@Level5
Thanks for the well stated post. I agree that much of this comes down to trust, which is a variant of what @fred495 originally expressed as peace of mind.
Your supplemental plan, whether it is NYC's Senior Care or a standard Medigap plan (A-N), is provided by the same "dishonest" insurance companies that provide MA plans. So some trust in these companies is still needed. Though perhaps because less can go wrong with supplemental plans they are easier to trust. Or perhaps seven years of good experience has made your provider more trustworthy.
Not all MA providers are out for profit. Some, like HealthFirst, like the "Blues" that haven't yet gone over to the dark side (switching from not-for-profit to for-profit), aren't driven by making money. Maybe that makes a difference. I don't know. Though I agree that there is something off putting about profiting from, effectively, someone's misery.
For me, I've had more hassles with insurers because of incompetence than because of what motivates them.
Quick example: my SO and I had the same policy, went to the same PCP on the same day, had the same blood test. One of us was charged a $20 copay, the other was charged $0. I recognized this as a coding problem. One had been coded as a lab procedure ($0 copay), the other as a diagnostic test ($20 copay).
The insurer refused to acknowledge that this inconsistency proved that something was wrong. I had to go to the state attorney general's office (they have a special department to handle this stuff) to get the insurer to fix things. On principle.
I did mention last court decision, but dismissed it as nothing substantial: "Nothing new aside from the injunction being sustained on appeal."
With any luck, Adams won't be the one pressing on much longer. Can I say that, or is it too political? :-)

@msf
First, let me say that I enjoy your investment contributions on this site. You take a focused and analytical approach to data, which is well thought-out and clearly outlined. I appreciate it. You have carried that forward in your response to me about MA plans and what they are *required* and *should* provide. For me, there is a trust issue at stake, especially as my wife and I age, requiring more anxiety provoking health services.
My wife and I have been with Traditional Medicare and a medicare supplemental plan over 7 years and have never had to communicate an appeal, request authorization, denied coverage, or received a bill during that time. I can see any doctor who accepts Medicare anywhere in the country. All of these items are advertised as policy for MA Plan.
But what I keep in mind is that all MA Plans are private companies whose overarching principle is to generate profits. That in itself is not a bad thing. I invest my money with companies to generate an income. But I think health care is a different entity completely, and I do not trust that drive for profit in this case.
So I do not dispute what you’ve posted (with one exception - the last court decision was 5/2024; Adams continues to press on). I choose the peace of mind that I’ve experienced with Traditional Medicare and Supplemental plan even though it costs me more in the short term; and even though the supplemental plan increases each year, I know there will be no surprises with accessing the health care, I or my wife needs.
Simply put, it comes down to - “who do you trust?”

@msf @fred495 I am one of those NYC retirees, of which there are over 250,000 of us, represented by multiple unions (firefighters, EMT, teachers, etc). Prior to the MA proposals we had a choice of multiple plans. However, both the first proposal between two private health insurance companies, and the second cobbled together by Aetna, if approved, would have removed any choice, and forced us into the MA plan.
The political and legal shenanigans which took place by the current city administration over the past 2+ years have been repelled in court in multiple cases. This is not “old news.” The Adams administration has continued to appeal the court decisions.
The majority of NYC retirees do not want to lose our choice of health care plans which were part of the hiring package and promise to us, and that access to traditional medicare would always be available to us.
For a review of the history of our struggle to maintain our choice of health services you can visit one of the union sites here: https://psc-cuny.org/whats-happening-retiree-healthcare/
My apologies for going off topic, but the tangential topic of the NYC retirees, issue with health care, required some background info. The reasons for our push-back are already embedded in earlier posts.

