...seeing that guestimates for IBonds re rating on May 1st estimates for inflation variable rate going up to 3.54%?
That's higher than it's been in ~ 10 years? I guess it makes sense...
FWIW, I pay no attn to the propoganda and the esteemed columnists in the NYTimes. Right or wrong, I'll think for myself and not what others signal to me how I should think.
Not for me, no thanks.
Best,
Baseball Fan

@Chinfist, apologies but I am not qualified to answer your question. I haven't planned on it as my thinking is that at this point anything that I recover will be a postitive. In my mind, I'm positioning my investment in IQDAX as a sunk cost and a somewhat cheap lesson as to not get involved in any "black boxey" type of investment as I get older and "wiser". Ouch. Hoping to get ~ 50-60% of my monies invested back. Based on my past experiences, I'm thinking this will drag on in the courts for several years.
Appears that the young man who ran this fund believes he did nothing wrong.
What a sheet show. Good Luck to you and stay healthy!
Baseball Fan

"Second point. what if your ss is banked for 3+ years & market takes a very heavy hit. Recovery takes 3-4 years to recover"
If the worst three years happen early in the accumulation phase (ages 62-70) you come out better, because you've banked only three years of SS checks. If the worst years are closer to age 70 ("retirement"), you take the worst hit.
To see what happens if the worst three years are just after you "retire" at age 70 (age 70-73), try out the PV Age 70+ simulation above, and set "Sequence of Returns Risk" to "worst 3 years first". You're virtually guaranteed of losing if you live to age 83, and a 50/50 chance of losing if you just live to age 80.

@bee : "The main reason this strategy seems optimal to me is that Social Security has no cash value upon death."
Not so, there is a death benefit but rather quite loooow ! Less than $300. I think it's $255, but wouldn't bet on it.
Second point. what if your ss is banked for 3+ years & market takes a very heavy hit. Recovery takes 3-4 years to recover. Good luck with that plan.
Now for those that can bank their ss, go for it, but remember this isn't a guaranteed plan
As Crash stated, "Everybody is different."
Stay safe, Derf

@bee - your "image" doesn't include a link to an image.
Below are a couple of links to Portfolio Visualizer; it's easy to tweak the inputs to see how things would go under different assumptions. With my usual qualifications that I'm setting PV up to run a simplistic, normal distribution model that bears only a passing resemblance to reality.
SS adjusts payments for inflation, so the calculations are in real, 2021 dollars. The cited article says that (in 2021 dollars) taking SS at age 62 for this person would pay $2060/mo, while waiting until age 70 would pay $3643/mo.
Thus, if one takes the money starting at age 62 and invests it, then starting at age 70 that nestegg would have to provide (in 2021 dollars) $1583/mo (the difference) until death for the same income. If you run out of nestegg money before death you lose - you draw only $2060 rather than $3643 from that point until death. If there's anything left of the nestegg when you die, you win. What's left over is your bonus.
I've set up the accumulation phase (age 62-70) to contribute $2060/mo, inflation adjusted. I've set inflation at 2%, 0 volatility, and rate of return at 7% with 12% volatility (about that of VWELX). Make sure to check the inflation adjusted box at the bottom of the graph (to get the value in 2021 dollars rather than nominal 2029 dollars). Mouse over the graph to get the age 70 value after 8 years.
You've got a 50/50 chance (50th percentile) of doing better or worse than about $235K.
For the age 70+ phase, you have to withdraw a net $1583 as explained above. Again, I've used 2% inflation, 0% volatility, 7% rate of return, 12% volatility. And I took the $235K from the accumulation phase as the starting portfolio value.
This will show you how long your nestegg might last - will it outlast your life (you win) or will it run out early (you lose)? It depends on the parameters you pick, what you expect your lifetime to be, and what percentile of likely outcomes you choose to look at.

PV Accumulation Phase
PV Age 70+ Phase (up to age 100)

I can't read the article but if Krugman said that inflation is going to be way up, he will be wrong and not the first time, see (2016). I'm amazed he got the Nobel Memorial Prize.
Let's talk inflation:
The ANNUAL inflation may get to 3-4% in the next a few/several months because it's compared to last year meltdown. In Q4/2021 and on I don't see anything beyond 2.5-3% and for several months consistently.
Remember, monthly CPI is relative to last month. If an item goes up 10% and next month stays the same then next monthly inflation for this item is zero.
Example: Gas at the pump jumped about 20% YTD (similar for 12 months) but is flat for about a month now(link).
We have been borrowing from the future for over 10 years already. In the years ahead it will get slower. The Fed welcome 2% (maybe 2.5%) long term inflation. Add to it big tech replacing jobs and improving processes + global competition, and you get tame inflation.

