I said "last try"; not last post, Lewis, but obviously your reading skills are on par with your reasoning skills. I had hoped that an actual discussion on merits, not ideology, might be possible, but apparently it isn't only one 'side' which is close-minded and intractable. It's noteworthy, I think, that I hadn't responded to YOU, but to David; as it was obvious that you had no interest in undertaking any actual THINKING; only in talking points. I still hold out SOME hope that David is willing to look beyond any personal prejudices he might have, but I'm certainly done wrestling in the mud with YOU. Have a nice life interacting only with like-minded people.
Btw other readers (if there are any at this point), if Biden can actually reverse decades of anti-fission sentiment, then that might give his 15-year goal of 'clean energy production' a chance of being realized. I'm not sure that's the BEST solution, or that it has even a REMOTE chance of occurring, but it probably is the only way it COULD happen. MY preconception is that this is NOT going to be among the solutions being considered, but maybe I'll be proven wrong; we'll see. Whether Biden does or doesn't support that approach, I think it's dead in the water politically; probably on both sides of the aisle.
Geothermal has definite possibilities from a technical standpoint, if only to bleed energy from that supervolcano we have sitting under Yosemite before it eventually erupts and kills all of us. The problem is that it is going to take time and money, and from the perspective of our representatives, it's all downside and no upside FOR THEM. Someone ELSE, many years down the line will get the credit, and they'll only get flack over the cost! So they're going to go for the quick, politically-correct 'fix'; if anything. If it can't be completed during THEIR term, it's off the board... I know, cynical much?

Thanks @bee, the first article in particular was very informative for me. I've wondered about sequence of return risk from a different perspective historically and that is if you bought the idea that small value outperforms in the long-term and started investing for your kids in 2009, you might even be right overall but just not if you started at a point in time where you'd give up more than 250 basis points annually over the first 12 years of your investment life.
Does anyone have any ideas how to manage sequence of return risk for an 18 year-old?

I’ve had this one nearly since its 2013 inception. After two mediocre (but positive) years it managed to lose 6.2% in 2015. So, the relationship got off to a rocky start (which should also inject a note of caution). As you are likely aware, the fund has now become one of the best in its category.
Some quick takes:
- Roughly 50% is typically invested in U.S. denominated credit instruments, with the remainder scattered around the globe.
- D&C Is generally cautious on duration in its bond holdings, so I’d expect DODLX to be at or somewhat below the average duration for similar funds.
- It’s predominantly investment grade - but dabbles in lower rated / EM bonds.
- The managers sounded reasonably optimistic in the (most recent) June 30 report - but they’re generally an optimistic lot.
- Like all DC funds, this one has a very reasonable ER (.45%) for a managed fund. Global bond investing generally carries higher costs.
- DODLX currently represents 9.5% of my portfolio. (My overall allocation to bond funds is 25%.)
- I’ve been slowly reducing exposure to this one for the last 9-10 months because it’s had a very good run in recent years and may be nearing some sort of retrenchment. The “slack” (so to speak) has been taken up by PBDIX and PRIHX, both of which I consider less risky - the former because of its higher credit quality (and lower ER) and the latter because of its shorter duration.

>> unhappy with me pointing out the inevitability of another ice age
As if this has anything to do with anything. Jesus. I am guessing you do not have grandchildren. Mine, 3-6-9, are going to live a long time barring mishap, but not 1-2k years. Yours?

You were the one who spotlighted that quote from me and ignored everything else; what am I supposed to think? Btw, I have four grandkids, two step-grand kids, and four step-great-grandkids; yet another assumption that was totally wrong.

You did not share your thoughts about carbon taxation and econ disincentives affecting aggregate behaviors.

I wasn't sure what you were saying and asked for you to clarify. I guessed you were talking about man-made sequestration of CO2; something we might conceivably be able to do, and replied to that. Apparently that's NOT what you were alluding to. Do I think an economic deterrent would have a positive impact on things? Possibly. I don't think it will be enough, though. Nor do I think it'll be implemented to any great extent without ALSO impacting economic stability, but that's not an issue everyone cares about at this point. So long as the world population keeps burgeoning, there can't be a real solution to the various problems; just temporary bandaids.

>> only too eager to look to science so long as it agrees with their preconceived notions, but prefer not to credit it when it happens to work against them.
What science is it that works "against" warming?

