@hank - I am of the opinion(s) that US based rules, regulations and laws mean nothing to the current administration and only exist to be bent, broken or ignored whenever they see them fit to their advantage with the mostly full backing of the current SCOTUS. I don't necessarily invest that way but it does add a layer of tempering to my decision making.
For years and years I was near always invested in nothing but equities, primarily those inhabiting the momentum space. Not no more.

One source
Excerpts: “According to the Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), there are (in 1924) 413 nuclear reactors in operation worldwide with an average age of around 32 years.”
”Nuclear energy accounts for the largest percentage of the global electricity mix in France. In 2022 it was 63%. With 56 reactors, France is also the European leader in this respect. However, the last reactor was connected to the grid in 1999 and the average age is 38.6 years. “
-

”Someone explain, please? How playing with nukes for power is a different sort of playing with nukes for weapons? Still gotta be radioactive waste produced, eh?”

We’ve had several that operated in Michigan dating back to the late 50s. Most have been dismantled. Like everything technological, they have a limited life-span. In simplest terms, fission reactions (the splitting of atoms) in a controlled environment create heat which is then converted into electricity. The early ones were “boiling water” types with the steam produced powering large turbine generators. I suspect they’ve advanced beyond that simple concept today.
You are correct that waste is created. It can be safely handled and stored, but remains “hot” (highly radioactive) for thousands of years. There has been fierce debate over how to safely dispose of the waste. Deep inside mountains has been proposed. I’m not up to speed on whether this at has been resolved. For now, I believe waste is pretty much stored on-site and shielded somehow. But it’s not a long term solution.
Accidents are rare. Loss of cooling water is the biggest threat. So these plants are typically located near bodies of water and backup electrical energy is crucial to power the coolant pumps in the event the primary sources fail. The reactors themselves are very small - perhaps smaller than a typical room in a home. Most of what one sees in photos is the supporting equipment, surrounding containment vessels, heat dispersion / cooling apparatus. While accidents are rare they are monstrous when they occur with deadly long lasting contaminants being spread over hundreds or thousands of miles - rendering farmland, water sources, homes, unusable virtually forever and causing illness or death to those contaminated. It’s this last “nightmare” possibility (and some actual catastrophic events) that has made nuclear power generation so controversial and has slowed the development of new plants. Planning must take into consideration potential threats like floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, acts of war and terrorism.
Key differences from weapons are (1) In generating electrical power, the nuclear fission process is controlled. It can be shut-down if necessary by the plant operators, assuming everything is working correctly, (2) The radiation produced is contained within a structure and not dispersed intentionally into the environment, (3) Rather then blowing something up, the power released is converted into useful electricity..
See also Nuclear Powered Ships

This article aligns w/what I've been saying for a few months now -- that over the next several years, we'll see global trade/fiance starting to work with, versus being dependent on, the United States and the US Dollar. It's also partly why I've been skewing several of my new equity purchases overseas.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/jul/16/trust-in-the-us-is-eroding-the-question-isnt-if-the-dollar-will-lose-supremacy-its-when

Went to Kiplingers to check out current top 25 fund list and found a mistake.
From Morningstar the 5 and 10 year returns for BEXFX are 3.39% and 4.52%. On the website for Kiplinger 25 funds, 5 and 10 year returns are shown as 14.6% and 10.8%. I thought it was too good for an international fund.
I emailed author who had her email on bottom and she responded next day and said she had made a mistake and had repeated same numbers from the fund above. Has been corrected online now, but print version in next months print edition. Wait, they still mail out printed magazine??

keep in mind that the Kiplinger 25 is not a list of top performing funds of all time but just their current favorite funds. BEXFX is their 4th or 5th emerging market fund they've had in the past 20 years.

Thanks ybb. Here's the new nav bar collapsed (without Analytics menu expanded):

FLOW is such a cool tool, I put it in main line. Like RISKPROFILE. They are each the same tool inside the ANALYTICS menu or in the ANALYZE pull-down menus on each tool page.
Right. The AVERAGES link on main line is for a separate tool showing averages for various periods. Been around a while. The AVERAGES in ANALYTICS are averages across all CALENDAR YEARs (back to 1960) and the several dozen FIXED PERIODs.
Yeah. I tried keeping the tools names short in the menus. So, FAMILIES is short for Fund Family Scorecard. And, yes, I believe it's self-evident that RETURNS and other metrics are for the vehicle indicated. If you hover cursor over each link, you will find a more expanded definition. (Same for header columns in most tools, like MULTISEARCH.)
The idea behind expanded ANALYTICS menu in nav bar is to be able to "one click" your way around the site for the selected funds without having to use the pulldown menus.
The new SCREENSHOTS page should help to better illustrate all tools available.
And, there are now some descriptive bullets for each webinar depicted on the WEBINARS page.
Hope soon to introduce several "How To" videos on the @MFOPremium site, which I will highlight in new nav bar as well.
c

I’ve been using Vanguard for my both my Brokerage and IRA accounts for over 10 years and have not had any issues. I do all my transactions online and have never needed to place a phone call to get something done. All my Buy/Sell transactions, money transfers to my bank, and IRA required distributions have been simple and without any issues. So I’m a happy customer.

