Our Publisher’s Letter takes on Bill Gates, the Great Depression, shifts in Snowball’s portfolio, and wooden-headedness.
Lynn Bolin refines his conservative retirement strategy in two complementary essays that blend rigorous quantitative analysis with practical portfolio construction. In "Refining My Conservative Retirement Target Portfolio," he uses Excel Solver optimization across 36 carefully selected funds to create "Conservative" and "Moderate" portfolios designed for the challenging conditions ahead—frequent bear markets, modest inflation, and elevated valuations.
His companion piece examines sector performance through "Risk Off" and "Yield" lenses, spotlighting utility and infrastructure funds like Virtus Reaves Utilities ETF (UTES) and Lazard Global Listed Infrastructure Portfolio (GLFOX) as potential conservative portfolio complements. Both essays reflect Lynn's measured response to current uncertainties, unprecedented tariffs, high deficits, and stretched valuations, as he methodically builds a conservative subset portfolio while maintaining his traditional 60/40 allocation with financial advisors for the majority of his assets.
Following up on a short note, we review the logic (and research) behind T. Rowe Price’s surprising or not-so-surprising decision to file a Multi Crypto ETF prospectus with the (currently shuttered) SEC.
GMO has launched a vehicle for contrarians who think that Nvidia & co. will not be the unbeatable story forever. GMO Dynamic Allocation ETF just launched and is an actively managed, low-cost, global multi-asset ETF. Using the same discipline embodied in the 30-year-old GMO Global Asset Allocation Fund, the ETF has access to assets across the globe and will lean into those whose valuations are most compelling. It’s profiled in this month’s Launch Alert.
The Shadow, as ever, catches us up on the industry’s various machinations, including an ongoing rush of launches and fund-to-ETF conversions, in “Briefly Noted.”

Zohran Mamdani won the New York City mayoral race with campaign proposals to freeze rents,
increase taxes on the wealthy and corporations, offer free bus rides, and create city-owned grocery stores.
He apparently does not have the authority to effect most of these changes.
President Trump has taken a micro-management approach with certain companies.
US Steel gave the government a "golden share" to allow its merger with Nippon Steel;
government grants for Intel were converted into an equity stake;
and Washington will take 15% of Nvidia and AMD chip revenues emanating from China.
“Though the market impact of Mamdani’s win is limited, the signal it sends isn’t.
Americans are increasingly comfortable voting for heavy-handed government,
whether the socialist rhetoric coming from the left or the mercantilism emanating from President Donald Trump
on the right. It’s an irony not lost on Rosenberg Research founder David Rosenberg.
'A free-enterprise country elects a president who embraces protectionism, economic nationalism,
and state intervention,' he writes. 'And then New York City, the world’s financial hub
and bastion of Gordon Gekko capitalism, elects a self-avowed socialist for mayor.'”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/it-s-not-just-mamdani-big-brother-is-coming-for-the-stock-market/ar-AA1Q1gib

PYLD isn’t much of a “plunge”! Yeah - I prefer to invest in baby steps too. There’s plenty of different ways to lose money.
I’m tracking a hypothetical basket of 10 stocks I threw together 10-15 days ago just to watch. 0 invested. It fell for several days but today really ripped, up 1.46%. About half the holdings are consumers staples, both small and large. A couple insurers, a sports team and couple big financial players. Tempted to buy in - a sure way to make it go into reverse.

