Did you rant with the same passion about the rich 1-2-3-4-10 years ago?
Let's hear why it was better in that period.
The rich get richer is old news.
From memory, an average CEO used to make 30 times their average employee, it's over 300 times for years.
Our politicians are great at spending money if they want to get elected.
The US was downgraded already in 2011.
Please save me the tears, Dems policies are great, GOP are evil.
Another thread that discuss politics and policies without current investment applications.
I don't need to explain my people, I don't have people, I voted for both parties and what I do with my own money or my contributions is irrelevant.

You may be getting misled by its extremely short history. Eyeballing its performance graph at M*, it looks like it tracked the entire (20 fund) category pretty closely. That is, the 1.6 std dev is not something special for this fund, but rather it is typical of the whole category over this short time span.
Here's a Portfolio Visualizer comparison of MMNIX with two other relative value arbitrage funds. The other two funds, LEOIX and PSCAX have had no negative months in the same 16 month span.
LEOIX does have a slightly higher std dev (1.7), but has a 12.05% annualized return vs. 9.63% for MMNIX. This results in a Sharpe ratio of 3.76 vs. 2.75 for MMNIX.
PSCAX has a lower std dev of 1.45, but one pays for that with a lower annualized return of 8.23% and a lower Sharpe ratio of 2.16.
If you want to get a sense of what to expect from this fund over a significant period of time, you could look at how these other funds performed. Over ten years, they've each returned 3.9% annually, give or take a few basis points (per Fidelity).
One doesn't need to look at alternatives for funds that offer a smooth a ride and decent performance. Here's a Fidelity comparison of PRFRX with LEOIX and PSCAX. PRFRX has outperformed PSCAX over 3, 5, and 10 years with a similar 3 year std dev. Its performance longer term is comparable to LEOIX with a 3 year std dev that's about 1/3 lower. And half the cost (ER) of both.

"The coddled, spoiled, under-taxed wealthy have effectively been cannibalizing the rest of us for many years."
H'mmm... some good points. I wonder if maybe ol' FD fits in there someplace? That might account for his silence here.

“Over the next decade, we expect larger deficits as entitlement spending rises while government revenue remains broadly flat,” said Moody’s. “In turn, persistent, large fiscal deficits will drive the government’s debt and interest burden higher. The US’s fiscal performance is likely to deteriorate relative to its own past and compared with other highly rated sovereigns.”
The coddled, spoiled, under-taxed wealthy have effectively been cannibalizing the rest of us for many years. Extension of the 2017 tax cut will simply accelerate that process. Current federal "leadership" in all three branches of gummint have created of s-hole country here already. On the current trajectory, we'll just slide deeper into the toilet. Misguided public priorities, misappropriated money, and the LACK of public funds available show up in so many ways: still no universal medical coverage. Still, we have antiquated mass transit. Still, the schools graduate kids who can't read and function and think. If there is a single decent lesson to be learned from the current regime, it's that gov't no longer is actually responsive to people's needs--- but not because there is some weird-ass "deep state" conspiracy.

As I wrote before, Moody's is late to the party. In that sense, Bessent is correct that Moody's is a lagging indicator. However, Moody's is also correct that there has been an "increase over more than a decade in government debt and interest payment ratios to levels that are significantly higher than similarly rated sovereigns.”
The "more than a decade" that Moody's is looking at started in 2013 when Congress, with bipartisan support, made the Bush tax cuts permanent.
Right through 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was projecting declining debt through 2037 (25 years).

Under the extended baseline scenario, which generally adheres closely to current law, federal debt would gradually decline over the next 25 years—from an estimated 73 percent of GDP this year to 61 percent by 2022 and 53 percent by 2037. ...
...
The budget outlook is much bleaker under the extended alternative fiscal scenario, which maintains what some analysts might consider “current policies,” as opposed to current laws. Federal debt would grow rapidly from its already high level, exceeding 90 percent of GDP in 2022.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/43288
In 2013, after making the Bush tax cuts permanent, the CBO offered this outlook:

