Hi Catch,
Yeah, I also like healthcare as you do.....not as much now as a few years ago. Also own FSPHX and FSMEX. I think you do also. Have added to GIBLX and PTIAX with the 10 year at 1.80. Also have added to FSENX on Friday. Have made 6.3% on the first investment on 10/2. Too bad it was so small. Other things I'm looking at: YAFFX, TWEIX, THOPX, and TRBUX. I think we go higher from here. My biggest regret is that I did not add to VWINX when I had a chance at the end of last year. One last question: is a municipal fund worthwhile in an IRA? Have been thinking about EALBX.
God bless
the Pudd

I Bonds, paying 2.5% from next month. You are guaranteed to earn 0.5% above the rate of inflation if you buy before Oct 31.

If you buy before Oct. 31, the bonds you receive will pay 1.90% through March of 2020. That's the way Series I savings bonds work. You get the current inflation adjustment (1.4%) for the first six months you own the savings bonds regardless of which month you purchase them in, then the you get the next inflation adjustment (2.0%) for six months, and so on.

The 1.90% composite rate for I bonds bought from May 2019 through October 2019 applies for the first six months after the issue date.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/news/pressroom/currentibondratespr.htm
The argument for buying now:

The current I Bond fixed rate is 0.5%. That is the highest it has been since early 2009 when it was 0.70%. In this falling interest rate environment with low Treasury yields, I think it’s likely that the I Bond fixed rate will fall. For five of the last ten years, the fixed rate has been zero.
If you buy I Bonds for the long-term, the fixed rate is the most important consideration, and it may be at a peak. We won’t know the next I Bond fixed rate until November 1st when the Treasury announces the changes.

https://www.depositaccounts.com/blog/inflation-treasury-series-i-savings-bonds/
Whether you buy now or buy in November, it's unlikely that the savings bonds will pay 2.5% next month. (I've no complaints with 1.9%, tax deferred, state tax exempt.)

Hi Ted,
Thanks for the nice rules summary. However, it’s not the rules themselves that generated the superior performance, but as you also identified, it is his patience and discipline. Buffett simply stays the course. His long term persistence pays off big time. Those are the necessary key elements in a winner’s strategy.
Before reading your submittal, I was only familiar with an even simpler 2 rule famous summary of Buffett’s investment rules. He is often quoted as saying “ "Rule No. 1: Never lose money. Rule No. 2: Never forget rule No. 1.". Now that’s solid advice, but a bit difficult to put into practice.
Luck is more important then any and all rule books.
I really like this famous quote from a Bob Brown: “ Behind every successful man there's a lot of unsuccessful years,”. Indeed, persistence is a needed quality.
Best Wishes

Hi @rono
Thank you for your redo ink to shadowstats. There are those here who may not have know of the site previous, and the old timers who had forgotten.
I'm absolutely positive inflation is running more than the gov't provided CPI increase (1.6%) for 2020 for SS, etc.
As you've noted numerous times, invest in what you use as a consumer, too.....local utils, etc. A "pay yourself" investment plan, eh?
Neighbor chat indicates that their Plan F supplemental health coverage premium will increase 9.6% in 2020. Insurance is insurance for a reason and they've had a need for this over the years and are pleased they had the extra coverage. I've expressed previous, that to help offset the rising costs of healthcare to invest in the sector. A good example is FSPHX, with an inception date of 1981. The lifetime annualized return is 15.4%. There are plenty of decent healthcare investments from the broadbased to the more narrow sectors, as with an etf of IHI (medical tech./devices).
Take care,
Catch

I use a small-cap index, VSMAX, by far my worst performer over the last couple years. I'm close to consolidating it with VTSAX already. But of course, small-caps will have the mega bounce once I do.

FYI: (This Is A Follow-Up Article.)
The latest tally shows more than $3 billion in client assets pulled from Fisher Investments since the Oct. 8 comments were initially criticized in a video posted on Twitter.
Most of those departing assets are represented by public pension plans and high-profile companies like Goldman Sachs that are showing their own PR prudence by distancing themselves from Fisher.
But Fisher Investments, as the nation's second-largest RIA behind Financial Engines Advisors, has over the past few years undertaken an aggressive retail branding campaign and could also be vulnerable on the consumer side.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNQfxbvLiQf4TfPJXK_NCyTHTdBEtw:1572078987192&source=hp&ei=iwW0Xf2UCcjmsAXbk404&q=Is+it+time+for+Ken+Fisher+to+step+down?&oq=Is+it+time+for+Ken+Fisher+to+step+down?&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i299.4920.4920..6175...0.0..0.93.93.1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.D0GWZyMH8wA&ved=0ahUKEwi9htrMwrnlAhVIM6wKHdtJAwcQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