You're talking about old news here. I'll have to dredge up old links from when this was new news and I was talking about it with some NYC retirees. As I recall, neither side was being especially honest. And there was an earlier proposal for coverage provided by a joint operating agreement (or some such entity) created by two different insurers.
Most of your post (2+ of 3 paragraphs) talks about how unethical, money hungry the health care insurers are. No argument there. If your position is one of principle, how does that comport with buying Supplemental Medicare insurance from one of these private insurers?
"four of the five largest players – UnitedHealth, Humana, Elevance [formerly Anthem] and Kaiser – have faced federal lawsuits". Can we infer that the fifth in that group of largest players has not faced federal lawsuits? That would be CVS (Aetna), the insurer that NYC planned to use.
https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/medicare-advantage-in-2024-enrollment-update-and-key-trends
"NYC retirees age 65+ and their eligible dependents have ... choices in how they receive their retiree health insurance benefits, with the vast majority of retirees in either HIP VIP HMO, or GHI Senior Care."
https://bplc.cssny.org/blog/nyc-retiree-health-benefits-update
HIP and GHI are insurance brands of EmblemHealth, a large regional health insurance provider. Senior Care is a "supplemental coverage plan that works with Original Medicare. HIP VIP HMO is exactly what it sounds like - an HMO. Since it is an Emblem plan, it is regional and retirees must be living in the NYC area to use it. Retirees (especially ones out of town) can also choose among other HMOs and PPOs.
https://www.nyc.gov/site/olr/health/retiree/health-retiree-choosing-a-health-plan.page
This chart (link below) compares the existing (VIP HMO and Senior Care) plans with the proposed Aetna plan. On features and value, Aetna comes out even or slightly ahead.
https://www.nyc.gov/assets/olr/downloads/pdf/health/aetna-ma-docs/plan-comparison-chart-seniorcare-hip-aetna.pdf
The union members raised many objections, such as: "concerns that retirees will be stuck with a smaller network of providers and larger out-of-pocket costs." The above cited chart says otherwise.
OTOH, the added preauthorization requirement for some procedures would be a real, change, and the only substantial objection that I found credible. The KFF study reports that over 90% of preauthorization requests are granted in full for MA insurers generally.
In court, Aetna submitted figures for its own plans. "According to Aetna, out of more than 82 million claims under its Medicare Advantage plans last year, only 3.4% were subject to prior approval, and 0.49% were denied."
https://gothamist.com/news/aetna-reveals-health-care-denial-rates-in-medicare-advantage-court-case-for-nyc-retirees
That 0.49% may not give you peace of mind, but then again, Original Medicare also denies some procedures.
P.S. When people quote from articles (or even paraphrase) it would be nice if they would cite the articles. The NYTimes article is here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/08/upshot/medicare-advantage-fraud-allegations.html
Regarding Aetna, it says: "The fifth company, CVS Health, which owns Aetna, told investors its practices were being investigated by the Department of Justice." That was two years ago. Any updates?

We are pleased to announce that the Intrepid Small Cap fund is Closing down.
Really ?
How about saying - Do to incompetent management and poor stock selection the Intrepid Small Cap Fund is closing down on November 22, 2024.
The 2 Star, negative rated fund by Morningstar has attracted just 38 million dollars in it's 19 years of operation, not enough to continue operations.

Rick,
Many days my account balances at Schwab are wrong by a few percentage points. I stopped worrying about $$ reflected. I just hope that someone is not salami slicing my accounts slowly because I would not detect it as I do not check the History often. The big corporations have won the game of desensitizing me to their deliberate incompetence.
IBKR patrons talk highly about it. May be it is time to check them out?

I'm really not in a rush to change brokerages and Schwab's been mostly decent otherwise (not as good as the old TDA), but I'll look. It's been ages since I explored IBKR (back when I was futures trading 15 years go) but when I get some time I'll take a gander.