I said no such thing, nor am I clear on YOUR meaning for "warming" and what you believe to be the cause. I learned my lesson and won't try to guess what you mean this time.
Everything has to have a context though; in the past it has been both much warmer AND much colder and man had little to do with either. That said, while humans may have contributed to the current state of things, the only real solution, imo, is having less of us around at any given time. Unimpeded growth in ANY population NEVER has a good outcome for that population!
This COVID-19 thing is simply the LATEST example: Our increasing mobility makes a world-wide reaction more likely, and the consequences of our population density, coupled with the natural selection effect that antibiotics have had, makes pandemics MORE likely to be novel and without effective treatments/cures. As bad as COVID-19 has been, its infection rate has been in the single percentage digits, and of THOSE, the fatalities have also been in the single percentage digits. Can you even imagine what a 50% infection rate coupled with a 50% fatality rate would look like? Many infectious diseases have a 90% fatality rate. In the past, they were localized geographically. IMO, THIS is the greatest danger we actually face, and it is MUCH more likely to have a catastrophic outcome. We've been VERY lucky (so far); if you can call 1.6 million dead (and counting) lucky...

elected, 16, not reelected

Correct, 4 years ago.

>> unhappy with me pointing out the inevitability of another ice age
As if this has anything to do with anything. Jesus. I am guessing you do not have grandchildren. Mine, 3-6-9, are going to live a long time barring mishap, but not 1-2k years. Yours?
You did not share your thoughts about carbon taxation and econ disincentives affecting aggregate behaviors.
>> only too eager to look to science so long as it agrees with their preconceived notions, but prefer not to credit it when it happens to work against them.
What science is it that works "against" warming?
You sure do have the gift of glib. I for some reason keep thinking you might conceivably have something real to offer here. Prove me right, I dare you.

Arnott isn't the only one who was wrong for years
1) US stocks are over value, the rest of the world is undervalue. US stocks did better in the last 10 years.
2) The GMO team and Arnott have been wrong for 10 years.
3) Gundlach was way wrong when he predicted the 10 year will be at 6% in 2021
4) Bogle was wrong when he predicted stocks/bonds performance based on the past and averages.
5) Inflation and interest rates can only go up. Both wrong for years.
6) inverted yield signals recession = wrong. High PE, PE10 signal the end of the bull market...wrong again for years.
7) There is no way stocks will have a V recovery in March 2020 based on blah, blah, whatever...and they did.
8) The economy is bad, unemployment is high, the debt is huge = bad future stock market. The reality? Stocks are still up.
9) If Trump will be elected, it will be a disaster. Reality? stocks were up
The truth is the 24/7 media has to write about something for someone to click and read and how they get paid.
The Fed successfully managed to do all the above and why many "experts" were wrong
If you didn't get the message already, most investors should do nothing to very little. Predictions area a flipping coin. Some will be correct just because markets go sometimes down
BTW, I always do something big when I see something crucial happening NOW but I don't recommend it to anybody. I don't mind being wrong because I invest to meet my specific goals.
Lastly, why Arnott still in business? most of us lose their jobs after just several mistakes so why people who manage money don't.

I have been using great risk reward funds since 2000 but in the last several years and especially since retirement I just sell to cash when I see extreme market conditions. It's the only sure way to protect my portfolio. When a black swan shows up is years such as 2008,2009,2020 there is no way to know what will work and what used to work before may not work in the future.

Thank you, FD1000,
I agree that each bear market is different and they are less predictable with massive quantities of stimulus. I reduce my exposure to stocks to 25% following Benjamin Graham’s guidelines late in the business cycle. MFO has been great to identify lower risk funds. I am pleased with the low downturns in my portfolio which is rising slow and steady.

Hello,
I'm new to this forum and curious which funds do you and others own?

@racqueteer

I've cited three separate paths which WOULD be solutions, but not in 15 years.

You cited three different solutions--geothermal, tidal and microwaves--and dismissed all of them and complained about how other countries are failing so why should we even try?

Actually, the solutions were fusion, geothermal, and solar with microwave transmission from SPACE. Tidal isn't a solution, but it would help. There is also OTEC, which I hadn't mentioned. 15 years was Biden's goal; it didn't originate with me. Finally, please quote where I said we shouldn't try to fix the problem.
I might as well throw out ANOTHER solution you won't like, also doable if we had the will... Start controlling and reducing overpopulation of the planet; with its resultant global warming, pollution, reduction of rain forests, reduction of arable land, and on and on. THAT would ALSO be a solution to the problem.
I've no particular quarrel with your #1, but it doesn't get us to Biden's goal. On #2, I'll just note that France, for example, is virtually all fission-generated power with its OWN issues, but a 'solution' nonetheless, and Europe generally is HEAVILY dependent on imported oil - much of it from Russia. #3 and #4 are predominately swipes at Republicans in general, so unproductive. So long as we remain divided on the basis of extremist views on BOTH sides, we're in trouble as a nation. Moderates in control would a better alternative.
I'll just briefly remind you that the op specifically mentioned BIDEN'S grid plan and asked for our reaction to it. I've remained on topic, slandered no one, took no political stance, and provided simple facts... How about you?

