I think it is worthwhile ensuring that in the event of a substantial bear market with drops like 2008 and a duration like 1930's you have enough cash to avoid selling at the bottom.
It is possible that it will take five or more years for losses to recover, even after a modest bear market.
QQQ didn't hit it 2000 peak until 2015. DJIA lost 40% in the 1930's, was up only 5% in the 1970's and many of us can remember the loss of 10% in the 2001-2010.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/how-the-dow-jones-industrial-average-performed-over-the-last-100-years-51620421855?mod=past_editions
Having just entered retirement without a pension, I can ill afford to loose 30% of my savings nor wait ten years for it to come back.
To answer your question, if there is a substantial drop, I might DCA back in to about 50% of where I was at the start but little more.

I believe Baseball_Fan forgot one point. Would you & you're well thought out plans be able to withstand a long drawn out Mr. Market collapse of two or three years ? Patience, can & will slowly go away , at least for me . During the 2008-9 market fall I was able to make a few buys as the market sank. Then at some point I got caught in the headlights & the buys stopped ! I sold nothing so trying to buy back into the market wasn't a problem. Also age & wealth play into these so called plans.
To answer the questions , I'd be a buyer on the way down or possible on the way up. Time will tell.
Have a good weekend, Derf

I'm 71yo and have my Scheißfest plan all set. The plan is to do almost nothing.
My AA is almost 70% equities, all in mutual funds and ETFs. I keep 5 years of expenses in my credit union savings account. I am a low spender.
March 2020, I sold some ETFs in my taxable account where I could TLH. Anything that had gains, stayed. Within a few weeks, all that loose money was invested in new ETFs. So I'm fiddling with my taxes.
Since I likely won't need the money in my investment accounts, it doesn't matter what they do in the near term. I'm able to weather the storm, it seems. In March 2020, the value of my portfolio went down by more than my house is assessed, and I shrugged and did something else. This was part of my written plan. In late 2019, after a great year, I restated what do when the Scheiß hit the fan. Didn't know I would have to implement it so soon.

Watched this years annual meeting start to finish. It was a really interesting Q & A and not because of the news about ESG and the Funds like Blackrock trying to exert influence on Berkshire to address environmental reporting concerns. Although, Munger had some pretty succinct and pithy responses to those questions.
What struck me was how smart both Buffett and Munger are compared to the future leaders of Abel and Jain. One terrific example which struck me was the moderators question on whether BH would insure Elon and Space X trip to Mars. The immediate response from Jain was no- he’d pass. Buffett quickly followed up on Jains misstep by saying... it depends on how much the premium was and whether Musk was on the rocket. <— Just great instincts from a sage value investor- it depends on the price. Turns out, other viewers noticed the same: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-on-price-versus-value-morning-brief-095654774.html
That’s not to say that I’m not long on Berkshire or in the least bit concerned about the future leadership - I just appreciated the dichotomy between their experience.
View the Annual Meeting in its entirety: https://finance.yahoo.com/brklivestream/

@Michelg I owned LAND for a few years, as diversification and the dividend, but got concerned about the debt level and sold it. It also has a very large exposure to California farms, and the fire situation there gave me pause. My cousin runs an avocado farm and almost was burned out.
I have dipped my toe in commodity ETFs for awhile, using DBA, MOO, general natural resources ETFs HAP and a large copper company FCX. These are less inflation plays but more of a sustainable energy idea and climate change in general, without the high flying nature of ETFs solely focused on clean energy
Most of the ETFs focused on commodities are heavily concentrated in energy.
However, GCC from Wisdom tree is more broadly based with only 20% in energy.

@carew388: are you batting .388 on your stock and fund picks?
I can see playing the materials/natural resources sector by using one of my old favorites, FIW. It’s performance has been outstanding for the past 5 years and it does not have the volatility of other natural resources such as fossil fuels or lumber. It holds some great growth companies like Danaher and Ecolab and is light on international holdings. I think water is likely to be inflation-proof or even a beneficiary of rising rates.

@Rbrt: I doubt that I have my tax records for those years (2008-2012) as I jettison them after five years.

In February, my homeowners replacement coverage policy increased 29% with Chubb. I have not had a claim with them in 30 years. Being that I consider Chubb crème de la crème in this market, I will not look elsewhere.

We just refinanced our mortgage and had to get an updated replacement estimate from our insurance company. Compared to the estimate we got about 4 1/2 years ago, replacement costs went up about 40% which meant that even though we reduced our mortgage costs, our home insurance costs increased.
Our coverage amount increases incrementally every year but I was wondering what would have happened if we had needed a replacement under our old policy limits. Turns out our policy has a 30% cushion that would have covered the increased costs.