There has been an ongoing debate as to when to start taking Social Security, as early as age 62, as late as age 70 or sometime in between.
Here's an article from The Retirement Manifesto that details the debate:
https://theretirementmanifesto.com/should-you-take-social-security-at-age-62-or-70/
I use the author's SS numbers to create a strategy that take SS at 62, but not for income. The SS benefit is instead invested over the next 8 years (until age 70). I create (4) investment options (investment allocations) that attempts to achieve a 3%, 6%, or 10% or an all cash return.
My strategy takes Social Security at age 62 and letting those payments accumulate for eight years...the time frame between age 62 and 70. This allows eight years of accumulated Social Security payments creating a "SS nest egg" . At age 70, this accumulated "SS nest egg" then can provide a withdrawal strategy that would equal the differential of the higher SS payout. If one were to die early this SS nest egg acts like a life an insurance policy for a spouse or other beneficiary.
The main reason this strategy seems optimal to me is that Social Security has no cash value upon death. By collecting SS at age 62.... as early as possible.... one secures at least those payments while waiting to start SS at age 70. I would rather start accumulating payments while waiting to reach age 70 and invest rather than purely waiting until age 70.
Achieving a average return above 5% would be optimal for this strategy. Here a look at the numbers:

I'm with Fidelity and Schwab for years. I never waited at Schwab more than 1-2 minutes and many times the reps work from home.
In the last 2-3 years, I waited several times at least 20-30 minutes at Fidelity and then they transferred me again to the "right" rep and waited long again.
I don't use sophisticated trading software, I mostly buy funds/indexes and when I buy a stock, it's pretty easy to use the normal tools they have.
These sophisticated trading software are for Trading-Obsessed. I tried a couple of these years ago and after several months of practicing and even trading (and fast daily trading including E-mini SP500/Russell/QQQ futures) they didn't enhance my results.

@JohnN - You need to distill all that disjointed data for us. Otherwise, as noted / implied above, it’s just drivel.

distill - dis·till verb
/dəˈstil/
1. purify (a liquid) by vaporizing it, then condensing it by cooling the vapor, and collecting the resulting liquid.
2. extract the essential meaning or most important aspects of.
Source
Does it surprise anyone that short-term bonds would end up at the bottom of the return ladder after 15 years of falling interest rates?

https://www.financial-planning.com/list/bond-funds-with-the-worst-15-year-returns
Bond funds with the worst 15-year returns
By Andrew Shilling
All of the fixed-income industry’s worst long-term performers recorded gains over all time horizons, with only one in the red so far in 2021.
The 20 worst-performing bond funds of the past 15 years, with at least $100 million in assets under management, notched an average gain of nearly 1.5%, Morningstar Direct data show. Over the past 12 months, the same funds — all actively managed like those in last week’s top-performers ranking — had an average return of 2.28%.
With Treasury yields hovering around 1% over the better part of the decade, Amy Magnotta, co-head of discretionary portfolios at Brinker Capital Investments, says it’s no surprise that the industry's shortest-duration bond funds had a large presence.
“All of the funds on the list with the worst 15-year returns are short-term bond funds, both taxable and municipal,” Magnotta says, adding, “The yield on the one-year Treasury bill has averaged just 1.16% over the last 15 years, and it spent most of the time period below 1%, which is not an attractive starting point for returns of shorter maturity securities.”
For comparison, the iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (AGG), which has a 0.04% net expense ratio, recorded a 15-year gain of 4.29%, data show. Over the past year, the fund had a gain of 0.60%. The iShares 2-3 Year Treasury Bond ETF (SHY), which tracks the ICE BofA 1-3 Year Treasury Index, had 1- and 15-year gains of 0.17% and 2.2%, respectively.
In stocks, the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) and the SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (DIA) have had 15-year returns of 10.30% and 10.32%, respectively. In the past 12 months, SPY and DIA had gains of 48.69% and 44.79%. The funds have net expense ratios of 0.09% and 0.16%.
Fees among bond funds in this ranking were higher than the industry average. With an overall net expense ratio of 0.58%, funds here were only slightly pricier than the 0.45% investors paid for fund investing in 2019, according to Morningstar’s most recent annual fee survey.
When discussing bond fund performance over any time horizon with clients, Magnotta says it’s key to also have a conversation about their role in a diversified portfolio.***
Anyone owe these lemons?