From a WaPo email I received written by Shira Ovide - The Tech Friend:
Bonkers dollars in AI
Maybe you’ve heard that artificial intelligence is a bubble poised to burst. Maybe you have heard that it isn’t. (No one really knows either way, but that won’t stop the bros from jabbering about it constantly.)
But I can confidently tell you that the money being thrown around for AI is so huge that numbers have lost all meaning. The companies pouring money in are so rich and so power-hungry (in multiple meanings of that term) that our puny human brains cannot really comprehend.
So let’s try to give some meaning and context to the stratospheric numbers in AI. Is it a bubble? Eh, who knows. But it is completely bonkers.
• In just the past year, the four richest companies developing AI — Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Meta — have spent roughly $360 billion combined for big-ticket projects, which included building AI data centers and stuffing them with computer chips and equipment, according to my analysis of financial disclosures.
(Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.)
That same amount of money could pay for about four years’ worth of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the federal government program that distributes more than $90 billion in yearly food assistance to 42 million Americans. SNAP benefits are in limbo for now during the government shutdown.
• How do companies pay for the enormous sums they are lavishing on AI? Mostly, these companies make so much money that they can afford to go bananas.
One example: Google’s sales from showing us digital advertisements, $212 billion so far in 2025, are more than the annual revenue of Texas taken in from all sources, including from all state taxes, income from the federal government and land income.
• Eight of the world’s top 10 most valuable companies are AI-centric or AI-ish American corporate giants — Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Broadcom, Meta and Tesla. That’s according to tallies from S&P Global Market Intelligence based on the total price of the companies’ stock held by investors.
My analysis of the S&P data shows that the collective worth of those eight giants, $23 trillion, is more than the value of the next 96 most valuable U.S. companies put together, which includes many still very rich names such as JPMorgan, Walmart, Visa and ExxonMobil.
• No. 1 on that list, the AI computer chip seller Nvidia, last week become the first company in history to reach a stock market value of $5 trillion.
That alone was more than the value of entire stock markets in most countries, Bloomberg News reported, other than the five biggest (in the U.S., China, Japan, Hong Kong and India). Alas, Nvidia was down to a measly $4.4 trillion as of Friday morning.
• All the announced or under-construction data centers for powering AI would consume roughly as much electricity as 44 million households in the United States if they run full tilt, according to a recent analysis by the Barclays investment bank as reported by the Financial Times.
For context, that’s nearly one-third of the total number of residential housing units in the entire country, according to U.S. Census Bureau housing estimates for 2024.
• Nvidia pledged this fall to invest up to $100 billion in ChatGPT parent company OpenAI as part of its insatiable hunger for cash and resources. (The Post has a content partnership with OpenAI.)
Or, nearly the equivalent amount could be spent on police, firefighters, courts, public schools and hospitals, social services, parks and more for 8.5 million people. The government spending of New York, the largest city in America, was $118 billion in the last fiscal year.

Following are edited excerpts from a current report in The Guardian:
S&P 500 down 1.1% and Nasdaq down 1.9% as hiring freezes and layoffs sharpen fears US economy is slowing

Fears that the US economy is slowing, with firms shedding jobs and imposing hiring freezes, sent Wall Street tumbling on Thursday. The S&P 500 index of leading firms was down 1.1% as investors also highlighted concerns about the potential for a slump in the value of businesses that have benefited from huge investments in artificial intelligence. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite fell 1.9%.
A report showed that last month was the worst October for US layoffs since 2003, which grabbed the attention of investors in the absence of official data delayed by the federal government shutdown. Companies cut jobs and imposed hiring freezes, according to the global outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
Chris Beauchamp, the chief market analyst at the trading platform IG.com, said “The lack of US data and the ongoing government shutdown is making investors nervous.” US markets have been rattled by a review of Donald Trump’s tariffs by the supreme court, which could result in the US president being forced to abandon his flagship policy. Beauchamp added that "If the supreme court rolls back some of the tariffs then inflationary worries will subside to an extent, though this is a topic that will not come to fruition for weeks.”
A lack of official data has also forced the Federal Reserve to judge the state of the US economy with only a fraction of the information it would usually sift before judging the level of interest rates. Beauchamp further said the Fed and financial markets had found themselves “groping around in the dark” after the suspension of inflation and employment data.
Speaking on CNBC, the Fed board member Austan Goolsbee said the lack of official data on inflation during the government shutdown accentuated his caution about cutting interest rates further. “I lean more to the: when it’s foggy, let’s just be a little careful and slow down,” he said.
The survey by Challenger, Gray & Christmas found that employers announced 153,074 job cuts last month, compared with 55,597 in October 2024. It said US firms announced the termination of 1.09m roles during the first 10 months of this year, up 44% from the 761,358 cuts in 2024. Technology businesses led private-sector layoffs, it added.
The FTSE 100 fell 41 points or 0.4%. European stocks also fell. The Stoxx Europe 600 closed 0.7% lower, with tech stocks suffering the heaviest losses, and the Dax in Germany fell 1.3%.
Tech valuations have ballooned, and fears of a bubble loom large. “In the US, most of the big tech beasts have reported earnings but there is still lingering concerns about those lofty valuations and the mind-boggling sums of cash being invested into the AI dream,” said Danni Hewson, head of financial analysis at AJ Bell.

The chance that he meets "ambitious financial and operational goals" is probably about nil.
Between the ketamine, weed and whatever else he imbibes, to control the depression and ADHD, I have doubts that he even lasts ten years.
Or he goes the way of David Carradine.

I've always thought of Howard Hughes.
I can't say I'm surprised by the vote.
I was pleased to note on the M* ownership tab that Fido was not among the top 20 "institutional" owners of Tesla. I try to avoid a lot of it, but it still shows up here and there.
We shall see how it does now that the subsidies have ended.

