I applaud his approach (and the debt-free thing) but can't help noting he was doing bonds during a MAJOR bond bull market. Heck if I could get 10, 15, or 20% in quality gov bonds now like they were back in the 70s and 80s I'd sell everything and move into them, too.
It's like this past 10 years ... lots of folks probably think they're awesome stock pickers and/or savvy investors when the "rising tide" pretty much lifted all equity boats post-GFC.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/ask-a-fool-what-exactly-is-a-bond-and-how-do-i-invest-in-them
Ask a Fool: What Exactly Is a Bond, and How Do I Invest in Them?
Published March 29, 2019MarketsMotley Fool
bond is a debt instrument issued by a government, corporation, or other entity. For example, when the U.S. government needs to borrow money, it issues Treasury bonds. When companies need to borrow money, they often do so by issuing corporate bonds.

Thanks @msf for the excellent response to @Ted’s questionable use of MFO board space. :) It’s always a good idea to read some top flight reviews, like you’ve linked, before shucking out money. The NYT is hard to top in that category.
In simpler terms, there are many reasons for attending a play other than to learn about finance or financial history. When one considers the cost of transport to NYC, the outrageous hotel rates, the dilapatated subways, a third world airport (LGA) - and play tickets reaching into the hundreds of dollars (even for a cramped seat), from a purely financial standpoint, attending a play in NYC is a non-starter. Better to stay home and count your dollars.
Largely, @Ted’s linked Bloomberg review sheds little light on investing and misses the mark as a literary critique. I suppose as a look at the profit margins involved in producing a play or a comment on how the consumer chooses to spend his discretionary income there may be some use. Those do bear on investing. But, as presented, the article barely touches upon those areas. I’ll say that the fact that the producer of this play also produced the Broadway revival of Cabaret a few years ago, I’d at least consider attending this one. That is one of the most profoundly meaningful and moving semi-historical dramas I’ve witnessed. Saw it three times in NYC - and regretted its closing.
Critical Reviews of dramatic art, which you mention, rarely concern themselves with historical (or financial) accuracy - though it’s appropriate to note where substantial artistic license has been taken by the writer / producer. As I said earlier, receiving a factual lesson in finance or history would rank low on the list of reasons why one might attend a play.
It should be noted the play isn’t appearing on Broadway (at least yet). It’s location, The Park Avenue Armory, is in the 59th Avenue area of NYC - a dozen or or more blocks away from the Broadway section where most top-flight plays are performed. As the Park Avenue institution appears to have a relationship with the highly respected Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts. I’d expect the play to be top quality.
-
From Wikepedia: “Artistic license”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_license
[excerpt] “Artistic license often provokes controversy by offending those who resent the reinterpretation of cherished beliefs ... William Shakespeare's historical plays, for example, are gross distortions of historical fact but are nevertheless lauded as outstanding literary works.”
From Wikepedia: Park Avenue Armory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Avenue_Armory
From Marketwatch: For those (like Ted) whose primary concern seems to be finance / financial accuracy (not artistic merit) here’s a quick read - How To Make Money On Broadway.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-to-make-money-producing-on-broadway-2018-07-16

@MJG, you really present as a windy dimwit sometimes. You posted an article with the hed the 3 Best Free Retirement Calculators and subheds Final Three and Conclusion. It is six years old and out of date and likely superseded and updated and the methods and sophistication of the data usage. One specific criticism charged within it is probably fixed. Who knows? You did not dive into each program and check for the latest state of play. You did not survey the field to see what is new. And now you just go off about asking me whether I think the rules still apply. Wrong question! What is wrong with you that you would miss the obvious and simple point and then still argue about it?? It is the programs we are talking about and historical databases. The car analogy was hasty but is fully apt. Would you accept from anyone an article that says these are the best cars today and stopped at 2011 models?
Please just sometimes think before posting one of your automatic windy responses. Who said anything about taking exception to the advice? Find a latest-state-of-play article to post instead.
When someone points out foolishness on your part, you come back with wait, wait, what about the content? I mean, the old cars still roll and work and have wheels and follow the laws of gravity. Jeez, man.

This review from Institutional Investor, focusing on the price of the tickets, the wealth of the audience, the genre of financial plays and so on, assures me that the stereotypical green eyeshaded bean counter is alive and well.
General newspapers published reviews in their arts sections, not their business sections. (Why is this post a fund discussion?) It seems they unanimously praised this play, in stark contrast to the take presented in the cited piece.
The contrast between the dry money-oriented perspective ("absence of drama") of the cited review and the creative, artistic perspective of the other reviews can be seen in this headline from Bloomberg:
Theatrical Retelling of Lehman Brothers Is Big on Drama, Light on Finance
Other reviews:
Washington Post (Theater and Dance), The Lehman Trilogy’ is so good, it expands your sense of what three actors on a stage can conjure
(NY) Newsday (Entertainment/Theater), 'The Lehman Trilogy' review: Rich, rewarding saga of a financial empire
NYTimes (Theater), Critics Pick, Review: A Magnificent Road to Ruin in ‘The Lehman Trilogy’
amNewYork (Entertainment), 4 stars, The Lehman Trilogy' review: Financial epic an unlikely must-see
The Hollywood Reporter, 'The Lehman Trilogy': Theater Review: "The bottom line: Likely to be the theater event of the season."

I get my convertible security exposure through FISCX which is held in my hybrid income sleeve of my portfolio. Some other members on the board also own this fund. Through the years it has done me well as its 10Yr total return has averaged better than 13% per year.

@DavidV: Thank you for your question about my all weather asset allocation.
My all weather asset allocation of 20% cash, 40% income and 40% equity affords me everything necessary to meet my needs now being in the distribution phase of investing. The benefit of this asset allocaton is that it provides sufficent income, maximizes diversification, minimizes volatility, and provides long-term returns.
The 20% held in cash area provides me ample cash should I need a cash draw over and above what my portfolio generates plus it can provide the capital necessary to fund a special investment position (spiff) should I choose to open one during a stock market pullback. In addition, cash helps stablizes a portfolio during stock market volitility.
The 40% held in the income area provides me ample income generation to meet my income needs in retirement. It is a well diverisfied area that incorporates a good number of diverisified income generating type funds including a commodity strategy fund that has a yield of about 11%.
The 40% held in the equity area provides me some dividend income along with some growth that equities generally provide that offsets the effects of inflation plus, over time, they tend to offer up a growth of principal benefit as well.
I found years back this asset allocation model gave me good comfort when I ran my parents money during their retirement years. It is also the model my parents broker recommended that I follow which worked well for them and now I have adopted it.
My father's all weather model had less risk than the one I have described above. His model was 25% cash, 25% fixed income, 25% stocks and 25% real estate. Also know he was raised during the depression and farm land was a cherished asset.

FYI: Investors looking for bonds that often feel like stocks can consider convertible bonds, which are easily accessible via the SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF CWB,
Convertible bonds are hybrid securities that give investors the option to convert those bonds into shares of common stock of the issuing company.
Historically, convertible bonds have been among the best areas of the bond market to be involved with when interest rates rise, but CWB betrayed that reputation last year. Amid fears about the state of high-yield corporate debt and the fourth-quarter equity market plunge, CWB showed its correlation to equity market gyrations.
After slumping in the last three months of 2018, CWB finished the year lower by 2 percent compared to 0.1-percent gain for the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Index.
The correlations between convertible debt and stocks can't be understated.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-bond-etf-with-an-equity-feel-2019-03-29-1246451/print
M* Snapshot CWB:
https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/ARCX/CWB/quote.html

FYI: After a string of flops, can the nearly four-hour Lehman Trilogy play turn around Wall Street drama?
Regards,
Ted
https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1drctlg6ywd57/The-Lehman-Curse

FYI: McLean talks with MarketWatch about the only two stocks he owns, the meaning of ‘American Pie,’ and why he’s never had an assistant.
In 1971, Don McLean released the album “American Pie,” and the title song became one of the most famous — and successful — ever made. It came out at a time of major political and social upheaval in America, and captured a feeling of loss. The song runs for over eight minutes, and is No. 5 on the list of best songs of the 20th century. Now 73, McLean talked with MarketWatch about his most famous song, and a wide range of other topics, including money, stardom, and the music business today.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/american-pie-singer-don-mclean-has-made-150-million-in-his-career-heres-what-hes-done-with-it-2019-03-25/print

