Only 7 holdings. Cut way down on stocks, in retirement. But gotta have enough in stocks to MATTER, and to keep up with inflation.
>No RMDs yet. 6 years to go. But I've begun to tap my biggest holding on a schedule, just once per year--- providing Mr. Market is in a good mood. Otherwise, we can certainly live without it. And I only want to take an amount that I figure will GROW BACK, so it comes out "even-steven." And we're in the 10% bracket, so there's not much of a reason NOT to do it; plus, I have $5,000 in NON-DEDUCTIBLE IRA contributions. I'd like to get my hands on that money, on a schedule, as part of the once-yearly "raid" on the biggest of our holdings.
In order, biggest to smallest:
PRWCX .....30%
RPSIX .....27%
PRSNX ......22%
PTIAX .........8% (non-retirement.)
PRIDX ......6.60%
BRUFX .......4% (wife's IRA, TRAD.)
PRDSX ........2%
57 bonds.
35 stocks
6 cash (among the funds)
2 "other."
The objective is to live comfortably, not exhorbitantly. Enjoy life here in the tropics. The damn Covid killed the opera season, and that sucks. I can't see traveling at all, wearing a f*****g mask. It (mask-wearing) must be done, but I'm not going to CREATE situations that will make me miserable, like a long flight back over to the Mainland. There's enough really stupid people, doing really stupid things, always in the seat right next to you, anyhow. Even in 1st Class. Like the moron next to me last time, who decided the entire cabin needed to be afflicted with the industrial-strength menthol aroma he was inhaling via his nostrils through some stupid contraption made for that purpose--- as if he were sitting alone and in his own living room.
Wifey and I have different tastes. "Opposites attract." The last event we went to TOGETHER was in Honolulu to see "Big Head Todd and the Monsters." It was just ok. A lot of the music was TOO loud and cranky. But THIS one is really good, I think:

I have 14 accounts so it’s easy to end up with some funds that occupy only 1% of net worth but I have 6 funds that make up 85% of my portfolio. (Without explanation)
20% 401-k Stable Value Fund
20% VTI - Vanguard Total Market in taxable
16% FADMX - Fidelity Strategic Income - I’ve held this fund for years, starting when it was FSICX, it stumbled a bit in March but holding for now.
16% Cash - I know it pays me nothing but I think going forward it will prove to be a better investment than most bond funds.
6% FPURX - Puritan
6% VWELX - Wellington

@Mark: What do you like about THQ and BME? I held HQL, another Tekla fund, for quite some time, and BME in 2019. Right now I don’t own any healthcare funds but I am overweight in the sector as the result of getting a slug of BMY when CELG was acquired. I also got a big tax bill, but I’ve been told that it’s a high-class problem. I’ve been unimpressed with CEFs in healthcare in recent years although I do see the advantage of holding a fund with a good distribution policy in a tax-deferred account.

IAFMX was formerly the Cognios Large Cap Growth Fund.

Thanks. This confirms that the fund started 10/3/16, though it subsequently went through at least a name change.
Note that there is enough predecessor history as reported in an early N1/A filing to get about eight years of combined history. Though the filing doesn't seem to provide the predecessor's performance data for 2016, i.e. from 1/1/2016 to 10/3/2016 when the new fund started. One could reasonably extrapolate to fill in this gap.

The Predecessor Account was managed by the same portfolio managers at the Adviser of the Growth Fund since the inception of the Predecessor Account on June 1, 2012. ...
The bar chart and table reflect the past performance of the Growth Fund and the Predecessor Account and provide some indication of the risks of investing in the Growth Fund by showing changes in the Predecessor Account’s performance from year to year over the periods indicated and by showing how the Predecessor Account’s average annual total returns for the periods indicated compared to a broad-based performance benchmark.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1643838/000139834416018829/fp0021688_n1aa.htm
FWIW, the predecessor account, over the period provided (6/1/12 to 12/31/15) had an annualized return of 21.92% (per filing). In comparison, QQQ returned 18.30%.
I computed the latter figure by:
- having M* give me QQQ's cumulative return from 6/1/12 to 12/31/15: 82.53%;
- computing the number of years spanned with Excel:
  YEARFRAC(DATE(2012,6,1),DATE(2015,12,31),1): 3.5811 years.
- annualizing: POWER(1 + 0.8253, 1/3.5811) = 1.182976. So QQQ's rate of return was 18.30%.

