I think international ex-USA funds should see more positivity in the future. The only US sector I'm bullish on are utilities.
IMO we are in the early stages of a seismic, but quiet, re-ordering of the global economy over the next 10-15 years. Specifically, I think the world economy and/or money flows will pivot to working WITH (or AROUND) the United States as a partner, not THROUGH the United States as a requirement. Could that become the proverbial 'New World Order'?
The current regime, backed by its complicit Congressional enablers and a history of biparitsan whistling-past-the-gravegard, is showing that America cannot be relied upon anymore as a stable partner in business, economics, markets, defense, etc, etc. Tariff Toddler's on-again, off-again proclaimations are not confidence-building or reassuring other nations, let alone businesses. And then seeing our nation's 'leaders' gleefully adding more to our debt again on the very day our credit rating gets (again) downgraded is just another example of the current folks in DC acting irresponsibly and figuring deep down that the music will never stop.

I took another look at JEPI. While it hasn't been exposed to a bear market, 2022 and 2025YTD have been tough years. JEPI is consistently superior to OEF GATEX (that also uses protective puts) and equivalent allocation 65%SPY + 35%BND; note that Relative SD of JEPI is 0.65 wrt SP500.
For an individual stock, covered-call limits the upside in exchange for the call premium, but doesn't limit the downside. So, something in the fund structure of JEPI is leading to lower volatility. My guesses for reasons include (i) lower equity exposures, (ii) more conservative equity holdings, (iii) upside caps (that trim some volatility), (iv) execution of the options strategies & (v) redeployment of premium & other proceeds (e.g. when the stocks get called away). But I cannot point to a single dominant cause.
Similar observations can be made for JEPQ in relation to QQQ (Nasdaq 100).
https://testfol.io/?s=kRhewIHNMLw

Many years ago I looked into ways of investing in currencies when Fidelity (among others) offered currency funds.
Invesco CurrencyShares® ETFs (e.g. FXE, FXF) are one way to play currencies. The YTD gains reported above include both changes in premium (spread of market price over NAV has increased) and interest (these ETFs can pay interest).
From the M* chart for FXE here the YTD figures are:
NAV (representing currency movement less expenses): +9.47%
NAVwDivs (representing the above plus interest earned): +10.09%
Price (representing NAV gain + increased premium): +9.65%
Price+Divs (representing the above plus interest earned): +10.27%
Thus, interest earned YTD = (10.27% - 9.65%) = (10.09% - 9.47%) = 0.62%.
Compounded to annual yield: 1.0062 ^ (365/144) (days) - 1 = 1.58%
Another way to invest in currency is to open foreign currency accounts at banks. Perhaps the most well known is Everbank. It wasn't competitive when I looked at it years ago and doesn't seem to be competitive now. (It is offering 0.10% APY on a three month Euro CD.) There are other banks that offer foreign currency accounts. The one I remember is Cathay bank.
Dollar weakness seems to be due to worldwide disinvestment in the US attributed to increasing uncertainty in the US generally (regulatory environment, tax regimen, tariffs, etc.). Somewhat counterbalancing this are higher interest rates in the US - the Fed has not reduced rates recently (due to inflation concerns) while other central banks have continued to do so.
WSJ, Why the Fed Isn’t Ready to Join Other Central Banks in Cutting Rates, May 8, 2025.

The Fed cut its benchmark short-term rate by 1 percentage point in the second half of 2024 ... The European Central Bank, meanwhile, has cut its benchmark rate seven times in the last year by a combined 1.75 percentage points. The Bank of England on Thursday cut its benchmark rate to 4.25% from 4.5%. It was the bank’s fourth cut since last summer.

Passive voice in CNBC piece: "are expected". Who is expecting, and why?
The current SEC rules and regulations require funds to seek "exemptive relief" from the SEC. Generally all share classes of a fund must be treated equally. That's not true of ETF shares. Hence the need for relief.
ETF shareholders cannot purchase and redeem shares at NAV (they must trade at market price in a secondary market). There are other inequities as well. When funds seek exemptive relief, they include plans for how they will deal with various differences between the share classes.
https://www.chapman.com/media/publication/15122_IL-0224-Coyle-Pershkow-Warren.pdf
(For those interested in fund mechanics, this is an interesting nine page (plus notes) piece that doesn't get bogged down in legalize. The first few pages are of more general interest, describing the differences between ETF class shares and OEF class shares.)
Another example is brokerage fees. OEF shareholders pay these fees (though they're not included in the ER calculation). They purchase shares for cash which a fund then uses to buy securities, thus incurring brokerage fees. In contrast, authorized participants buy ETF shares with creation baskets of securities already purchased. No brokerage fees involved. There are various ways a fund can deal with this disparity. A request for exemptive relief has to spell this out.
The former acting SEC chairman, Mark Uyeda, "directed staff to prioritize the review of more than fifty applications for relief that had been unprocessed for as long as two years."
https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/2em6tlqjoggjytyhjgjy8/corner-office/etfs-may-become-just-another-share-class-if-sec-approves-dimensionals-latest-regulatory-ask (April 1)
Maybe that's what's supposed to open the floodgates. But Uyeda was appointed back in January. So why the CNBC piece now, and not in January, or a month ago (related to the Uyeda quote above)?
The only thing I see that has happened since then is that Paul Atkins was sworn in as SEC chairman on April 21. He is not expected to change much from what Uyeda was doing. "Chairman Atkins thus has arrived at an already changed agency."
https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/sec-enforcement-20-chairman-atkins-has-arrived
A concern with actively managed ETFs (already discussed in an older thread) is that pragmatically they cannot close to new investment when capacity is reached. So this is something to monitor when purchasing an actively managed ETF. Soon OEF fund investors will also need to monitor capacity if their funds begin to offer ETF class shares.