With Traditional Medicare, there are no networks to worry about. My Medigap Plan is "F." But BC/BS of MA has to be special, so they call theirs, "Bronze." after surg and hospitalization a few years ago, I was left with a bigger out of pocket bill than I ever wanted. I swallowed hard and upgraded to Bronze. I got in just under the sunset deadline. The (literally) two bills I've received since were all about doctor's lovely billing offices wanting money before the payments were processed and paid, locally. I called, and in very sweet polite tones, refused to pay. In one case, I was told that payment was already made. So before I hung up, I asked: "Then, how dare you bill me, before you ever heard from my secondary insurer?" Point made.
Every year, the price for "F" goes up a bit. BC/BS plays word games, calling it an annual reduction of the initial discount. Bushwah. Anyhow, since I'm paying so much, I'm deliberately getting a bunch of surgical work done. Along the way, some serious junk was discovered and a few laser treatments have killed the bad stuff. I'm making use of every bit of that policy. Luckily, we can afford the payments. And no bills. Period. That's the biggest benefit. Until this country grows a brain and institutes universal coverage.

We moved on from Tweedy Browne many years ago when we found cheaper alternatives with comparable and often better performance. Currency hedging adds to the expense ratio.
Additionally, value style has lagged growth style in oversea investing.

@BaluBalu: Per SCOTUS ruling many years ago, corporations are considered people, so whatever they 'say' (or cause to be put out there on their platforms) can be considered their 'freedom of expression.'
The bigger problem is that in recent years, facts have been replaced by 'feelings' in the public square and in many people's minds and anyone challenging those 'feelings' (often reinforced in echo chambers online and in the media) becomes the enemy and is not to be believed, let alone acknowledged.
"Don't Look Up" was a brilliant but depressing satire of where this kind of society is heading.

@msf, yes I just signed up to two years of credit monitoring as a result of the Change Healthcare Breach, but prior to that I froze my credit with all 5 credit bureaus that MFO members discussed here in past threads.
Thanks to all for keeping us informed.

AMC was trading near $566 a few years ago....now trades at $4.
Gamestop was trading at $81 a few years ago...now trades at $21.
BBBY traded at $16 a few years ago...now its gone.
DJT was trading as high as $79 this year....but where should it be trading? I believe @rforno's $0.15 would be fair value.
DJT belongs in the meme pile.

Rick, so, it comes down to lack of consequences. The more hacks happen, it seems to give permission to others to spend less time, money, and energy on cybersecurity.
Same issue with misinformation perpetuated by social media companies. Lack of consequences.

Yep. My example is this: If the Equifax data breach, which impacted EVERY CITIZEN (and politician) IN AMERICA didn't spawn meaningful cybersecurity reforms, nothing will. It's like how enough politicians believed the killing of innocent school kids in Sandy Hook with automatic weapons was okay, b/c nothing meaningful has resulted in the aftermath of that (or any number of other) incidents, either. So yes, i am a cynic, both on contemporary cybersecurity and politics.
Making it worse is the recent trend to hold CISOs personally responsible for criminal/civic lawsuits resulting from incidents happening on their watch. This is despite CISOs rarely having the authority, resources, staff, or budget to do anything significant ... they've become high-tech eunuchs of the IT world with all the responsibility but little authority. You couldn't pay me enough to become a CISO/CSO again these days! (Years ago I turned down a nice CSO gig on Wall Street b/c I could tell they just wanted an 'expert' to blame when the inevitable occurred.)
Social media (well media generally) is a slippery slope here, because of the First Amendment. Legally speaking, I 'get' that ... but I also 'get' the need for companies to police genuinely false information and go after accounts that engage in threats. Unfortunately, what one party sees as responsible action taken for the public good, the other side decries as 'censorship' of 'free speech' while simultaneously bleating about shutting places (Google, CBS/ABC News, etc) down for the public good.
Le grade sigh.

Some reported breaches have involved not using encryptions for personal and login info, employees falling for spoofing. This is inexcusable in this day and age.
In fact, many banks and card co now warn that if you fall for spoofing, your losses may not be covered.
But companies will spend big money on cybersecurity when they know that there may be penalties. Otherwise, a breach happens and then they just arrange for 1-2 years of free credit monitoring.
BTW, the Fed and FDIC are warning and monitoring banks on cybersecurity issues.