Why not just use QQQ which beats it for 1-3-5 years.

I didn't realize that IAFMX had been around that long. Shadow's prospectus gives the inception date as 10/03/16. What's its five year annualized performance? Do you have some incubator numbers that we could tack on?

According to M* IAFMX is a LC growth fund with small AUM=59 million and expensive ER=1.15%. It invests mostly in the tech category at 54%. Concentrated portfolio of about 30 stocks, top holdings MSFT,Apple,AMAZON,ADOBE
Why not just use QQQ which beats it for 1-3-5 years.
If you want to gamble on tech go for MPEGX/MACGX

M* shows 41 distinct world small/mid funds. Their returns Monday, grouped by current portfolio style:
SCG (5): GPRIX -1.68%, GPGCX -2.09%, GPMCX -2.17%, EKGAX -2.67%, -SGSCX -3.1%
SCBl(3):  IZSYX -2.69%, DGLIX -2.92%, EVGIX -3.01%
MCG (17): WAGOX -1.04%, OBEGX -1.26%, WWWEX -1.24%, GGSYX -1.63%, GLNIX -1.65%,
                  GPGIX -1.63%, OWSMX -1.65%, SMCWX -1.69%, HGXVX -1.74%, DGSCX -2.06%,
                  AGCTX -2.08%, OPGIX -2.11%, GEOSX -2.37%, FHSIX -2.41%, ESVAX -2.42%,
                  TSYIX -2.43%, GNXIX -2.85%
MCBl(6):    NALFX -1.61%, FHESX -2.35%, LPEIX -2.36%,
                  CAEIX -2.49%, TEMGX -2.49%, CSMOX -2.64%
SCV (2): YASLX -2.43%, GGMMX -2.76%
LCG (1): FEUIX -1.21%
MCV (4): RAILX -1.35%, GCCHX -2.54%, GCHPX -2.56%, MOWIX -4.20%
LCBl(3): VMNVX -0.91%, HEOYX -1.92%, DGBEX -2.14%
The six italicized funds are ones that seem to be environmentally focused (e.g. "climate", or "environmental" or energy in an SRI sense). There are also ESG funds, DGBEX, FHESX, and HGXVX, but an ESG focus may not fundamentally alter the pool of companies they are fishing in. (One can debate whether sustainable development goals funds should be grouped with environmental funds.)
This exercise helps to illustrate a few things. Peers matter, how one groups funds matter. 15% of these funds are environmental. That means they aren't looking at the same companies, any more than, say, a financial sector fund is looking at the same companies as a value fund.
Styles matter, but grouping by style here leaves one with too few funds for meaningful comparisons. If you like the investing approach of a fund, and it is executing that approach well, it doesn't matter how its figures look relative to other funds with different approaches.
Time frames matter. These one day returns, even grouped by style, are all over the map. I suspect one would find at best only modest correlation between star ratings and these one day performance figures. Too much noise in a day to be meaningful.
Worth a mention is VMNVX. On a one day basis, it certainly looks like it is meeting its goal of lower volatility. But what I want to highlight is its overall performance. Out of the gate, it was the darling of many investors. The fund is now about 6½ years old. For its first couple of years its performance was great relative to its peers (for whatever that's worth). However, over the past five years, it has turned in a 69th percentile performance. Time frames matter.
Also worth a mention is NALFX. Possibly the granddaddy of clean energy funds (nearly 40 years old), it did miserably for many years (1 or 2 stars). IMHO waaay ahead of its time. Look at it now. Top 3% over the past five years. Being in the right place at the right time matters. With a fund that's only been around for a year, one can't tell whether that's luck or skill. But with this fund, after decades one has a pretty good idea of where it is heading.