Outstanding socially responsible article from a leading financial publication. Couldn’t agree more with their conclusions and deep concerns. It occurs to me, however, that the same addictive personalities probably gamble in other ways like day-trading stocks or taking on excessive debt. Delinquencies on auto loans increasing.
A few excerpts:
”Addiction experts say a public-health time bomb is ticking.”
- After four years of back and forth, Kentucky in 2023 passed a bill to legalize sports betting beyond thoroughbred racing. To win over a group of holdouts in the state Senate, lawmakers added a problem gambling assistance account to the legislation. It earmarked 2.5% of the state's new gambling tax revenue to fund workforce training, treatment, and research. The remainder goes to the state's pension fund for public employees.
- DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM were among the gambling firms that advocated for the bill. In total, the industry spent $443,000 lobbying the Kentucky legislature in 2023, state records show. DraftKings was enthusiastic about the bill's passage. In August 2023, the company boosted its revenue outlook for the year, calling out $20 million in new revenue expected from Kentucky in the final three months of the year. Soon after, DraftKings told investors it had signed up more than 5% of Kentucky's adult population within five weeks of going live in the state.
- The betting trend has played out much the same way across the U.S. Americans now wager roughly $150 billion a year on sports, and 48% of American men under 50 have an account on a digital sportsbook at sites like DraftKings, FanDuel, ESPNBet, and BetMGM, according to a Siena College survey.
- The challenge for policymakers trying to regulate gambling is its almost magical benefits to state coffers.
Gambling is "a very effective way to get more state budget without having to raise taxes," says Heather Wardle, a professor of gambling research and policy at the University of Glasgow. Once gambling revenue is supporting pension funds, infrastructure, and other state priorities, Wardle says, "it's very hard to then roll back from that."
- An 11-year study ending in 2016 & found that one in five people with a gambling disorder had attempted suicide. The National Council on Problem Gambling estimates 1% of American adults, or 2.5 million people, meet the criteria. The federal government, which collected roughly $370 million in federal excise tax on sports gambling last year, has no programs in place for that group. The U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, by contrast, has an annual budget of $7 billion.
- "When you think of the Derby, you think of beautiful hats, stately horses, mint juleps, pageantry, pomp and circumstance, and the fun that's involved," Clark says. "You don't think of somebody out back getting ready to shoot themselves because they bet $10,000 on a horse and they're not going to be able to make their house payment."
Personal note: As a long time DraftKings customer my sports bets are limited to less than $1 on average per day and only while actively viewing a game. (Minimum wager is 50-cents.) I am appalled that the site relentlessly and flagrantly “pushes” those who log in to play games of chance like ”Roulette” & ”Black Jack” and to deposit additional sums (usually via debit card). Lord help those who take the bait. Certainly, the article has summoned up reservations about my continued participation on moral grounds.
* Excerpts in italics from: ”America’s Sports Betting Boom Is About to Backfire” - by Nick Devor (Print Ed.) Barron’s - dated May 26, 2025

