Even Egypt.
This guy recently RENOUNCED his US citizenship. THAT will take care of the higher US tax in a big way..... He chose St. Lucia.

Thinking about the original question, I've tried to take a step back and reformulate the question a bit: what is a bond, and why would one own a bond (or in the aggregate a bond fund)?
From a business finance perspective, a bond is a way to raise cash without selling part of a company. Funds are characterized as bond funds if they hold these financial instruments; not if they behave like traditional bonds. This is an important distinction because it affects what we mean when we talk about bond funds.
From an investor perspective, a traditional IG bond is a way to get a better return than in a bank. In exchange, one takes on a modest amount of risk, some of which can be diversified away in a fund. IG bonds preserve nominal principal, though inflation gradually reduces their value over time.
One diverges (slightly) from this traditional perspective of bonds as pure income streams when one starts trading bonds in an attempt to increase total return. This began in the 70s, largely with Bill Gross and total return funds. These funds take on a measure of equity characteristics, especially as they add junk bonds. At this point, ISTM one is at the edge of crossing over from "bonds" to "allocation" funds, in behavior albeit not in name.
Moving on, multisector bond funds behave significantly like allocation funds. But because they're still bond funds from a finance perspective, people can feel good about eating their vegetables - investing in "bonds" while getting better returns.
Here's Portfolio Visualizer's correlation matrix of a "pure bond" (albeit leveraged) multisector fund PDIIX, a multisector fund with a 13% equity kicker RPSIX, and a rougly 40/60 allocation fund (disregarding cash) FTANX. The five year time frame I selected is the period covered by PDIIX's current management team including Ivascyn.
They're all pretty well correlated. Further, annualized standard deviations are quite close together, ranging from 5.62% to 5.84%. In terms of risk and performance these multisector funds feel like hybrid funds.
I do own a multisector fund (none of the funds here), but I expect it to behave like a hybrid fund. It's just another way for me to get that risk/reward profile.
To the extent that I use IG bond funds, they're there to serve as the last bastion before dipping into equities should stocks swoon for several years. On the short end, I use short/ultrashort funds as backup to pure cash - a bit more return in exchange not drawing upon them monthly in case of hiccups.
I've no bond funds for a traditional, widows and orphans, monthly pension type cash flow.

“PRWCX was a very conservative balanced fund years ago … Giroux has produced stellar total return, but it does not fit very well into a "bond" thread…”

I was merely responding to this sentence from FD-100 (same thread): “PRWCX performance since 2000 shows that it made more money than the SP500 with lower volatility.”
Of course PRWCX’s not a bond fund. I do like stepping on sacred cows now and than (like PRWCX) - even though I own the fund myself. As far as bonds, Giroux in the last year has described them a very poor investment which he avoids - except for a few of the high-yield and convertible types. (Perhaps that qualifies him for inclusion in this thread?)
As far as risk, Giroux asserts in his most recent fund report that he thinks he can preserve investors’ principal over a 3-year time horizon. That, I think, remains to be proven. Yes - a more aggressive fund today. Exposure to tech and large caps has hurt his performance recently. However - I wouldn’t bet against this guy.

I try to structure my portfolio into three buckets.
Bucket 1 - Cash / Bond Funds (for Income)
I hold a cash or bond positions with each account I have. Presently this bucket has 17% of my portfolio and represents 3-5 years of income (I may need to spend in retirement).
Bucket 2 - Asset Allocation Funds (for Capital Preservation)
I hold 3 AA funds and they make up 35% of my portfolio. These funds attempt to outpace inflation, reduce downside market risk, and achieve moderate growth.
Bucket 3 - Sector / Category Funds (for Growth)
I hold 10 funds here. These tend to be buy and hold positions and represent 48% of my portfolio. My plan is to periodically sell shares to replenish/enhance bucket 1 (Cash / Bonds) especially when these "Bucket 3 funds" capture above normal gains. I am more actively evaluating these funds for consistent performance, manager risk/reward, and trend momentum.