@racqueteer

I've cited three separate paths which WOULD be solutions, but not in 15 years.

You cited three different solutions--geothermal, tidal and microwaves--and dismissed all of them and complained about how other countries are failing so why should we even try? No politician probably in the history of politicians has probably set a timetable for a goal and expected it to be 100% achieved by then. So let's say we reach 50% of the goal, 75% in 15 years. That would still be valuable. The U.S. I believe has four possible choices:
1. Lead in the fight against climate change while others follow us- The moonshot goal, what America was once famous for. Would be great for America's image.
2. Follow other countries that are actively fighting climate change like Germany and other Western European ones. OK, acceptable, better than nothing.
3. Do nothing and deny anthropogenic climate change is real and that we have any way to influence it and waste time complaining "whatabout" China, etc.. This is the traditional GOP response. It's bad, very bad.
4. Actually go backwards, roll back environmental regulations already in place, drill baby bill and spend needless hours trying to "make libtards cry" while the planet dies. This is where we are with the current president who has rolled back environmental regs and did everything possible to sabotage environmental movements. It is absolutely dreadful.
You seem to be saying Biden's plan isn't feasible in 15 years. So what? Something in the right direction is better than where we are now and moaning about other countries' behavior. And if we support addressing climate change via solar, I'm sure scientists will consider other avenues along the way. Regulations must change as well, not just tech innovation. It needs to be more expensive to produce carbon emissions and consume plastic. There are many avenues for attacking the problem. But moaning about what other countries are doing or not doing as an excuse to do nothing is no longer acceptable.

Ok, last try for me... The issue is 15 years; what can be accomplished in that time. I don't think that we're likely to have any kind of solution in that timeframe. I've cited three separate paths which WOULD be solutions, but not in 15 years. The people who have been responding negatively to me have proposed ZERO 15-year (or longer) solutions. I remain willing to listen to some substantive plan for accomplishing this admittedly worthwhile goal. I have a decent idea what is going to be ATTEMPTED, and note that it ISN'T one of the actually DOABLE routes I listed, but the old standby: Earth-based solar power; something that has serious technological drawbacks unless we can get them into space; maybe at a LaGrange point. For me, just "doing something" in the hope that it'll work out is inefficient and a waste or resources as well as energy.

Thanks msf, very well thought out and I agree. Still, there is that nagging thought I have that "only cash is cash." My concern would be something totally unforeseen that causes a permanent and substantial loss of capital. I guess that's not really a real concern with a fund dating back to 1977 with no down years, but I still need to get past that mental block. ZIRP is getting me there.

"Clean" WHERE? This usually means solar power, and while a laudable idea, you have to have large tracts of surface available, good weather most of the time, and you need to manufacture the stuff (polluting THERE) in order to build the panels. This stuff doesn't magically produce and transport itself; nor transport its output magically either (wiring, etc). Geothermal would be great, but a major implementation problem. Tidal power, sure, but you have to produce the materials, transport them, install them, run wiring, etc. Off-loading all this construction and manufacture into space and transmitting microwaves back? Yeah, THAT might be a 'solution' EVENTUALLY, but 15 years (or 25)? Fusion power could do it, but not in that time period. Not bloody likely we're getting THERE from HERE!
And while we're making that viable, what is everyone ELSE doing? We become even MORE economically handicapped, lose MORE jobs to cheap labor elsewhere, and THEIR pollution simply blows HERE? And is it moral to simply export our environmental problems? We don't have the technology, international consensus, or financial wherewithal to actually FIX this problem, and we shouldn't delude ourselves that we DO.

Confused. So what? Just shrug? Do you have a point other than a kvetch about what you think is delusion? This is not even at the level the perfect defeating the good. What do you propose? What would you advise? I cannot tell if you actually keep up, what with your credentials.

So, LewisBraham, the sum total of what you've got is: "We can do it", followed by the notion that we can do it ON OUR OWN, 'somehow'? Hmmm... You claim you "cant understand my commentary"? Admittedly, I used a couple big words, and didn't adhere to some preconceived notion you might have, but I think it was clear enough, and you STILL haven't supplied anything of substance - Good you have that "can do" attitude though! So what's your "can do" plan for doing ANY of this which doesn't violate the Laws of Thermodynamics, physics, or finance? Fusion would do it - eventually. So would geothermal - eventually. Solar will NOT unless we get it off-planet and it ain't going to happen in 15 years. You disagree? Then back it up with facts and plans; not hope and wishes.