Well, good for you, Wtlutz.
But, what would you have done in my case when Vanguard's online transaction system couldn't handle a simple "sell all shares" order and requested I call an agent?
Case in point, I had a frustrating website experience at Vanguard yesterday.
I am managing a friend's portfolio and wanted to sell "all shares" of an OEF on line. Got a nonsensical error message that the transaction could not be completed because the fund had insufficient shares. Requested I call an agent. Was on hold for 45 minutes until I finally got an agent on the phone. However, he got the same error message and spent the next 15 minutes in the "back office" trying to complete my transaction request. Seemed to be as frustrated as I was.
Thankfully, he finally was successful, but I wasted a good hour on the phone. It was also a good reminder why I prefer not to have an account at Vanguard. Low cost or not.

The headlines are pointing out that this is the first Federal budget surplus in June which is the first monthly surplus in June for the past five years. This is true. The other surpluses mostly occurred in April, but also in January, August, and September.
Customs duties increased from $83B in 2024 to an annual rate of $96B in 2025 Q1. No doubt tariffs are increasing...
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B235RC1Q027SBEA

Also be careful with taxation of SS income. The percentage of SS that's taxable can go as high as 85% depending on "combined income", a form of MAGI.
Then there's the IRMAA surcharge. Another MAGI effect in addition to phaseouts.
Next, there are state taxes to consider. Some states exempt retirement income such as IRA withdrawals (such as Roth conversions), but only up to certain limits. If you convert more, you may exceed this cap.
The $6K extra deduction is scheduled to expire after 2028. So unless you're planning on this being extended, you've got just four years to take advantage of it.

Crash,,,, check out the performance of PRPFX over all the trailing periods going back five years. Tell me,,, does that surprise you?

Yes, I'm surprised. But maybe I should not be. PRPFX holds 24.01% "other." So, as always, I ask: "WTF is OTHER?" Could be quadruple inverse shorts on black Martian tulip bulbs.
I got in, and stayed in, to PRWCX in 2013. Checking the chart, I'm quite happy I did. My single-stocks did well while I was away for a week. Nice surprise to come home to. I can choose to reinvest (manually) the dividends or redeploy them elsewhere. I've just last week un-complicated things by removing double holdings, where the same (MMkt) fund is held in both IRA and taxable. Now, SWVXX is held only in taxable. Since I'm forever "cash poor," the divvies give me something to work with. They say opposites attract. Wifey is the spender. Yours truly is the saver.

Crash,,,, check out the performance of PRPFX over all the trailing periods going back five years. Tell me,,, does that surprise you?

Be aware of MAGI phaseouts.
For some high income retirees, suggestion is to wait 3+ years for Roth Conversions.

I’ve been using Vanguard for my both my Brokerage and IRA accounts for over 10 years and have not had any issues. I do all my transactions online and have never needed to place a phone call to get something done. All my Buy/Sell transactions, money transfers to my bank, and IRA required distributions have been simple and without any issues. So I’m a happy customer.

I am considering doing Roth conversions over the next 4-8 years (from age 65-73).
With help from the standard deduction plus bonuses deductions ($2k + $6k) for tax filers over age 65 the 12% bracket has effectively just got wider:

the new $6,000 deduction is stacked on top of both the regular standard deduction — $15,750 for single filers or $31,500 for married couples filing jointly in 2025 — and the 65-plus addition. For instance, a 65-year-old single taxpayer who qualifies for the full $6,000 deduction would be able to deduct a total of $23,750 from these three tax breaks on their 2025 tax return. A qualifying 65-year-old couple could deduct up to $46,700.

source:
taxes/what-to-know-new-tax-law-2025
I am looking to fill the 12% Federal tax bracket ($48,475 for single filers for TY2025) with yearly Roth conversions over the next 4-8 years.
Anyone else see this as an opportune time to execute Roth conversions?
convert-a-traditional-ira-to-a-roth-in-retirement

The 1/5/99 event might want to come with an asterisk. Dinky linky.

In the two years leading up to March 24, 2000, the S&P 500 gained 38.1%.
The Dow hit its dot-com era peak in January 2000, but the Nasdaq and the S&P 500 didn’t top out until March. The S&P 500 hit an intraday high of 1,552.87 on March 24.
Over the next two years, the S&P 500 dropped 24.8%, but it held up relatively well compared to the 62.7% drop in the Nasdaq.
Following its March 2000 peak, the S&P 500 wouldn’t make new all-time highs again until 2007. However, it fared much better than the Nasdaq, which wouldn’t surpass its dot-com bubble peak until 2015.