The chance that he meets "ambitious financial and operational goals" is probably about nil.
Between the ketamine, weed and whatever else he imbibes, to control the depression and ADHD, I have doubts that he even lasts ten years.
Or he goes the way of David Carradine.

Following are short excerpts from a current report in The New York Times:
Elon Musk Wins $1 Trillion Tesla Payday

Tesla shareholders on Thursday approved a plan that could make Elon Musk the world’s first trillionaire, two days after New Yorkers elected a tax-the-rich candidate as their next mayor.
These discrete moments offered strikingly different lessons about America and who deserves how much of its wealth.
At Tesla, based in the Austin, Texas, area, shareholders have largely bought into a winner-takes-all version of capitalism, agreeing by a wide margin to give Mr. Musk shares worth almost a trillion dollars if the company under his management achieves ambitious financial and operational goals over the next decade.

I'm in the 120 minus your age in equities mindset so I have plenty of cash/bonds. I have had a plan for several years now but have deviated a little from it at times. I need to follow it and not deviate as much. Easier said than done when most days you poke around various websites reading financial information but I'm getting better and better at sticking to it.

But why do you think A's strategy statement is as it is, compared w FDFIX. Why does A not have the last sentence that D has? Something lawyerly?
I doubt it, except to the extent that marketing material has to stay within the bounds of the law. I don't understand what's in the minds of pitchmen. Though I'll toss out a wild guess, so long as it is clear that this is just spitballing.
Investors may think they know all about S&P 500 index funds - that they invest in "the market", that the stock selection is purely mechanical (both by S&P and by the fund), that the funds just buy the requisite 500 stocks and do nothing else. All of which range from oversimplified to plain wrong. But if Fidelity says little to disabuse investors of these ideas, it may sell more shares.
With FDFIX, Fidelity relies instead on a different investor article of faith. That the robo advisors buying this fund "know" what they are doing. Trust the machine, much as investors trust that the S&P 500 is mechanically constructed.
An anecdote may help demonstrate how investor perception is used. A couple of decades ago, Vanguard worked with MSCI to create indexes that were more amenable to tracking by funds. For example, they used buffers, something novel back then. At the time VLCAX was better designed than VFIAX.
Yet when Vanguard prepared a free financial plan for my mother, the plan recommended VFIAX, not VLCAX. I asked the Vanguard planner why. The response was along the lines that VFIAX was the better known fund.
Compare the stated risk factors for the two funds. For FXIAX, Fidelity say only that, well golly gee, stocks are risky thingies. Especially foreign ones of which it has none.

Stock markets, especially foreign markets, are volatile and can decline significantly in response to adverse issuer, political, regulatory, market, or economic developments.

But Fidelity says more about the risks of FDFIX:

Stock markets, especially foreign markets, are volatile and can decline significantly in response to adverse issuer, political, regulatory, market, or economic developments. Fund and index performance may vary somewhat due to factors such as transaction costs, sample selection, and timing differences associated with index additions and deletions.

The same golly gee stuff, but also risk of tracking error including sampling. Based on everything (and everything omitted) on the FXAIX page, you wouldn't know that FXAIX might also use sampling. Don't dare shatter the illusion that S&P 500 index funds contain precisely 500 stocks.
Next, compare the strategy and risk statements of both of these funds, which Fidelity wants to sell, with the verbiage about VFIAX which Fidelity would rather you not buy.
Below text is taken from the Fidelity brokerage (marketing) page for VFIAX:

Strategy
The fund employs an indexing investment approach designed to track the performance of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index, a widely recognized benchmark of U.S. stock market performance that is dominated by the stocks of large U.S. companies. The advisor attempts to replicate the target index by investing all, or substantially all, of its assets in the stocks that make up the index, holding each stock in approximately the same proportion as its weighting in the index. The fund is non-diversified.
Risk
Value and growth stocks can perform differently from other types of stocks. Growth stocks can be more volatile. Value stocks can continue to be undervalued by the market for long periods of time. Stock markets are volatile and can decline significantly in response to adverse issuer, political, regulatory, market, economic or other developments. These risks may be magnified in foreign markets. Additional risk information for this product may be found in the prospectus or other product materials, if available.

Not just that stock markets are risky, but that they have all sorts of risk - persistent undervaluation, extra volatile growth stocks. And this Vanguard fund is buying all of this risk! And not diversifying (non-diversified fund). And there's so much other risk that we can't include it all here - look at the prospectus. That's something that the Fidelity fund pages don't suggest.
I wonder why [VFFSX] has 4* and FXAIX 5* from M*.
Adding to what @Observant1 wrote: Both funds have 3/5/10 year ratings of 4*, 4*, and 5*. So without a true 10 year rating, the average (overall) rating would have to be 4*.
The 10 year 5* rating is extrapolated by M*, not real. It is shown as as hollow stars.