@racqueteer is a very thoughtful poster for years on M*, even if new here.
Biting “my tongue,” so-to-speak, and not trying to be inflammatory, but this is a discussion board, with viewpoints from all sides. Disagreeing posts/ideas shouldn’t be dismissed and relegated as small-minded zealots of the opposite party. That is the purpose of the “Off Topic” board :)

Arnott's star in the finp0rn pundocracy faded several years ago, in my view. But Josh Brown is still a rock star worth listening to.

April 20, 2020 Oil (WTI) hit a 138 year low price of (-$39).

At the start of 2020 the big industrial economies were healthy, investors were optimistic, and West Texas Intermediate was trading at about $60 a barrel. Prices began to fall in February after the first reports of the coronavirus. That accelerated as the outbreak turned into a pandemic. By the end of March, WTI futures were at $20, the lowest they’d been since after Sept. 11. Then, after tense negotiations, the big oil producers—led by Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S.—agreed to reduce production by 10% to try to stabilize prices.
Then on April 20th, 2020 oil prices sank.
Here’s how it works: Imagine a trader sees that WTI is at $10 and predicts it’s going to end the day at $5. To capitalize, he buys 50,000 barrels in the TAS market, agreeing to purchase oil at wherever the price ends up by 2:30 p.m. At the same time, he starts selling regular WTI futures: 10,000 barrels for $10 and then, if the market is falling as predicted, 10,000 more at $9, and again at $8. As the settlement window approaches, the trader accelerates his selling, offloading a further 10,000 contracts at $7, then another chunk at $6, helping push the price lower until, sure enough, it settles at $5. By now he is “flat,” meaning he’s sold as many barrels as he’s bought and isn’t obliged to take delivery of any actual oil.
The trader’s bet has come off. His profit is $150,000, the difference between what he sold oil for (50,000 barrels at prices ranging from $10 to $6, for a total of $400,000) and what he bought it for in TAS contracts (50,000 barrels at $5 a barrel, or $250,000). All of this is perfectly legal, providing the trader doesn’t deliberately try to push the closing price down to an artificial level to maximize his profits, which constitutes market manipulation under U.S. law. Manipulation can result in civil penalties such as fines or bans, or even criminal charges carrying a potential prison sentence of up to 10 years. It’s also illegal in the U.S. to place trades during or before the settlement with “intentional or reckless disregard” for the impact.

Story Here:
stock-market-when-oil-went-negative-these-essex-traders-pounced

"Clean" WHERE? This usually means solar power, and while a laudable idea, you have to have large tracts of surface available, good weather most of the time, and you need to manufacture the stuff (polluting THERE) in order to build the panels. This stuff doesn't magically produce and transport itself; nor transport its output magically either (wiring, etc). Geothermal would be great, but a major implementation problem. Tidal power, sure, but you have to produce the materials, transport them, install them, run wiring, etc. Off-loading all this construction and manufacture into space and transmitting microwaves back? Yeah, THAT might be a 'solution' EVENTUALLY, but 15 years (or 25)? Fusion power could do it, but not in that time period. Not bloody likely we're getting THERE from HERE!
And while we're making that viable, what is everyone ELSE doing? We become even MORE economically handicapped, lose MORE jobs to cheap labor elsewhere, and THEIR pollution simply blows HERE? And is it moral to simply export our environmental problems? We don't have the technology, international consensus, or financial wherewithal to actually FIX this problem, and we shouldn't delude ourselves that we DO.

Quick read that looks at some of the challenges surrounding Biden's 15 year plan...

Joe Biden put a 100% clean grid at the core of his climate agenda. Even more remarkable was his proposed timeline: 15 years.
Can anyone build a clean grid that fast? And for that matter, where did an idea this big come from in the first place?

https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/the-making-of-bidens-superfast-push-for-clean-electricity

I have been using great risk reward funds since 2000 but in the last several years and especially since retirement I just sell to cash when I see extreme market conditions. It's the only sure way to protect my portfolio. When a black swan shows up is years such as 2008,2009,2020 there is no way to know what will work and what used to work before may not work in the future.

Thank you, FD1000,
I agree that each bear market is different and they are less predictable with massive quantities of stimulus. I reduce my exposure to stocks to 25% following Benjamin Graham’s guidelines late in the business cycle. MFO has been great to identify lower risk funds. I am pleased with the low downturns in my portfolio which is rising slow and steady.