CBO produced an extended baseline for this report that extrapolates those projections through 2038 (and, with even greater uncertainty, through later decades). Under the extended baseline, budget deficits would rise steadily and, by 2038, would push federal debt held by the public close to the percentage of GDP seen just after World War II—even without factoring in the harm that growing debt would cause to the economy.
...
[U]nder the assumptions of the extended baseline, CBO projects [b]y 2038, the deficit would be 6½ percent of GDP, larger than in any year between 1947 and 2008, and federal debt held by the public would reach 100 percent of GDP, more than in any year except 1945 and 1946. With such large deficits, federal debt would be growing faster than GDP, a path that would ultimately be unsustainable.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44521
Moody's did not pull "over a decade" out of a hat because a decade sounds like a nice round number. It started at 2013 for a reason. And now, even without extending the Trump tax cuts, CBO is projecting deficits to run around about 6.1% of GDP annually over the next decade. That's not much less than 6½ and likewise unsustainable.

And the knowledge gained in all things financial over the years has allowed us to award our own degrees in 'economics' to ourselves. :) We've been able to share and pass along the knowledge. Compound, compound, compound !!!

Yes. I’ve learned so much from the highly capable informed investors here over the years.
And a plug for The Humble Investor by Daniel Rasmussen which @Observant1 shared here recently. I listen to the audio book most nights. His take isn’t mainstream. His idea of smart investing is to avoid whatever’s been hot and seek out underappreciated areas. And he admits that it hasn’t worked that well in recent years. But an interesting conversation nonetheless.
I infer from Rasmussen that he perceives a lot of bubbles, especially in the private equity area - but late night listening isn’t always accurate and he’s pretty subtle.

I've been active on several investment sites for over 15 years, and MFO stands out as one of the best.
It’s a unique platform with valuable insights, thoughtful discussions, and a long-standing community. Unfortunately, it's also the only investment site I’ve seen where political posts—by a huge margin from one side of the aisle—have hijacked the conversation and driven incivility to the forefront. No other investment forum I follow has experienced this to the same extent.
This site has been read and respected by hundreds over the years. Every few weeks, I make an effort to help bring back the original spirit of MFO—an investment-focused space grounded in respectful, insightful dialogue.

Moody's downgrade of U.S. government debt is kind of a non-event.
The other two major credit rating agencies already downgraded this debt years ago.
However, we should heed Moody's rationale.
Here is their rationale, in part:
"Over more than a decade, US federal debt has risen sharply due to continuous fiscal deficits.
During that time, federal spending has increased while tax cuts have reduced government revenues.
As deficits and debt have grown, and interest rates have risen,
interest payments on government debt have increased markedly."
"Without adjustments to taxation and spending, we expect budget flexibility to remain limited,
with mandatory spending, including interest expense, projected to rise to around 78%
of total spending by 2035 from about 73% in 2024. If the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is extended,
which is our base case, it will add around $4 trillion to the federal fiscal primary
(excluding interest payments) deficit over the next decade."
"Underpinning the rating is our assumption that the US' institutions and governance will not materially weaken,
even if they are tested at times. In particular, we assume that the long-standing checks and balances
between the three branches of government and respect for the rule of law will remain broadly unchanged. In addition, we assess that the US has capacity to adjust its fiscal trajectory,
even as policy decision-making evolves from one administration to the next."

Hi @Mark Thank you.
Total Return link is interesting and useful.
We've always performed simple math for inflation and eventual taxation of our investments and what the 'real return' will become.
In the pre-internet days with access to data via the WSJ and Baron's, I used 5% for annual inflation impact to be ahead of the curve (hopefully). The was during the period of some very serious inflation for many of we 'older' investors.
However, equity/bond investing has provided more than the bank/cu accounts so many folks have used for many years. And the knowledge gained in all things financial over the years has allowed us to award our own degrees in 'economics' to ourselves. :) We've been able to share and pass along the knowledge.
Compound, compound, compound !!!
Remain curious,
Catch

yes, crypto crime utility has many years of growth ahead, boosted with support by politicians and traditional institutions that want a cut of transactions..
criminal 'B2B' volume dwarfs all other activity, and probably most nations' currency.

Treasury yields rise as expected from Moody's downgrade on Monday, May 19, 2025. 30 years yield rose over 5.0%, all time high for the year.
https://cnbc.com/2025/05/19/us-treasury-yields-moodys-downgrades-us-credit-rating.html

Jason Zweig believes alternative assets do not belong in 401(k)s.
"Whether we’re talking about a smaller firm like Redwood or the giants of alternative investing,
the same rule applies: Assets that don’t trade every day aren’t low risk just because they don’t trade every day.
And, until costs come down and conflicts of interest are ironed out, stuffing private assets inside a fund
that does trade every day is a rotten idea for retirement savers."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/this-new-investing-idea-isn-t-right-for-your-retirement-plan/ar-AA1EUSqV

Other than TIAA RE, which has proven itself over the years, I think Jason is spot-on correct, as I mentioned earlier. The average person is not in a position to research (or understand) the nuances and intracasies of illiquid investments ... heck, most people have no idea about things like 'fundamentals' or 'moats' or whatnot when it comes to just buying *stocks*.

"Lagging." Grinning, here. Is that meant to reassure? Or admit to the fact that our debt burden has been astronomical for MANY years? So, we're totally screwed.

Nice chart @bee / Pretty bubbles. I didn’t realize Franklin is so high. Must be their legacy OEFs. Their etfs are quite reasonable. One good one I’ve held before is LVHI which continues to ”shoot the lights out.” I track it expecting it to falter - but it hasn’t.
I wonder if fees become less significant with age? Yes, at 35 years of age with 30 years until one begins pulling IRA distributions a tenth or quarter of a point is a big deal due to the long term compounding. No argument. But for a 75 or 80 year old picking a fund (often hybrid types designed to hedge risk) I’m not so sure fees are a big deal. OTHO if that 75 year old is investing only in short term credit or cash, I suppose a quarter point is still a big deal.

Anent the fantasy of US "reindustrialization," Krugman today:
The economy changes over time, and so do the industries in which people work. A century and a half ago, despite rising industry, America was still largely a nation of farmers; today hardly any of us work on the land:
Oh, and many, possibly a majority of farm workers are foreign-born, with many of them undocumented.
You don’t hear a lot of nostalgia for the days when agriculture dominated employment, although some politicians still portray rural areas and small towns as the “real America.” (If you ask me, Queens, New York comes a lot closer to being who we are now.)
There is, however, a lot of nostalgia for the 1950s and 1960s, when more than a quarter of U.S. workers were employed in manufacturing. Income inequality was much lower in that era; many blue-collar workers considered themselves middle-class. And there’s a widespread narrative that
(a) attributes those good times for workers to the availability of well-paid jobs in manufacturing, and
(b) attributes the relative decline of manufacturing to outsourcing and trade deficits.
But is this narrative right? It’s a simple, compelling story, but as I tried to explain to Clinton all those years ago, the math doesn’t work. To preview the conclusions: Even if we could somehow eliminate our trade deficit (which Trump’s tariffs won’t do, but that’s another story), America wouldn’t reindustrialize — our manufacturing sector would be slightly bigger, but nothing like what it used to be. And any wage gains for ordinary workers would be trivial at best. ...

Thanks @yogibearbull. Nuveen’s “CEF Connect” site does display not only the chart view but also the actual gain / loss for NAV and price in table form. 20 years appears to be the max allowed. I just needed to dig deeper. . M*’s chart wouldn’t work when I tried it. Refused to lock in both start and end dates selected.
We are fortunate to have participated in the 07-09 financial disaster - in the sense a lot can be learned from the experience. 17-18 consecutive “down” months doesn’t sound like a long time until you’re experiencing it.

Make if Off topic, but a lot of this has significant investment implications.
Methinks there should be more facts of the Middle East trip, for one. Barron's reports today that Trump canceled all of the in place limitations on those countries transferring to China or facilitating China's use of the high end NVDA chips. Any connection to Patel, Wise and Bondy previous lobbying fro Middle Eastern nations? Why does this or the other severe cuts to cyber security and national security staff and funding make any sense?
A Chinese firm with no revenue linked to Tik-Tok somehow bought $300 million of Trump's coin. If this is not a bribe, I don't know what is.
Moody's just cut USA credit rating.
The facts about the cuts to cancer, Alzheimer's and other biomedical research are undeniable, and will have significant negative implications on USA biotech and health companies and on your and your family's health.
https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-insiders-trump-dismantling-and-destroying-everything#
30% of research grants have been cut, in some cases many more. These are not "DEI" grants as MAGA claims. These are basic research into the mechanism of diseases and cures and into individual susceptibilities.
RFK lies in public claiming " no working scientist" was fired when the heads of at least four Research Institutes were terminated, along with hundreds of scientific personnel.
https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-proposes-massive-nih-budget-cut-and-reorganization
The 2026 Trump budget proposal is seeking to cut $33.3 billion in discretionary funding for HHS, representing a 26.2 percent reduction compared to the fiscal 2025 budget.
This includes a $3.6 billion reduction in discretionary funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an $18 billion reduction ( 37 to 45% ) for the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Never before have the major Government health institutions been lead by people (even if they have an MD) who have never seen a patient and who do not have medical licenses, much less people who not only know nothing about science and medicine and research but who endorse views and beliefs about science and medicine that have not been accepted since the 18th century or earlier.
While some on this board may think research funding is a spigot that can be turned on easily, I know better, having spent my career in medical practice and research. I have sat on NIH review boards determining which grants get funded. These research labs have taken years and decades to put together, with dozens of specialized staff. They have made the US the envy of the world in biomedical research and medical treatments.
No more. Many of our best people are leaving for Canada, Ireland, UK and Europe where they are assured the funds they need will be there.

At Observant1. I took note of the fact that D&C Global has out performed their domestic bond fund DODIX for all periods going back ten years.

Over the past several months, we’ve seen hundreds—if not thousands—of “on-fire” opinions from posters, pundits, and even Nobel Prize-winning economists. Many insisted these issues were directly tied to the markets.
Among the loudest claims:
• The economy is in shambles.
• Inflation is going to destroy us.
• The stock market is doomed.
• Tariffs will be disastrous for consumers and the markets.
• The southern border can’t be secured, and violent criminals can’t be arrested.
• Boeing is finished.
• Anything going wrong in the U.S. is Trump’s fault.
The Reality:
• The S&P 500 is up—positive performance for the year.
• The economy is stable. Nothing major has collapsed.
• Inflation has declined from 3% to 2.3%. Employment remains solid.
• The southern border is more secure than it has been in years, and many violent criminals have been apprehended.
• U.S. businesses have been and continue accelerating their shift away from China.
• Tariffs, as any reasonable observer would note, were a bargaining chip. The U.K. signed a deal. Others are negotiating. If India signs, it will be a significant milestone. The EU is finally engaging seriously. In the next several months you will see more. Any agreement where the US gets a better deal is a win. It doesn’t matter if it’s 5%, 10% or more. The US is like Amazon or Apple; you pay to sell your merchandise or software.
• China remains a complex challenge, but no one expected a quick fix. Even if an agreement came, skepticism would still be warranted. The broader focus is shifting global trade relationships while collaborating with others.
• The U.S. has seen a surge of private and foreign investment that are fueling job growth, innovation, and opportunity across every corner of the country https://www.whitehouse.gov/investments/
• The Middle East trip was a huge success, more business, and hopefully regional realignment is underway.
• The US brokered a ceasefire fire between India and Pakistan.
• Boeing has secured billions in new business.
• A deal was signed with Ukraine for access to minerals, hydrocarbons, and infrastructure development.
What to Expect from the Left:
• Denial of progress.
• Minimization of any agreement.
• Distractions, instead of cooperation on long-standing shared priorities.
• Focusing on trivial issues while ignoring major developments.
For example, the outrage over Jamal Khashoggi’s killing becomes the headline—while major diplomatic breakthroughs in the Middle East go ignored. Uniting the region against Iran, China, and Russia; increasing U.S. business opportunities; lowering oil prices; and cutting off funds to terrorism and war—those are significant outcomes.
Let’s not forget:
• Who brokered the Abraham Accords?
• Who dismantled ISIS?
The “on-fire” posts will likely continue for years.
The conclusions:
* We should go back and discuss investments.
* Politics and worries don’t have a high correlation to our portfolios and why we should disregard them.
* Your political side can’t be always right, and the other side can’t be always evil and wrong. Why the nonstop 110% on-fire outrage ranting and name-calling? People lose the ability to tell what’s truly serious.