What do hollow stars indicate?
Hollow stars indicate the Morningstar Rating calculation was performed using extended performance. Extended performance takes the performance string of an older share class of the same portfolio, strips away the fees and expenses of the older share to determine base performance, then adjusts for the fees and expenses of the new share.

https://advisor.morningstar.com/Enterprise/VTC/Essentials_Guidelines_US_2023_0323.pdf

@FD1000: You came here, took advantage of the freedom and financial opportunities of OUR country, made your money, and now root for the destruction of the very country that gave you so much.
PLEASE GO BACK WHEREVER YOU CAME FROM. JUST TAKE YOUR DAMNED MONEY AND GO.

Every day, you continue to show your TDS and disrespect toward other posters. Honestly, you should be banned from this site.
I came to this country legally because I believe it’s the best in the world. I have just as much right to be here as you do — after all, someone in your family was an immigrant at some point, too.
If you dislike the current administration, you’re free to leave. Europe is waiting for you.
IMO, the Biden administration was the worst in the last several decades, but during that time, I didn’t insult other posters, use foul language, or lose my composure — unlike you, who has done so daily for years, especially this year.
Power changes hands between parties; that’s how democracy works. As Obama once said, “Elections have consequences.”
And once again, your post is off-topic — just like many of your others — yet I’ve remained civil throughout. It’s clear you don’t know me at all, but that hasn’t stopped you from expressing unwarranted hostility.
Lastly, if you mainly want to discuss politics, why not do so on a political site instead of an investment forum?

@Sven- thanks for that. An excellent overview of the AI technological masterwork / world-class financial bubble.

@FD1000: You came here, took advantage of the freedom and financial opportunities of OUR country, made your money, and now root for the destruction of the very country that gave you so much.
PLEASE GO BACK WHEREVER YOU CAME FROM. JUST TAKE YOUR DAMNED MONEY AND GO.

That was the exact point of my original posting. It was meant to help others to see other views so to have meaningful discussion. Merely posting performance data without putting them in proper content contributes little to this board.
@DrVenture, those who have lots want more and more. So we have this bifurcation of two economy. For us we try to focus on our financial goals such as college education, retirement, and long term healthcare. A modest gain is often good enough as long the risk is minimized.

Reuters says it was over $50 billion...I'm also seeing more news reports of subprime loans, ARMs making a comeback, credit card delinquincies, private credit/equity shenanigans and blowups, etc which gives me pause.
The Fed’s Standing Repo Facility lent a total of $50.35 billion on Friday to eligible financial firms in two separate availabilities, the highest-ever usage since the tool was put in place in 2021 to provide fast loans collateralized with Treasury or mortgage bonds. At the same time, financial firms also parked a considerable amount of cash on Fed books, with the reverse repo facility seeing inflows of $51.8 billion.
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/banks-tap-fed-standing-repo-facility-record-numbers-amid-month-end-pressures-2025-10-31/

"But timing is everything and I think morningstar stated that most equity mutual funds
show Investor return to be less than NAV return over 3-15 yr periods because people
buy funds when they've already captured much of the upside over those periods."
I believe you are referring to Morningstar's annual Mind the Gap study.
"We estimate the average dollar invested in US mutual funds and exchange-traded funds
earned 7.0% per year over the decade ended Dec. 31, 2024.
That estimate, which is akin to an internal rate of return calculation,
accounts for investors’ purchases and sales of fund shares during that 10-year period."
"The 7.0% annual dollar-weighted return is about 1.2 percentage points per year
less than these funds’ 8.2% aggregate annual total return
(which assumes an initial lump-sum purchase) over the 10 years ended Dec. 31, 2024.
That 'gap' is explained by the timing and magnitude of investors’ transactions during the period."
https://www.morningstar.com/financial-advisors/volatility-bedevils-fund-investors

they key is pinpointing these funds ahead of time and capturing the upside. these funds exist in batches of other funds with similar performance/metrics for a specific period of time.
A financial advisor about 5 years ago published a list of mutual funds with a longtime track record of 12% or more returns and that had a very positive previous 10 years. He was very much like see Dave Ramsey was right this is easy! someone looked at those funds 5 years later and did a memorandum. only 12% of those funds (most sector and large growth) beat the sp500. And it was a very popular post in Dave Ramsey circles which tells me tons of people likely built their portfolios around them.
lots of people have caught lightning in a bottle and captured the upside of funds like AIVSX/DODGX as a result of their proliferation in retirement plans.
But timing is everything and I think morningstar stated that most equity mutual funds show Investor return to be less than NAV return over 3-15 yr periods because people buy funds when they've already captured much of the upside over those periods.