With so many breaches, if a co did not have a breach, it should really feels left out / unimportant. What is the reason for cybersecurity firms or HACK to exist?
Do only companies that have top trade secrets or companies with social security numbers get hacked?
I notice defense industry and social media companies (or MAG 6) do not seem to get hacked - goes towards YBB point about cybersecurity practices.

Defense industry must comply with DOD cybersecurity requirements in many ways. Plus they have very deep pockets to pay for staff/tools to do the job. And, most if not all DOD contractors don't have 'public facing' systems for business transactions -- other than their informational webpages that don't really tie to anything 'critical.' Anything sensitive is more than likely compartmentalized and not touching any network that touches the outside world.
The MAG 6 also have deep pockets to pay for security staff/tools and are therefore much better positioned than most government agencies and commercial sites of all sizes.
After 30 years in this industry I can tell you the vast majority of cybersecurity incidents are the result of not following best practices that we've preached for DECADES. Sure, there are always new vulnerabilities and such, but even then many times the effects of those can be mitigated if we're just doing good cyber-101 type activities. (don't get me started on this......)

Anytime you make a trade, once a month or once a year, you are a trader, and it doesn't matter if it's 10% or 30%.
After years of trading every 4-6 months, I found out that trading based on current market conditions gives me the best risk/reward. It's the only way to avoid the big losses. Intuition and experience play a huge part of it.

A good preventive that would help protect customers from fraud resulting from data breaches would be for the credit 'agencies' to lock all customer records by default to make it harder for criminals to open accounts in their name.
Unfortunately, letting other companies mine consumer credit records for their own advertising is simply too damn profitable for the credit 'agencies' so it's up to consumers to figure out how to do that -- if they can be bothered.
I locked my accounts at the 5 major 'agencies' several years ago after the OPM breach and didn't look back. Some upsides? No junk mail, preapproved credit card offers, and absolutely zero letters or correspondence from a certain association once as I headed into and crossed a certain age. The only (minor) downside? If you buy a car, get a mortgage, open a new credit card, etc. you need to check which 'agency' does the credit check for that bank/dealer so you can unlock your record at a given 'agency' for a few hours, otherwise the credit check won't go through.

"If one is buying anything other than a passive index, one is a trader regardless of whether your average hold period is 3 months or 3 years or 30 years. You are inherently betting that your pick will perform better than an index from an absolute return OR SWAN perspective."
I respectfully disagree. Active fund vs. passive index fund perfomance does not signify whether or not
someone is a trader. If an investor continuously holds the same active funds for 10 years as an example,
I would not consider him/her to be a trader.

The last few messages on this thread have been very educational, tks to all who contributed. I have a similar system as @FD1000 but have high confidence that I'm much less proficient. That said, I do decent on my goal of beating VWELX (either in absolute returns or better risk adjusted returns).
The below comment from FD1000 hit home because this is exactly what I do every 4 weeks relying heavily on the MFO Premium Screener.
"Lastly, that is an exercise I use. Suppose all my money is in cash, what would be my best 2-3 funds to buy now? The answer is exactly what I do. That releases me from any commitment or being sorry."
My 2c on the topic of "trader" vs. "investor" -- SEC definitions are a moot point. If one is buying anything other than a passive index, one is a trader regardless of whether your average hold period is 3 months or 3 years or 30 years. You are inherently betting that your pick will perform better than an index from an absolute return OR SWAN perspective.

From today's update: "The Leuthold Core Fund's Major Trend Index improved to High Neutral due to better economic readings and bullish technical indicators, overriding high valuations and elevated sentiment. As a result, net equity exposure in the Core fund increased to 55%." 60-65% would be "normal" for them. At base, investors are in a mood to party regardless of the price of the ticket so the model says play along (but watch).
Inflation has ticked down to 2.4% YOY. The fed funds rate was cut, and mortgage rates promptly rose as wannabee buyers flooded the market. The S&P and Dow hit all-time highs. DJT (the stock) is surging. The percentile ranking for ARK Innovation ETF in the last five years is: 1 / 100 / 100 / 1 / 100 with two firsts and three lasts averaging out to 99th percentile for the five-year period. ARKK investors are leaving very slowly. Western Asset investors, not so much: the firm saw $28 billion in outflows in the past month.

Thank you @davidsherman. For me, it's the association that took me aback.
Catalyst, Rational, AlphaCentric all seem like asset gathers. Really high er. Front loads. 12b-1 fees. Multiple share classes.
I came across Szilagyi back in 2017 profiling AlphaCentric Income fund. I absolutely loved Tom Miner and the folks at subadvisor Garrison Point, but I was skeptical of their association with Szilagyi's organization.
An excerpt:
Focusing on IOFIX, the adviser pays 0.33% “other” (mostly administrative and servicing). The remaining 1.16% “management fee” (after a 0.01% acquired fund fee) is then split between AlphaCentric and Garrison Point, or 0.58% each. Since another Jerry Szilagyi company “MFund Services LLC,” also gets paid to manage the overall trust, Szilagyi’s firms appear to receive more fee from the fund than GPC does.
Interestingly, AlphaCentric is listed along with Eventide, Pinnacle and Advisory Research as a strategic partner in a firm called Multi-Funds, which describes itself as “A Premier Marketing, Consulting and Distribution Firm.” While this channel may indeed have helped bring attention to IOFIX, allowing the sub-adviser to focus on its strategy and portfolio management … what it loves to do, Multi-Funds hasn’t helped other funds in the AlphaCentric family achieve anywhere near the assets attracted by IOFIX.
Jerry Szilagyi also runs Catalyst Funds, a collection of “Intelligent Alternatives … We understood that the market did not need another traditional family of mutual funds … we endeavor to offer unique investment products to meet the needs of discerning financial advisers and their clients … specialized strategies seeking to produce income and equity-oriented returns while attempting to limit risk and volatility.” There are 28 Catalyst Funds comprising $6.2B in AUM. Average age just under 5 years. Most come in three classes, including those imposing 4.75% front-loads and 12b-1 fees. Average fees: 1.76% (oldest share class, 2.01% all share classes).
When you stood-up CrossingBridge, it just seemed like a horse of a different color.
You're always 10 steps ahead of everybody else in the room, which puts me 20 steps back and surely missing something.
Or, simply being a Pollyanna.
But Szilagyi's brand also ran into regulatory issues, granted he's in good company, but still:
SEC Charges Portfolio Manager and Advisory Firm with Misrepresenting Risk in Mutual Fund
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against a New York-based investment adviser for misleading investors about the management of risk in a mutual fund. Catalyst Capital Advisors LLC (CCA) and its President and Chief Executive Officer, Jerry Szilagyi, agreed to pay a combined $10.5 million to settle the charges. The SEC also filed a complaint in federal district court in Madison, Wisconsin, against Senior Portfolio Manager, Edward Walczak, for fraudulently misrepresenting how he would manage risk for the fund.
https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2020-21
Fund That Lost $700 Million on Bearish Bets Fined for Misleading Investors
Catalyst Capital Advisors and CEO Jerry Szilagyi settled regulatory probes, will pay $10.5 million
A mutual-fund manager that lost 20% with wrong-way bets against the stock market agreed to pay $10.5 million to settle regulatory claims that it misled investors about its procedures for limiting losses.
Catalyst Capital Advisors LLC and its chief executive, Jerry Szilagyi, settled the regulatory probes Monday without admitting or denying wrongdoing. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission also both filed civil fraud lawsuits against Edward Walczak, the portfolio manager who ran the Catalyst Hedged Futures Strategy Fund.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fund-that-lost-700-million-on-bearish-bets-fined-for-misleading-investors-11580167076
I'll post more later on the Catalyst, Rational, and AlphaCentric families.