Much prefer FVD to FDL. FVD has been one of my go to's on the dips over the years.

Sold TpC and ONTKA for small gains on Friday.
Admittedly 2020 has seen me doing more short-term equity trading than my usual buy-and-manage approach over the years, but properly-planned and -managed, I don't feel too bad about it given everything going on.

Fidelity used to be better at closing funds. At least it gave the appearance of trying.
FCNTX was closed from April 3, 1998 to Dec 15, 2000 (it had around $35B AUM at the time). Fidelity closed the fund again from April 28, 2006 to Dec 15, 2008. (It had around $65B, and Danoff was also managing New Insights with another $10B). Fidelity also closed New Insights on April 28, 2006, but reopened this smaller fund earlier, on Oct 31, 2007.
The only Fidelity fund I can recall being closed when it was still small was New Millennium (FMILX) . Three and a half years after it launched at the end of 1992 it closed, as promised, for a decade.

More information. The young employee I was referring to likes to day trading for penny stocks. No doubt it was exciting to make quick bucks here and there. Putting money into a 401(k) account and investing in index funds was not his vision of saving for the future.
I read somewhere that young people don't reach mental maturity until 25 years old. I took accounting in high school and understood the power of compounding in my saving account. Like I mentioned earlier I had others who save diligently in their 401(k) and pay off their college loans at the same time.

Research by The National Institute on Retirement Security. Because sometimes it's nice to talk about facts. Are they a creditable organization? You be the judge.
The study is from 2014. I'm not convinced that conditions have gotten any better for the millenials.

Figure 1 shows that in 2014 Millennials (66.2%) had similar rates of working for an employer that offered employees a retirement plan as GenX (68.8%) and Boomers (67.6%). But, as displayed in Figure 2, a challenge to this generation is the fact that only a little over half of Millennials (55%) are eligible to participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plan, compared to over three-fourths of GenX (77%) and Boomers (80%).
Figure 3 shows that Millennials have high (94.2%) take-up rates when they are both offered and eligible to participate in a retirement plan sponsored by their employer. These high rates (94.2%) are nearly equal to the rates of Boomers (94.4%) and GenX (95.4%). As a result, a little over one-third of Millennials (34.3%) participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plan, compared (in Figure 4) with half of GenX (50.5%) and Boomers (50.9%). The rate at which eligible employees take-up an employer-sponsored retirement plan is about 95 percent for all generations.
As displayed in Figures 1 and 4, in 2014, nearly two-thirds (66.2%) of working Millennials had access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan. But, only a little over one-third (34.3%) of Millennials actually participated in an employer-sponsored retirement plan. This is because a much smaller percentage of Millennials (55%) were eligible to participate in the plan offered by their employer than in older generations.

So they have access, but they aren't eligible? Why is that?

A possible explanation for lower rates of retirement plan eligibility and therefore coverage is that the Millennial generation has a higher rate of part-time employment than GenX or Boomers. Figure 13 indicates that in 2014, the rate of part-time employment by Millennials (25.1%) was close to double the rate of part-time employment by GenX (13.6%) and Boomers (14.9%). The higher rate of part-time employment by Millennials is a large factor in their lower eligibility for employer-sponsored retirement plans, as they may not work enough hours to be covered by their employers’ plans.52 Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), employers can limit eligibility in retirement plans by requiring that an employee worked at least 1,000 hours in order to have a year of service under the plan.53Working 1,000 hours in one year is equal to working a little over 19 hours per week.
A second possible explanation for lower rates of coverage in a retirement plan is that this generation has not worked in their current position long enough to become eligible for participation in the plan. Figure 14 shows the length of time that Millennials have been employed with their current employer in 2014. Figure 14 also shows that over half of Millennials have only been employed with their current employer for at least a year (26.5%) or under one year (23.6%). These short tenures contribute to their lower eligibility rates, as their employer may not allow them to participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plan until after they have worked for the employer for one year of service.