One might wonder, what were the signals to sell in March 2000?

I’ve never invested in the S&P 500, although over the years some of my funds have held some S&P stocks. So the perceived valuation of the S&P is of little interest to me - although a lot of investors fixate on it. It is, however, of interest to me from the standpoint that if it were grossly overvalued (“nosebleed” territory) then it has the potential to crash and bring down the economy and / or a lot of non-S&P stocks along with it. So I don’t dismiss Barron’s or anyone else’s take on the S&P.
And I’m aware that in recent years there’s been more “empty” forecasts of gloom and doom for the S&P than there are likely to be empty beer cans outside a college frat party.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/trump-tariffs-inflation-economy-stock-market-risks-1a9aa88e?st=s8sZDa&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

The prevailing exuberance—and preponderance of nosebleed valuations—hasn’t been lost on the members of the Barron’s Roundtable

I support the idea that the SP500 would not perform as well in the next 10 years as it did in the last 10 years.
Unfortunately, valuations are not a good indicator of an accurate future performance or when markets will correct.
Many times the markets go down based on other unique situations.
2008-the MBS fiasco
2020-covid
2022-Fed rapid rate hike.
Prof Shiller created PE10(P/E over 10 years) which supposed to predict performance based on valuation better than PE
On 05/2012 (the link for this article doesn't work anymore)
Question: You have become famous for your cyclically adjusted 10-year price/earnings ratio. What do the latest numbers say about future stock market returns?
Shiller: we found a correlation between that ratio and the next 10 years' return.
If you plug in today's P/E of about 22, it would be predicting something like an annualized 4% return after inflation.
FD: reality, the SP500 made about 11% after inflation in the next 10 years (04/31/2012-04/31/2022). It was much better than countries with lower PE10 such as Emerging markets.

From the Roundtable article:
The prevailing exuberance—and preponderance of nosebleed valuations—hasn’t been lost on the members of the Barron’s Roundtable, most of whom expect the stock market to stall, or even sink, in the months ahead. Prices are too rich, they say. Tariffs will stoke inflation, and economic growth may look increasingly tepid.
********************
Sonal Desai:
At the start of the year, the dollar was probably at its second-strongest level in 40 or 50 years. Then, three developments took the air out of the rally: DeepSeek, a Chinese AI company, was reported to have much lower development costs than U.S. AI companies; the Germans stepped up their spending commitment on defense; and U.S. tariffs were announced. As a result, investors took profits in their dollar positions. Profit-taking accounts for the dollar’s decline.

Instead of the above thinking, a better way is to look at relativity and how to make money.

After the dollar’s steepest half-year drop in decades, investors see continued declines ahead.

The 24/7 media always love to make statements like this. Let's look deeper:
1) During 2020, the dollar fell more than in 2025.
2) The Dollar is still 45% ahead since 2014, including the last decline.
See the chart (https://schrts.co/BxMautbM)

Receding confidence in the dollar is driving investors to sell dollars and buy gold and other major currencies.

Gold usually goes up when the dollar declines; nothing new here.

The dollar is unlikely to lose its dominance quickly

I doubt the dollar will lose its dominance.
Is the euro going to take over? Europe has been in decline for at least 10-15 years.
China? Can anyone trust them?
No one else is big enough.
The dollar's decline means that international will do better.
Already in mid-February, the charts showed that VGK (Europe) + VXUS (international) are doing better. See the chart (https://schrts.co/egMBCBBW). All you had to do is buy more of what is doing better.
Bonds follow the same plan. See the chart (https://schrts.co/YvzfUvjq).
As a mainly bond trader, for the first time in my life I own a huge % in international bonds. My job is to invest based on current markets; I don't invest based on politics or narrative.
So, what to do next? Follow the markets, AKA current charts and prices.

@davidrmoran, I held JQUA in a roth at the inception of QLTY. I sold it roughly one and half years later and added the funds to CGDV. Why? It couldn't keep up with the others.
The total return of JQUA since QLTY began trading is 31.23%. Not a major difference from the other 3 (CGDV, TCAF, QLTY) but it was never my intent to keep them all.
Adding in JQUA here is the total return to date (7/11/2025) using the TCAF starting date.
CGDV 50.22%
TCAF 39.78%
SPY 40.68%
JQUA 35.59%
I will fool around with @Observant1 testfpl.io and see what I may be missing.

David,,,,I am only guessing but Detroit might have paid above market just to get anyone who would answer that phone call at 0700. I was hired after my sophomore year and that was only two years after the riots of 67. I earned that 37.50 !