I'm looking to buy DFDMX for my Roth IRA on the next reasonable dip. I'm very impresssed by its risk adjusted performance and the management's philosophy. I am amazed it's still such a tiny fund ($170m), especially following three years of outstanding performance and no outflows to speak of.
On the general topic of actively managed versus index funds, I have never owned nor ever wanted to own the latter. If the market does take a serious downturn then a manager who can navigate the headwinds is worth his weight in gold. Think Larry Puglia at TRBCX which has not had a single down year in the last ten. Investors in many index funds, however, will be at the full mercy of market forces - and they will finally pay full price for their cheap investments.

I used to listen to a very good investment show hosted by legendary Bruce Williams back in the 80s. It was broadcast nationwide.
Bruce often alluded to “The Rule of 72” which the link below explains. He claimed a investor should on average double his money every 8 years. That would work out to a 9% annual return, using the rule of 72. That sounds quite high by today’s standards without taking on a lot of additional risk. In the 80s mortgage rates were still double-digit. Interest rates generally were much higher than today.
https://www.thebalance.com/how-to-use-the-rule-of-72-2388567

[Special relativity twin paradox]

Because the twin traveling is moving close to the speed of light when they return, the time it took them to travel millions of miles may have only been a few days, while the lapse of time for the twin on Earth may have been multiple years. Time was relative to the rate at which the twin was traveling.

Just another example of a financial writer lifting something out of context, not comprehending it, and then misapplying it.
The whole point of special relativity is that there are no absolute positions or motions, everything is relative. (Only the speed of light is absolute.) You cannot say that one twin is traveling away from the earth and that the other twin is "standing still". Such a suggestion reeks of Ptolemy. From each twin's perspective, it is the other twin who is moving.
If neither twin altered course (so that, relatively speaking, both continued traveling in straight lines), then each would see the other aging more slowly and each would be correct. It is when one twin reverses direction that the twin moves from one frame of reference to another and that time appears to "jump".
Here's what's happening:
https://properphysics.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/a-no-nonsense-introduction-to-special-theory-of-relativity-part-4/

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/25/billionaire-investor-ron-baron-sees-the-dow-at-650000-in-50-years.html
Billionaire investor Ron Baron sees Dow 650,000 in 50 years — about 25 times higher than today
If we can live 50 more yrs that would be great

Howdy folks,
Love reading your thoughts.
I'm staying in a rope-a-dope with my heavy parking place at Price RPSIX. Still riding my momentum play in the junior silver miners, but standing pat as things resolve themselves. I still really like stocks that pay me a dividend particularly if I'm customer of theirs [read: T, CMS, VZ] and can never, ever, ever stay away from NCV with a yield of 11%.
Couple of thought from above. Being older absolutely changes your approach to risk as you don't have the time to 'revert to the mean'. This is compounded if this is an account from which you're taking distributions. The 2000 dot.com meltdown impacted my wifes 401(k) distributing acct from Vanguard it ran out in about 12 years. And it was invested very conservatively.
Inflation. The tricks they play with the numbers are obscene. Hedonic adjustments (i.e. if it's new and improved they can charge more without it counting. Can you still get the old unimproved model?) Is hamburger a substitute for stead? Which housing metric dampens the number? feh. http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts
Whether you care for shadow stats or not, it is one measure of inflation that seems to better reflect what I experience every day.
Lastly, this too shall pass and I too have my shopping list.
However, I must admit that I am ashamed to be an American and I spent 20 months in 'nam.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono

The closest Vanguard match to TAIFX would be VTMFX. Unlike Wellesley it uses muni bonds for its fixed income sleeve. Also, while TAIFX and VTMFX have roughly 50/50 asset allocations, Wellesley's is closer to 40/60 (bond heavy).
VTMFX manages its equity holdings directly, so it can control cap gains a bit better than TAIFX which holds equity funds that are not tax-sensitive. This is reflected in a somewhat better tax cost ratio over the past 1 and 3 years as calculated by M*.
TAIFX tax cost ratios: http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/tax-analysis.action?t=TAIFX
VTMFX tax cost ratios: http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/tax-analysis.action?t=VTMFX

Einstein called quantum theory “spooky science.” He never fully accepted it, even when some of his own calculations seemed to support it. Among other things, quantum physics suggests ...
- The same object can exist in two different places at the same time.
- By affecting one nearby object, you can simultaneously have the same effect / impact on another object hundreds of miles (or millions of light years) away.
- Quantum takes encryption to a new level. Theoretically, it would be impossible to intercept, interfere with or break the codes of quantum communications..
Biggest fear is that China is believed to be far ahead in military / space applications - rumored to have run tests communicating with satellites using quantum.
@gmarceau is correct. Ted’s ever-ready to pour kerosene on a thread he didn’t initiate. :(