That's why I don't do private equity/credit anymore, and I still refuse to own financial sector preferreds since their divs can be suspended to cover losses elsewhere if (er when) banks/PE start getting ahead of their skis and/or acting all 2006 again.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318342/000139834425020089/fp0096061-1_497.htm
497 1 fp0096061-1_497.htm
Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth Fund
Class A (AFNAX)
Class C (AFYCX)
Class I (AFNIX)
A series of Investment Managers Series Trust (the “Trust”)
Supplement dated October 31, 2025 to the currently effective
Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information.
*** Important Notice Regarding Proposed Fund Reorganization ***
The Board of Trustees of Investment Managers Series Trust has approved an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”) for the Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth Fund (the “Target Fund”), a series of the Trust, providing for the reorganization of the Target Fund into the Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (the “Acquiring Fund”), a series of ETF Series Solutions. The reorganization of the Target Fund is subject to approval by its shareholders.
The Acquiring Fund has substantially similar investment objectives and similar principal investment strategies as the Target Fund. Bahl & Gaynor, Inc. (“Bahl & Gaynor”) serves as investment advisor to both the Target Fund and the Acquiring Fund.
The Plan provides for the Target Fund to transfer all of its assets to the Acquiring Fund in return for shares of the Acquiring Fund and cash in lieu of fractional Acquiring Fund shares (if any), and the Acquiring Fund’s assumption of the Target Fund’s liabilities. Shareholders of the Target Fund will receive shares of the Acquiring Fund and cash in lieu of fractional Acquiring Fund shares (if any) equal in value to the shares of the Target Fund held by the shareholder prior to the reorganization. The reorganization is not expected to result in the recognition of gain or loss by the Target Fund or its shareholders for federal tax purposes (except with respect to cash received by shareholders in lieu of fractional shares, if any). Bahl & Gaynor will bear the costs related to the reorganization.
The Target Fund operates as a mutual fund and the Acquiring Fund operates as an actively managed exchange-traded fund (“ETF”). ETFs may provide benefits to shareholders compared to mutual funds, including additional trading flexibility, increased transparency, and the potential for lower transaction costs and enhanced tax efficiency. Additional information regarding the differences between mutual funds and ETFs and potential impact to shareholders will be included in the proxy statement noted below. In order to receive shares of the Acquiring Fund as part of the Reorganization, Target Fund shareholders must hold their shares of the Target Fund through a brokerage account eligible to hold and trade shares of an ETF. Shareholders holding their Target Fund shares through accounts that are not eligible to hold shares of an ETF will not participate in the reorganization and will instead receive a cash distribution equal to the net asset value of their Target Fund shares in full redemption of their Target Fund shares. Such cash distribution may result in the recognition of gain or loss for federal tax purposes. If you are unsure about the ability of your account to accept Acquiring Fund shares, please call 1-833-472-2140 or contact your financial advisor or other financial intermediary.
The Trust will call a shareholder meeting at which shareholders of the Target Fund will be asked to consider and vote on the Plan. If the required shareholder approval for the reorganization of the Target Fund is obtained, the reorganization of the Target Fund is currently expected to take effect in the first quarter of 2026.
Shareholders of the Target Fund will receive a proxy statement with additional information about the shareholder meeting, the proposed reorganization, and the Acquiring Fund. Please read the proxy materials carefully, as they will contain a more detailed description of the proposed reorganizations.
Please file this Supplement with your records.

History is starting to rhyme a bit, eh? Per BBG this morning:
A distressed-debt fund is seizing control of one of the largest malls in America after a series of moves that wiped out some creditors and even left holders of bonds once rated AAA nursing steep losses.
The trade was set in motion after Black Diamond Capital Management bought more than 70% of the top-ranking slice in a commercial mortgage-backed security tied to the struggling Palisades Center shopping mall in West Nyack, New York. The firm then used its position to acquire the sole mortgage backing the CMBS at a discount, triggering the bond’s liquidation, according to court filings and deal documents reviewed by Bloomberg.
The maneuver puts Black Diamond in control of a roughly 2 million-square-foot (185,806 square-meter) mall in West Nyack, a bedroom community for legions of middle-class New York City commuters. It also cemented about $231 million in losses for bondholders — including a $72 million blow to the AAA tranche — only the second instance since the financial crisis where top-rated CMBS investors have been hit.