A side bar addresses the second point:

There is a media-fueled perception that Millennials are perpetual job-hoppers.54 But two prominent studies show that this perception is a myth. First, a recent Pew Charitable Trusts study found that three-fourths (75%) of college-educated Millennials in 2016 were employed for more than 13 months with their current employer, compared to 72 percent of Gen Xers in 2000.55 Second, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in a study tracking Boomers throughout their work-lives, found that Boomers held short tenures with their employers during their younger years.56 Specifically, it found that of the jobs that Boomers began when they were 18 to 34, 69 percent of those jobs ended in less than a year and 85 percent ended in fewer than five years.57 Thus, Millennials are job-hopping at similar or even lower rates to their Gen X and Boomer predecessors.

Yeah? But what about the avocado toast?

TRP has invested a portion of some of its allocation funds in hedge funds for a while now. I’ve had a large portion of my Roth IRA in TRPBX for quite a few years, and it’s got about 5-10% of assets in a hedge fund, if I recall correctly.

Danoff was on Ritholtz MIB recently: https://ritholtz.com/2020/09/mib-beating-the-sp500-for-30-years/
Transcript here: https://ritholtz.com/2020/09/transcript-will-danoff/
I haven’t listened, Interesting that he is making the rounds this month, rarely see anything about him. Evidently he has a great track record. Reading the Bloomberg article reminded me of Fidelity Leverage fund (FLVCX) which killed from about 2002 to 2007 and then exploded! But that is actually totally unrelated to Danoff.

This young man who worked for me for several years, was transferred elsewhere. Delay gratification and saving for the future are difficult concept for the younger generations. Yes, he got debt from college loan. Other young workers tend to balance to do both of paying down the debt while putting enough to get maximum company match. They also increase their annual contribution from their bonus.

So we're only talking about one person you knew?
And other young people you know seem to have prudent plans.
My parents were the youngest children in their families. They were born in 1917 and 1920. And they raised me, their youngest child, with a profound skepticism for the rants of old people.
What my children would like to talk about can't be discussed here since off topic is on vacation. But they do appreciate that they aren't saddled with debt.

This young man who worked for me for several years, was transferred elsewhere. Delay gratification and saving for the future are difficult concept for the younger generations. Yes, he got debt from college loan. Other young workers tend to balance to do both of paying down the debt while putting enough to get maximum company match. They also increase their annual contribution from their bonus.

I have to agree that investing in mutual funds seems to have a generational divide with younger people not so interested in funds, instead preferring the fast bucks that possibly come with trading individual equities. I'm in my late 30's now (geezer city!) and my peers who have money to put into the markets have generally preferred to trade individual equities instead of buying long-term investments such as mutual funds. They're overconfident and think that they're good enough to get in and get out at the right time to make profits. To which I answer, "good luck with that". Please note that Yours Truly is an exception as I prefer mutual funds, although I do own a few individual equities.
My parents have owned shares of FCNTX for over 30 years and are really happy with their returns over these 3 decades.

Life imitates art imitating life: Years ago IBM had an IBM 9000 computer, made by its IBM Instruments division in Danbury, CT. ["HAL" is "IBM" with a one-letter shift.]

There is a book about the rise and fall of IBM Instruments.
I haven't read it but it seems interesting.
Link

Life imitates art imitating life: Years ago IBM had an IBM 9000 computer, made by its IBM Instruments division in Danbury, CT. ["HAL" is "IBM" with a one-letter shift.]

Ray Dalio certainly is no radical idealist, but in his frequent writings and media appearances the veteran investor consistently calls for Americans to rewrite their longstanding contract with capitalism so that it is fairer and more generous to more people.
Otherwise, he predicts, life in the U.S. could become more difficult: mountainous debt that stunts economic growth; fewer opportunities for ordinary citizens to get ahead financially; and a worldwide lack of trust in the U.S. dollar that diminishes Americans’ purchasing power and could lower their standard of living.

https://marketwatch.com/story/billionaire-investor-ray-dalio-on-capitalisms-crisis-the-world-is-going-to-change-in-shocking-ways-in-the-next-five-years-2020-09-17?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo