Thank you again. Similar forecast on future return have been posted but Schwab provided detail analysis that others lack. What can income investors do with negative returns in coming years?
By the way, I congratulate you to find time to take more college class? Your knowledge on these financial matter really shows that contributed to the depth of discussion on this board. Thank you.

“Grantham for all his long term predictions does not invest his funds in line with his predictions.“
A legitimate point. But I don’t invest according to my own predictions either. Does anyone?
Prediction does not = certainty. So some humility as investors is appropriate. What I attempt to do is tilt things in the direction I think will reduce overall portfolio risk while achieving best hoped for results under varying market environments. Not a perfect science. And beyond the scope of this discussion - except that philosophically it might help understand Grantham’s seeming hypocrisy. What may not be apparent in the list of Grantham’s investments (linked below) are derivatives he may have employed which are designed to offset losses in down markets.
One thing that set me to thinking about all this was Dodge and Cox’s revelation in a recent portfolio report (for DODBX) that they hold a 5% short position in the S&P, which they think highly overvalued, while continuing to invest in the stocks they find attractive. Quite an unusual step for this very conservative house.
And this from T.Rowe Price’s May 31 Annual Report for their Spectrum Allocation funds …
“As we look ahead, the central question for investors—assuming the economy’s recovery from the pandemic continues apace—is whether the returns on financial assets will be as robust. Valuations are elevated in nearly all asset classes, and in some areas, there are clear signs of speculation. It is not an easy environment to invest in, but our investment teams remain rooted in company fundamentals and focused on the long term, and they will continue to apply strong fundamental analysis as they seek out the best investments for your portfolio.” https://prospectus-express.broadridge.com/summary.asp?doctype=ann&clientid=trowepll&fundid=77957L302
Note: The above was written 6 months ago. Can we say valuations are better now than they were than? And the “signs of speculation” less apparent?
Grantham’s Top Investments

I fearlessly predict that the markets will make a major move sometime. Subscribe to my financial advice bulletin to find out exactly what and when! Be an insider! You wont regret it!

I predict that the markets will fluctuate.
Money back guarantee if not satisfied!

I fearlessly predict that the markets will make a major move sometime. Subscribe to my financial advice bulletin to find out exactly what and when!
Be an insider! You wont regret it!

Agree. If you do not trust either financial institution with the password of the other, why give them ur money. This made linking two banks very easy and with Zelle, some transfers between two banks is instantaneous. The difficulty with Vanguard process is that it wants you to share login credentials with a third party.

I have encountered requests to enter login info for financial institution when trying to link 2 financial institutions (neither Vanguard).
It is a newer technology.
Remember the old way that some institutions still follow? 2 tiny deposits were made and you were asked to find those and enter to validate? That took 3-5 days. Then a hard-link was established between the institutions.
This newer way is real-time. You enter login info, which remains encrypted (and not stored by anyone), but is used to generate coding for hard-link between the institutions. And that hard-link would continue to work (until cancelled) even if you changed your login info. If you don't trust either financial institution for this linking process, why would you give your money to them?
Of course, the old-old way is the paper way with Signature Guarantee (same as Medallion Signature Guarantee) from bank or brokerage - Notary is NOT accepted. Then you mail all this and keep fingers crossed that the mail is not lost or stolen.

TRP is trying to get some of their bigger investors away from the online mutual fund supermarkets so they can reduce the amount of their management fees they have to pay to Fidelity, Schwab, etc.
For several years I've considered returning our accounts directly to TRP out of loyalty and appreciation for the excellent investment management our accounts have received through PRWCX and Giroux. Around 80% of our investments are in TRP funds (primarily PRWCX). I moved our accounts first to TDA and now at Schwab, why should they be getting a big chunk of the management fees, what are they adding to our investment returns in those funds?
But, up until now there has been no personal financial incentive otherwise to make the move back to TRP. Now that the new Summit program has dramatically lowered the hurdle to access institutional shares ($50,000 rather than $1 million) at the lower ER and also gives access to closed funds like PRNHX, I'm seriously considering making the move. Any non-TRP funds we want to invest in can still be done so through a TRP brokerage account. Being able to park our investments in the institutional shares will potentially add TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to our returns over the next number of decades if we are blessed to live that long.
I've wondered why more fund shops haven't followed the lead of organizations like Grandeur Peak who will let shareholders purchase the cheaper institutional shares at far lower minimums if they invest directly with the fund rather than through brokers. Kudos to TRP for finally coming around.
Please let me know if I am overlooking something here.

@Old_Joe
I retired in 2019 after 40 years in primary care medical practice, both self employed and as an employee.
When I was self employed, my livelihood and the salaries of all of our employees depended on the knowledge and expertise of the billing staff, who worked long hours to get us every dollar they could out of the insurance companies. Despite many hours talking to them, I still do not understand medical billing. We paid these folks good salaries to sit on the phone for hours and wrangle with other staff at Blue Cross for example, over $15 or $20. But we figured if they spent 30 minutes collecting $50 we were ahead of the game.
A lot of physicians don't bother, or hire a billing service, who just tries once. In primary care, however, the margins are so thin ( our overhead never dropped below 55%) every dollar counted.
I think we would have been better off charging $50 a visit, cash. We would have needed far fewer staff, but it was unclear ( and I could never get an answer) if we didn't take insurance, if our patients would have had any of their tests or prescriptions covered. That is where the real costs in health care are, not doctor's salaries, especially primary care.
Once I joined a hospital owned practice, it was their problem, but I can tell you collections and efficiency fell off the cliff.
It is in the financial interest of the insurance companies to make this as complicated as possible, as they live off of the 25% America spends on administrative expenses. Highest in the world!

“ There is a lot of fear mongering ….. Those are worthwhile discussions to have.”
Nicely put. Thanks for the detailed analysis @LewisBraham
I try to read as much of the popular financial press as I can - by no means a comprehensive amount. But what often surfaces in these analyses is: (1) Central banks (notably the Fed) do not want to tank the markets. (2) They do, however, want to curb speculation. Unfortunately, there’s emerged over the years a certain amount of conflict there. When they do attempt to tighten (slow speculation) the equity markets become turbulent and fall or threaten to fall. “Taper tantrum” is the phrase often used. (3) This conflict leads (it seems invariably) to stage #3 in which the central banks / Fed “cave” to the markets and loosen the reins again. Repeat the process. Market players understand the game.
So now after years (decades?) of monetary stimulus we sit at near 0 short term rates with the Fed still buying bonds (albeit at a reduced rate) and talking obliquely about needing to further stimulate until “full employment” is reached. (Have you tried having your home roofed or painted lately?) Meanwhile, the markets march merrily along, The question left unanswered is - What further can the Fed and central banks do to keep the magic market money wheel churning next time the economy and / or stock market begins to shudder? What happens to those elevated asset prices when the stimulus runs out and people begin to realize the tank is empty?
One pundit I follow expects that coming inflation will force the bond market to take control - irregardless of Fed policy. In other words, faced with growing losses of purchasing power bond investors will sell en mass, forcing rates higher and eventually toppling stocks. I don’t necessarily siubscribe to this view, But think it’s one (of many) worth considering.

I don't care if an active fund tracks an index on the upside, but I do care if it tracks an index on the downside. The SPY lost like 38% in the GFC while PRBLX was down only 22. I'll take positioning & performance like that anyday.

From M* PRILX Fund Analyst Report:
"Downside protection has been a strength for this
fund’s focused, roughly 40-stock portfolio. Since
Ahlsten became a manager on the fund, the strategy
has outperformed the S&P 500 in every market
correction, including the 2007-08 financial crisis, 2018’s
end-of-year pullback, and early 2020’s pandemic-driven
sell-off. One reason for that is that almost all holdings
have narrow or wide Morningstar Economic Moat
Ratings. While the fund typically lags in the ensuing
rallies, the managers have shown skill in picking up
depressed names that have proved beneficial in the
rebound."

Your comment above has (not surprisingly) more intelligence and substance and less unhinged alarmism than the Roth guff.
At least until you get to the '50% fall' and 'important question' parts. :)
I did not say anything about Zweig.
The article is stupid because of what it says:
Try to imagine what would happen if stocks lost 70% and stayed down for years.
What useful or actionable comes from such imagining? To anyone?
And what would have been the conditions for such? Asteroid? Worse plague?
I’m pretty certain that you’d feel a lot of regret ...
Jeez louise.
I do recognize that anxiety-churning is a major motive for journalism and especially financial journalism. But Roth is juvenile even by today's standards of mega-fret-mongering.

"Good"? A preposterous fright article seems more like it. Zero substance.
(And ... teddys include 2.5y and 1.5y dips?)
What would cause a protracted bear market? Fundamentals (overvalued) aside, if the market fell as he scarily suggests is possible but without giving reasons, the buying eventually (pretty soon) would be astonishing in its quickness, as quick as or quicker than the selling.
Q: Who here would use a financial advisor who told you with a straight face:
"... just recently, the Japanese stock market recovered from its 1989 high—that’s 30 years! If you think that can’t happen here, I suggest you rethink your position—and I’d do it sooner rather than later"
"Try to imagine what would happen if stocks lost 70% and stayed down for years. It might mean things like:
You cannot afford to send your kids and grandkids to college. In fact, you need to take back those college 529 accounts you set up for them.
You must sell that vacation house even though the market is quite depressed.
You must either sell your home or take out a reverse mortgage to have cash to live on.
You must figure out how to cut your monthly expenditures in half even though you say only 20% is discretionary. Maybe one of the kids will let you live with them?
Embrace the pain you would feel. Even if you didn’t need to cut things out, I’m pretty certain that you’d feel a lot of regret if you were heavily in stocks and lost more than half of your net worth."
" ... protect your financial independence from a bear market that doesn’t resemble the last three. "
... "I’m afraid of grizzly bears—they are fierce!"
Booga and boo!
Worthless. Is there a point? A plan? Ah: bond ETFs? Got it. Yeah, that'll work.
Maybe he just meant to say Don't use levered equity ETFs. That person he met in the lede made him lose his mind. I sure hope he did not get paid any folding money for writing this.

A new way to keep up with the latest hot stocks....

...a free list of the top 10 traded securities will be updated daily with data from the previous day, New York-based Nasdaq said in a statement Thursday....“We aim to level the playing field and make data, and by extension, the financial markets, more transparent and accessible to all.”

Retail-Trading Tracker

PDF
"In doing their outreach to "domestic and international policymakers, academics, community groups, and others" (financial and business sector actors), most respondents were concerned with the interactions of several categories of risk:
° a worsening of the pandemic,
° a sudden surge in interest rates,
° a significant reduction in the pace of the ongoing economic recovery,
° risks emanating from China, other EMEs, and Europe."

There is a write up beginning on page 18 of the FRB Assessment that focuses on Retail Investors, Social Media, and Equity Trading. They appear to be in the "monitoring with concern" phase of the evaluation process regarding meme stocks, evolving trading strategies, etc.
The main body of the report ends with a list of most sited potential sources of shock to the financial system.

Financial Stability Report

The Fed released its 6-month risk assessment yesterday. Here’s a short excerpt from the story in today’s (11/9) Wall Street Journal. The note on some types of money market mutual funds / cash management vehicles / bond and bank loan mutual funds is interesting. I’m wondering if that’s primarily in the institutional variety or whether there’s concern at the retail level?
Article - “Fed Says U.S. Public Health Among Biggest Near -Term Risks to Financial System”
“Asset prices may be vulnerable to significant declines should risk appetite fall, progress on containing the virus disappoint, or the recovery stall,” the central bank said in its semiannual Financial Stability Report. Still, other parts of the financial system appear resilient. Banks remain well capitalized, the central bank said, and key measures of vulnerability from business and household debt have largely returned to pre-pandemic levels. “Little evidence exists of widespread erosion in mortgage underwriting standards or speculative practices,” the report said. “However, with valuations at high levels, house prices could be particularly sensitive to shocks.” he Fed also warned that structural vulnerabilities persist in some types of money-market mutual funds and other cash-management vehicles, as well as in bond and bank loan mutual funds. The vulnerabilities could amplify shocks to the financial system in times of stress, as they have in prior crises, the central bank said. Fed officials monitor asset prices to gauge risks that a sudden, sharp decline might pose to the broader financial system.
Personal note: I recall that decades back some government bond funds experienced serious stress after making bets on interest rates that didn’t materialize, Recently (according to another WSJ article) some hedge funds have experienced big losses after betting that long term rates would rise when in fact those longer rates (out to 30 years) have been falling (here and abroad) in recent weeks.

I'm a little surprised that one could circumvent the $10K limit per year by using a revocable trust. For tax purposes, revocable trusts are treated as an extension of the individual. That's different from irrevocable trusts which (except for grantor trusts) are independent tax entities.
This is from an old Bogleheads thread regarding transfers of savings bonds into revocable trusts:

The transfer to our Trust account transpired, but we received the following email
"Your purchase exceeds the annual savings bond purchase limitation. Please be advised the limit is $10,000 per series and TIN per calendar year. Repeated violations mayresult in an action by this office; for example, a refund of account holdings and/or account closure may occur.

From TreasuryDirect stating that $10K limit is per TIN:

Effective January 4, 2012, the annual (calendar year) purchase limit applying to electronic Series EE and Series I savings bonds is $10,000 for each series. The limit is applied per Social Security Number (SSN) or Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN). For paper Series I Savings Bonds purchased through IRS tax refunds, the purchase limit is $5,000 per SSN.

Is purchasing savings bonds in a revocable trust legal? Yes. Is it legal to use revocable trusts to circumvent the $10K/TIN/year limit? I have my doubts. It seems to work, but that doesn't mean that it is legal.
From Nolo (regarding TINs for revocable trusts):

A revocable living trust does not normally need its own TIN (Tax Identification Number) while the grantor is still alive.
During the grantor's life, the trust is revocable and taxes are paid by the grantor as an individual, using the grantor's SSN (Social Security Number). In other words, when an institution requests an SSN or EIN (Employer Identification Number) for trust property, the grantor just uses his or her own SSN. When the grantor dies, the living trust becomes irrevocable and the successor trustee will get an EIN from the IRS to pay the trust's taxes.
For shared property in shared living trusts, the grantors can use either person's SSN. When choosing which SSN to use, keep in mind that income on trust property will be reported through the SSN you select. This won't matter to couples who file taxes jointly, but it could make a difference to couples who file taxes with separate returns. For individually owned property in a shared living trust, use the owner's SSN.

I believe it was another Fidelity study that revealed that accounts of deceased investors did better than live ones regardless of gender.

4 Things Dead People Can Teach Us About Investing

The way this story goes, one day, the chief bean counters at the financial giant Fidelity did this big study on what kinds of investors performed the best. And what they found out was, the accounts with the highest returns were classified as “dead or inactive.”
In other words, dead people do better in the stock market than living people, and it’s because dead people aren’t always fiddling with their investment accounts the way living people do.

investing/dead-investors/

Last year the SEC temporarily suspended trading of Zoom Technologies (ZOOM) partly because investors were confusing it with Zoom Video (ZM). Zoom Technologies also had not publicly disclosed any financial information since 2015.