The main concern with doing simple (straight line) extrapolations is that they assume nothing will change. Businesses will ignore increasing uncertainty in the world, both economic and geopolitical. The markets will keep chugging along.
We've already seen that past is not necessarily prologue. This year (YTD), the FTSE Europe Developed Market All Cap Index (VGK) has outperformed the S&P 1500 (ITOT), 20% to -1% (M* charts). But over the past 10 years (through 2024) the US has outperformed foreign markets, both cumulative and on a calendar year basis (except for 2017 and 2022). See Portfolio Visualizer.
Likewise, value (VTV) leading growth (VUG) by 2% this year is a reversal from the previous 10 years (again with 2022 being an exception).
DODWX and DODFX are fine funds in their categories. Disregarding their somewhat superior performance relative to peers YTD (36th percentile and 47th percentile respectively per M*), their solid YTD returns are due largely to their categories (value and 50% or 100% foreign) having done well.
The question remains: even if foreign equities (and value) continue to outperform domestic (and growth) equities, will they continue to have positive returns?
I'm not one to make macro calls. I'm usually strongly inclined to follow the adage: don't just do something, stand there :-). But even I am looking at the writing on the wall and starting to consider how I would reconstruct my portfolio from scratch if I went substantially to cash now. Fortunately I'm in a position to do that and take the hit (opportunity cost) if I'm wrong and markets go up.
Regarding the "run of the mill" funds:
PRWCX is having one of its poorest performances relative to peers, all the way "down" to the 22nd percentile. Typically growth leaning, it has moved solidly into blend (37% of portfolio is LCBl) suggesting that Giroux also sees the markets moving toward value. (It is also open to investors who have at least $250K total invested at TRP.)
DODBX is having a banner year (4th percentile) relative to peers. Some due to good management & low cost, some due to being very value-oriented. (Allocation funds are not partitioned into value, blend, growth subcategories). Its category average YTD is just 0.73% (M*).
FKIQX likewise may be doing well this year due to its very value leanings. Same category as DODBX.
TRRIX benefits from having over 1/4 of its equity holdings in foreign securities. It is a global moderately conservative allocation fund. Its return is in the middle of its category (47th percentile YTD). Some category peers that have done better YTD, like VGWIX and FAFWX, have value leaning portfolios as contrasted with TRRIX's blend holdings. Again these illustrate the growth-value reversal this year.
I'll leave the remaining two funds to others.

The next time a democrat is elected what stops them from closing all these things down and redirecting the money like is happening now with green initiatives, infrastructure etc... ? It's the price of such a divided country, wasting money on the others priorities rather than figuring out where to compromise for the good of the nation. Spend a lot on X then the next admin shuts that down and spends on Y. Back and forth. There has to a lot of waste in that.

Yes, I see what you mean. Polarized politics. There used to be a reasonableness, dealing with those across the aisle. Republicans are all but extinct; it's all Repugnants in charge by now. And the Demublicans have been actually tacking to the Right since the Clinton years, apart from the Woke Squad. (Though Obamacare is a positive development.) The Orange One is clearly a usurper. Hopefully, some semblance of normalcy will return when he's done. Is he dead yet?
*DUPLICATE. Dunno how that happened.

The next time a democrat is elected what stops them from closing all these things down and redirecting the money like is happening now with green initiatives, infrastructure etc... ? It's the price of such a divided country, wasting money on the others priorities rather than figuring out where to compromise for the good of the nation. Spend a lot on X then the next admin shuts that down and spends on Y. Back and forth. There has to a lot of waste in that.

Yes, I see what you mean. Polarized politics. There used to be a reasonableness, dealing with those across the aisle. Republicans are all but extinct; it's all Repugnants in charge by now. And the Demublicans have been actually tacking to the Right since the Clinton years, apart from the Woke Squad. (Though Obamacare is a positive development.) The Orange One is clearly a usurper. Hopefully, some semblance of normalcy will return when he's done. Is he dead yet?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/trump-bill-house-republicans-pass-what-know-rcna208488
A debt limit hike
"The bill is projected by the CBO to add $2.3 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years, with the tax breaks and new expenditures far outweighing the savings.
It also raises the debt ceiling by $4 trillion ahead of a summer deadline announced by the Treasury Department for Congress to act or risk a catastrophic default. "
Oh, and he wants his name on the tax accounts for Children for which folks receive a lousy $1K (bold added):
Trump accounts
"The measure creates new tax-preferred savings accounts for children that the federal government seeds with a $1,000 deposit. Parents could then contribute an additional $5,000 annually until the child is 18. The money can be used for educational purposes, for a down payment for a home or to start a small business.
The original version of House Republicans' legislation called them "MAGA" accounts, but after an eleventh-hour amendment, they were renamed 'Trump" accounts."

Thanks @Old_Joe
Watching the Senate now, eh?
I'll add this for now for whomever one may consider the words apply to; today, in 6 months or 2 years or ???
CRAZY

although trump would happily take credit for the ~200 years of american exceptionalism, and MAGA would grant it to him, i was simply repeating the 'logic' used by the gop during the prior credit downgrade and notably absent this time around.
too subtle i guess.

“i don't disagree with gop of 2011 regarding most recent credit downgrade, in particular "...has destroyed the credit rating of the United States through his failed economic policies...".
Yes - One man in just 4 months in office has completely destroyed the credit rating of a nation that has stood for 248 years, weathered a civil war and emerged victorious from two world wars, survived the great depression, sent men to the moon and back, developed the Space Shuttle, launched Hubble and James Webb, explored Mars, pioneered the technical revolution, has an economy which at $29 trillion GDP is 5 times the size of its nearest competitor Japan and an annual budget in excess of $3 trillion. In just 4 months in office a single man has completely destroyed this nation’s credit rating.
Makes perfect sense to me.

For now, yields on long bonds are rising quickly. 20 years treasury is being auction today with 5.0 % yield, an all time high. If the sale does not go well, it will be messy tomorrow. Bond traders are not so happy with the increased deficit from this tax cut bill. If bond market goes, so does the stock market. So we are watching closely.
Edits: From CNBC at market close:

The bill could increase the U.S. government's debt by trillions and raise the deficit at a time when fears of a flare-up in inflation due to Trump tariffs are already weighing on bond prices and boosting yields.
The 30-year Treasury bond yield jumped again Wednesday to hit 5.09%, touching the highest level going back to October 2023. The benchmark 10-year Treasury note yield traded at 4.59%.

I do not have alternate access to M* Portfolio Manager but still have free access from years ago.
You're correct - Morningstar Investing Center does not provide access to Portfolio Manager via the library.

Bought starter in BKSY as a defense play and possible acquisition target.
Currently stalking a few international utilities and thinking of re-entering AES @ 10.

My experience with

ENIC (Enel Chile) was rather a disaster. Just thought I'd mention it.

I avoid LatAm companies for precisely that reason - I got burned hard w/Petrobras years ago.
For starters I'm looking at E.ON and Engie in Europe.

Are you referring to M* Portfolio Manager?
IIRC, I gained access to Portfolio Manager after creating a free account on the M* website years ago.
Multiple watchlists for various fund categories were created via the tool and are still monitored today.
The main purpose of these watchlists is to compare trailing returns within fund categories.
Note: I don't use Portfolio Manager to monitor the value of my current portfolio.

This inflation issue has been tossed around (flogged to death) repeatedly here and at FA and everywhere else over the years.
Some believe the govt. numbers adequately reflect inflation. Many dispute them. There are many variables that enter in. What state / city do you live in? How old are you? Home owner or renter? Taxes where you reside. Even the “official” CPI has undergone revision over the years. So, I was simply trying to get a rough idea of how far a dollar might go today vs 25 years ago. Nothing precise necessary. Just a rough idea. All inflation calculators are valuable and welcome here if people want to share others.
As I said earlier, our lifestyles are much different today than 25 years ago. Cars and homes today are loaded with electronics that didn’t exist 25 years ago. Think what that does to automobile repair / replacement costs and insurance rates. So, even the “same” purchasing power you had 25 years ago may not afford you the “same” lifestyle in today’s world.
Try to find a new or used car today without airbags, rear view camera, side-view mirrors or air conditioning.

”Many institutions have (or had) a rule that they could only invest in securities rated AAA by at least two of the big three NRSROs.”
- What AAA options still exist for these money managers? Some other foreign countries? Some large corporations? I’m not aware there are corporations with better credit quality than the U.S. govt. But may well be wrong here.
- Also raises an interesting question re holders of zero coupon treasuries sold by certain funds. The underlying premise of those holdings would seem to be undermined.
(I wish to note that I’m not faulting the Trump administration. Sure, some of their recent actions may have contributed to / exacerbated the loss of faith in the government’s ability to repay debt. But the debt issue has been known / discussed for many years, if not for decades. It’s much more complex than the sound-bites emanating from either party or from pundits - whose views vary greatly - adequately address.)

Hi hank, I don't know how I could use the calculator to do the math on fluctuating annual investment returns, and that isn't the intention. It's CPI based data only.
This calculator is very good and simple. I posted this a few years ago. However, this is for forward assumptions and returns. It is set with default numbers that one can replace for their own numbers. It's fun to play with.
Side note: I traveled round trip from NYC to Luxembourg for $400 in 1973. I don't how that compares to prices today; but that was a hell of a lot of money at the time. And as you note, market places vary a lot depending on the product or service.

Results of the 2 calculators seem pretty close. Thanks Catch. Were I to believe this nonsense, my accrued savings / investments are worth more in buying power today than when I retired 25+ years ago, despite generous withdrawals for all sorts of things over that time.
No way, Jose!
Some thoughts why one might feel poorer today than 25 years ago despite having the equivalent amount of “purchasing power”
- Look at the quality of and features on new cars today compared to 1998. In the case of trucks, a late 90s pickup bears little resemblance to the big rigs of today. My last 2 new cars had limited self-driving features, anti-collision systems, larger wheels & tires than common 25 years ago for better driving. Plus much more in the way of entertainment / navigation features.
- The cost for the data we consume today for streaming video, audio, cellphones and the like. Few possessed cellphones or internet connectivity in the 90s.
- We take air travel for granted today. In the 90s air travel was more limited. There were fare wars as I recall that kept costs lower. (I actually date back to before wheeled luggage appeared. We carried our hefty luggage!)