@davidmoran @catch22 "You want some "whine" with that cheese?"
Yes, all valid points. I'm luckier than most. MY point is: if the pension fund's investments grow by 8% or whatever, why wouldn't we get a raise in the neighborhood of... say, 6%? Jeez. SOME years, we do better than that customary 2% COLA. But that's not happened in the past decade or so.
Yer not gettin' that cheese by ME, "Meat."
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/0b882df6-df18-4299-9a13-64be3436dd4c

@Old Joe, did you look at the graph in the article? I think you're right, in the sense that energy is a lot more volatile than food and is most responsible for CPI swings. Just googling around a bit for that info, it does look like food at least since 1968 has been pretty much one-way.
However, just an anecdote, I remember well several years back when dairy prices fell a lot in a short time and stayed there for a couple of years before rising, slowly, again. The happy shock was seeing the 1/2 gal organic milk we used to buy going from $3.50 to $3.00 from one shopping trip to the next - a 14% drop. Maybe something to do with price supports caused that, dunno.
Best, AJ

@Crash
You want some "whine" with that cheese?

Most years, my (private) pension fund likes to boast about how well its investments are doing. And most years, we get a lousy 2% raise.

Point 1. You have a pension with a COLA. Really Cool.
Point 2. You have a pension. Cool.
Point 3. Some folks have a pension w/o COLA. Not cool
Point 4. Many folks have no pension. Not cool at all.
The Beach Boys would sing that you should be feel'in, "Good Vibrations".

Most years, my (private) pension fund likes to boast about how well its investments are doing. And most years, we get a lousy 2% raise.

uh
wtf is lousy about a 2% raise?

”I I was wonder if the article,From Randall W. Forsyth - Barron’s April 26, 2021, had anything to say about union pension funds?”

@Derf - Sorry, no mention of union pension funds. The weekly Forsyth column tends to ramble, hitting on a lot of different topics - but not delving deeply into any.
BTW - He used the term “corporate pension fund” (not “private” as I earlier stated). That 98.4% figure is just for the 100 largest among them. I’d quote lines if possible, but can’t pull up much of the article on the web. Kindle subscriptions can’t be cut / pasted - at least based on many attempts over the years to do it.

Most years, my (private) pension fund likes to boast about how well its investments are doing. And most years, we get a lousy 2% raise.

@hank ; I was wonder if the article,From Randall W. Forsyth - Barron’s April 26, 2021, had anything to say about union pension funds ? My local union has been trying for a number of years to raise the total funded % up. It seems at contract time more money is added, but seems only to keep the fund just above the needed level.
Sorry to stray from topic.
Thanks , Derf

I heard years ago on NPR that less than half of tax filers end up actually paying. That's due to credits and deductions, of course. Yet we continue, seemingly forever, to dance around the bigger problems. And what if some or many of those deductions and credits became moot because our society became more equitable, generally, eh?

Thanks @bee for this and all the great interviews you continuously dig up and share.
Haven’t followed Mr. G lately. He was a pretty “hot” fund manager a few years ago. Sounds to me like he’s just “biding his time” waiting for an opportunity to pounce (investment wise) on the next big opportunity to come along.
Sounds all the alarm bells (mostly the conservative line): High debt, market overvaluation, dismally low interest rates, “elitists” running the country, welfare state, no place to hide and a “Fed” that’s acting irresponsibly - possibly illegally. Hence, he suggests PRPFX might be as good a hiding place as anywhere else (better than most) because virtually anything might happen next and PRPFX covers all the bases (though he doesn’t get the exact allocation right).
Dunno. He’s frustrated because it’s hard to make $$ in these markets, Sounds stressed out. But I enjoyed following his rambling chain of thought. I think if folks listen carefully and critically they might take away a few bits of investment wisdom. But be careful not to swallow hook line and sinker everything he says. Could cost you.

Not sure what Super Core Inflation means (I didn't read the article) but I've tried to set myself up for potential or maybe inevitable inflation over the next couple of years. As I look, I have about 12% of my self managed portfolio in inflation hedges; DBC, a broad basket of commodities, IAU gold, UDN, an inverse US dollar hedge and IVOL, TIPS with a special hedging sauce that seems to smooth the ride. Time will tell if these ETFs help my cause if inflation starts to rise significantly.