Well, this article knowledge is way past my knowledge base; but tech./science remains a valid investment area, in spite of irregular profit patterns over the years.
Yuh think those NFL replays are pulled up fast now; the processing speed indicated in the link article will eliminate referees.
Personal note: Nature Magazine remains an excellent source for scientific/technology studies. Published articles have passed through a peer review process.
Wish the same peer review could apply to published articles regarding investments; in particular those market crash stories that remain in circulation !!!
Okay, 'outta here. Enjoy.
Catch
From Nature Magazine:
--- Verifying the solution was a further challenge. To do that, the team compared the results with those from simulations of smaller and simpler versions of the circuits, which were done by classical computers — including the Summit supercomputer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. Extrapolating from these examples, the Google team estimates that simulating the full circuit would take 10,000 years even on a computer with one million processing units (equivalent to around 100,000 desktop computers). Sycamore took just 3 minutes and 20 seconds.

Dunno if it was the first of the major outfits to offer no-charge stock and etf trading when one's aggregated dollars hit a certain not terribly high level (I think so, but am not positive); but years ago one could have some tens of thou at BoA / Merrill, and the same amount at Fido, and trading at the former was free and trading at the latter was not.
But now that Fido is mostly the same, I may be abandoning Merrill and moving almost everything back to Fido, leaving enough not to incur BoA fees. Will report.

Absolutely not. I'm 100% all in stocks (via mutual funds). This bull has another 15 years to run fueled by demographics and technology. Of course, there will be corrections along the way, some of them steep, which the doomsters will proclaim (as always) as the end of civilization, but I'm having none of that nonsense.
I believe right now is a great time to be buying risk assets - perhaps more so than in 2009. Stocks have essentially been building a mighty base over the last 18 months in preparation for an explosive move higher that will continue for years to come. As the stock market is the most efficient leading economic indicator, I simply cannot see a recession next year or for many years to come. A cursory glance at a basic S&P500, Dow, or Nasdaq chart supports this point of view. Are they collapsing or on a terminal downward spiral? No.
Note: I speak as a 53 year old with at least 10 years to retirement. My circumstances and outlook may be different to yours and I encourage some degree of diversification no matter your age.

@Old_Skeet: Good afternoon. I took a peek at Yahoo & this showed up.
Morningstar Risk Rating★★★★
Number of Years Up26
Number of Years Down4
Best 1 Yr Total Return (Feb 3, 2019)25.29%
Worst 1 Yr Total Return (Feb 3, 2019)-13.85%
How does best & worst return happen in same year ?
Think I will check else ware .
Derf

https://marketrealist.com/2019/10/will-the-dow-jones-crash-by-the-end-of-2019/
Will the Dow Jones Crash by the end of 2019?
The Dow Jones Industrial Index (or DJIA) is trading just 2.2% below its all-time high. But is the Dow Jones ETF (DIA) trading at a premium despite several macro-economic concerns? The Dow Jones Index is up 14.8% year-to-date and has gained over 50% in the last five years.

FYI —-“Many people turn to books for help, so we decided to go back and review three of the most popular finance books of the last 15 years: Suze Orman’s “The Nine Steps to Financial Freedom” (Currency, $16.99); Dave Ramsey’s “The Total Money Makeover” (Nelson Books, $26.99); and Robert T. Kiyosaki’s “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” (Plata Publishing, $8.99).”
https://www.consumer-action.org/press/articles/reconsidering-advice-in-3-popular-personal-finance-books
NYT article - I wasn’t willing to click on a NYT article and use one of my 5 or 10 for the month.

FYI: Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me,” F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote. To which his contemporary, Ernest Hemingway, would retort years later, “Yes, they have more money.”
This difference these days is referred to as inequality, which of course figures prominently in today’s politics. This week’s Democratic debate displayed that in spades, with potential presidential candidates proffering measures to narrow the difference between Fitzgerald’s very rich and presumably just about everybody else who watched the proceedings.
Prominent among these suggestions was a wealth tax, proposed by the two leading lights of the left, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat, would levy a 2% tax on a household’s wealth that exceeds $50 million, and 3% on the amount above $1 billion. The Vermont independent’s plan would start at 1% on a household’s wealth over $32 million and increase to 8% on assets above $10 billion.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-real-problem-with-wealth-taxes-51571413910?mod=hp_LEAD_3