Yes, been holding them for years, and now into retirement. Reduces the volatility, and the dividends make it easy to wait for better days for bond funds. I can own bonds at pretty damn good interest rates through the funds, which I could not do on my own--- since I'm not independently wealthy. PRSNX. RPSIX. PTIAX. Plus bonds held in balanced funds PRWCX and BRUFX.
current yields:
PRSNX. 3.04%
RPSIX. 2.73%
PTIAX 3.81%
PRWCX. 1.01%
BRUFX. 1.92%
(And when did this goddam computer decide FOR me where I wanted periods inserted--- where they DON'T belong?) DAMN machines.

Any homeowners with insurance asking questions or finding large price increases in policy costs ???
We've given attention to home insurance replacement values over many years, for a total loss of the home. Note: our mortgage is paid from long ago and our insurance doesn't renew for several months.
We have not called our agent yet regarding the recent large increase in lumber and many other building materials; but we're pondering the impact relative to our home insurance coverage, even though it contains an inflation clause.
I offer this link for informational purposes only.
Home Insurance Overview
Lumber cost adds $24,000 - $36,000 to new home construction pricing. I gave this price range, as Bloomberg offered the low number, but I have not yet discovered why.

The rough cost to build a house.....
Thank you,
Catch

I have used M* for years- back when they printed those flimsy paper fund reports- but like many others have been discouraged recently. The Portfolio Manger however remains one of the few (only?) place I know of that will break down your funds and stocks into the underlying characteristics.
I have found M* stock reports to be too simplistic and too focused on their jargon like "Moats" and do not think they are useful. The analysts all look like they are just out of school and change constantly. The stock data sometimes seems off and out of date, but I don't use that much.
I have tried a lot of "newsletters" with web based stock analysis over the years and have had mixed luck.
For dividend stocks, the one I have stuck the longest with is "Simply Safe Dividends". There are three real life portfolios and detailed analysis of a lot of dividend stocks in an easy to read and understand format. Highly recommended at $288 a year.

Hi David, congratulations on a well-deserved rest from MFO! Thank you for your years growing this community and sharing your valuable wisdom, and all your effort and time helping others understand the complicated world of personal finance and investing.

… just asking what % would most seem apropos, is it 10%, 15% etc.”
For many years I kept 10% in my “real assets” sleeve - which always included a commodity & real estate fund - and occassionally a mining fund. I kept another 10% in international bonds which might shelter against inflation too - and rebalanced back and forth between the two.
For many years I lost $$ on the commodities part as they went through a brutal decade+ long bear market. A year ago may have seen rock-bottom when they were literally giving oil away on the futures markets - hard as it is to believe. The real estate and gold funds did better over that time - helped along with some tactical buying and selling. But commodities stunk.
Growing more conservative with age, I’ve curtailed the real assets sleeve to 8%. Most risk assets have been curtailed. Not what my instincts would prefer. But I have no control over the aging process.
The above doesn’t take into consideration a roughly 10% hold in PRPFX - which spreads the money all around - and includes gold, silver, natural resources & real estate. It runs hot and cold, so I’d be loath to recommend it to someone today after a nice streak.

Jerome Powel is Trump's hand picked Fed Chair, one of Trump's "top of the line professionals".
Nevertheless, Trump agreed with you that Powell was "foolish" and "crazy" However, Trump came to that conclusion when Powell raised interest rates. Trump felt rates should be lowered. That's just what Powell is doing now.
Moving past the ad hominem remark, we get to Banana Republic, surely not the clothing store :-)

Over the past century, “banana republic” has evolved to mean any country (with or without bananas) that has a ruthless, corrupt, or just plain loopy leader who relies on the military and destroys state institutions in an egomaniacal quest for prolonged power. ...

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/is-america-becoming-a-banana-republic
Rather than a banana republic, perhaps what you had in mind was the Weimar Republic?
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/ess_germanhyperinflation.html
At any time one can find conspicuous consumption in all age groups. That said, an objective account would show that Porsche was and remains a brand for males going through midlife crises.
From Fortune, January 1995:

The demographics of the Porsche owner are utterly predictable: a 40-something male college graduate earning over $200,000 per year.

https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1995/01/16/201811/

Plus ça change:

The demographic of the Porsche owner, includes a college graduate, household income over $100,000, 85% male, and 15% female. The typical Porsche owner is 40 years old and up ...
The age demographic rose from an average age of 48 in 2007 to an average age of 51 in 2012.

https://www.stephenzoeller.com/targetmarket-segment-porsche/
FWIW, what I saw in Silicon Valley at the turn of the century were stock rich entrepreneurs driving Bimmers, not Porsches. (Well, Larry Ellison drove a Testarossa.) Me, I was zipping down I-280 at 100+MPH in my MR2. 80% of the fun for 30% of the price (see 80/20 rule). Value investing.

@hank,
Ha! I see what you did there...out in left field...apologies if I did not communciate my question clearly...did not mean to imply that I would put all or most of monies as an inflation hedge...just asking what % would most seem apropos, is it 10%, 15% etc.
The Invesco funds you listed seem interesting, but...will admit I am shying away from derivatives, swaps and the like...do like the looks of the PRAFX T Rowe fund, I'm going to ponder it further...
I could be wrong but I have seen info that equities at times are NOT a good inflation hedge contrary to what many beleive. Equities took it on the chin in late 70s early 80's.
Real estate intrigues me, home prices going thru the roof (pun intended), multi-family housing growing like weeds. Home Depot, bought out HDS HD Supply, had large div who sells to multi family developers etc..(Disclosure: I hold a lot of HD stock)
Gold...has worked in the past but maybe Bitcoin is the ultimate either farce or statement/ clever investment in which many believe too much central banks have grossly increased their balance sheets and money supply??
Have to hand it to Fleckenstein...he's been consistent thru the years on his views, maybe wrong, but consistent...and I'm hoping he still has that good hair...
Take care/Best,
Baseball Fan

I think your question is pretty far out in left field. Whatever my thoughts on inflation or the economy I’d never risk all my assets on commodities, gold or other. Moderation in everything.
PRAFX is a decent fund at TRP. Buys stocks that profit from inflation and holds significant real estate. I also like BRCAX at Invesco if you can get it load free. I wouldn’t overlook ABRZX, an allocation fund at Invesco. They keep about a third exposed to commodities. (I own small amounts of all 3 funds.)
BTW - I recently took profits in some of the above mentioned funds and put the $$ in PRELX. It’s a mediocre non-hedged “local currency” EM bond fund. Should do well if the dollar keeps falling (in tandem with rising inflation). A safer option than playing gold and commodities directly - but more limited potential.
A good real estate fund should benefit from hyper inflation.
Equities in general are a good inflation hedge.
All of the above are subject to reasonable prices. I can’t tell you which funds are fairly valued and which might be in assets that are in bubble territory.
If you want confirmation for your own hyper-inflation thesis, you can pay $130 a year for Bill Fleckenstein’s daily online rant (I do). Bill would have you put a lot of your money into gold miners. But he’s been wrong for the past 1-2 years while gold has languished. (I did make some money in miners on his advice 3 years ago). He’s also been trying to short tech and other high flyers for several years without success, as those markets have screamed higher.
Good luck.

David- I'm thinking that the odds of finding someone with your gentle touch in administration, coupled with your knowledge of the investment areas, are likely slim to none.
I was an old buy-and-hold fund type, did pretty well doing that, and because of the limitations of my plain vanilla experience didn't have much to contribute to the in-depth financial discussions here. But over the years this place has become almost like the local watering hole, pleasantly populated by interesting and intelligent people whose varied experiences and opinions on all sorts of matters have been a source of great interest and mind-stretching knowledge. Losing this place is going to leave a great void for me, and will be like losing a great number of friends all at once.
Thank you so much for all that you've done here, in the creation and management of the best financial watering hole that one could hope for.
The very best to you and yours in whatever your futures may bring.
Dan

Gasp!

All of which feeds into my decision to step aside as publisher of the Mutual Fund Observer by year’s end. After 25 years of writing about funds and ten years of being the defining presence at MFO, it’s time to give a new colleague the chance that Roy Weitz long ago gave me.

A heartfelt thanks, David, for picking up where Roy left off and jump-starting the world's best mutual fund website.
May the wind be ever at your back.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/category/mutual-fund-commentary/

“Happy birthday. Now pack up your stuff and go.
“That might constitute a harsh goodbye for most employees, but unless your name is Warren Buffett, it is a possible ending for corporate executives and directors … Mr. Buffett is 90 and has been running Berkshire for five decades. His business partner, Charlie Munger, is 97.
“(The) reality is that most CEOs will never be able to approach that tenure. Some 70% of S&P 500 companies had a mandatory retirement age in place for corporate directors as of December … Other research suggests such policies are in place for perhaps a third of S&P 500 chief executives. Not even Berkshire is immune to the pressure: The pension fund Calpers cited the board’s long tenure and the lack of board “refreshment” as one reason it plans to withhold its vote to re-elect some Berkshire directors this weekend.
“While many won’t last in a top job nearly long enough to see such a policy invoked—the average S&P 500 chief executive retires at 60.1 years old after a tenure of about 8.4 years—perhaps the practice needs a rethink in an era when once-unthinkably long lifespans are commonplace.”
From: The Wall Street Journal - May 1, 2021