Yes, a great deal depends on one's circumstances, prospects and specific desires as to what to actually DO with retirement income. I could forget about Medicare and live like a king in The Philippines, even after needing to buy an insurance policy over there which covers my long list of prescriptions and doctor/hospital care. (Wife is from there.) But the food and the climate in The Philippines both really suck. I could, as an Irish citizen, move there, too. But the health insurance system is not as good as some others within the EU. I do know for certain specifically that diabetes needs are covered 100%, totally free, in Ireland. And I'd first have to establish residency in Ireland for long enough to be able to fill out a form which transfers my health coverage to a different country within the EU which I actually want to live in--- maybe the south of Portugal, where it's sunny and warm for more of the year.
But as long as my wife remains 19 years younger than I am, there is a very reasonable expectation for as long as I live that at least one full-time income can be depended upon, between the two of us. That's like an "ace in the hole." My income-producing mutual funds only continue to grow, too. So, we can afford to leave the principal behind me, so that she will get it after my passing. Which I hope will be many years away. Our Will provides the specific destinations for various percentages of what we will both leave behind, once that happens. It is satisfying to be able to do this, emotionally and spiritually. But I worry about my son's prospects re: retirement. Nothing like my own case. He's 25. ... Re: healthcare, just imagine how much easier and stress-free everything would be if we could provide decent healthcare to everyone, globally?! ...It would require some very stoopid countries to get smart, though. I'm talking about IQ as well as putting POLITICAL stoopid-ity behind them!

not outdated but superseded and/or updated for something posted as best three or whatever it was
like the best three cars right now, all from 2010

The market has risen after yield inversion ( albeit in a small sample size ) on past occasions. Link shows highest forward return after onset of yield inversion

The yield spread is an important and useful ( and is definitely getting a lot of attention these days ), yet it is an isolated data series
In the book "A Guide to Modern Quantitative Tactical Asset Allocation" *, one of the few data series that has shown enough precision and statistical confidence for use towards signaling infrequent tactical shifts from equity based assets into safe duration assets in avoidance of significant decline events and sequence of returns risk, has been a "trend change" in the Conference Board Leading Economic index. The CB LEI is constructed with a composite of 10 data series components ( the yield spread being one ), creating a more robust view of economic activity. One will see many of these components being used in analysis, in isolated fashion, in attempts to devine the direction of the economy / equity markets.
A trend change in the CB LEI variable combined with and confirmed by signaling produced from a stock market trend identifier ( Moving average variable - core concepts # 3 & 4, chapters 1, 3 & 4 * ), has identified the bulk of significant market decline periods over the past 50 years.
At present, the two trends are positive ( since July of 2009 ) **
Additionally, from the past historical signals generated ( Chapter 5, Part 1, table 2 * ) in the past, we can see the gains accrued from the onset of the inversion to the next negative trend change of the LEI / moving average variables https://imgur.com/EGpcnQC
A key premise to successful investing involves the holding of equity based assets for longest optimal periods ( years in most cases ), and in rare circumstances, switch to duration assets ( months in most cases ).
. . .
* https://tinyurl.com/y6w4ca8b
** https://tinyurl.com/y9rrzral

Hi Davidrmoran,
I too recognized the article's publication date. It was a long time ago and indeed the information could be stale and no longer relevant. I did consider that possibility and rejected it. Old does not immediately mean bad and outdated. A great example is The Intelligent Investor book by Benjamin Graham. It was published in 1949. It's insights remain as valid today as when it was originally offered to the public.
As you are likely aware, I strongly recommend that investors consider using Monte Carlo analyses when making uncertain investment decisions. I do and I believe it helps. The referenced article supports my position. I simply took advantage of that added endorsement.
Thanks for reading my post.
ADDED just a few minutes later:
I am certainly not unique in recognizing the value (it has shortcomings too) of Monte Carlo when making uncertain investment decisions. Here is a Link to yet another advocate:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/112514/monte-carlo-simulation-basics.asp
Best Wishes

"This is a massive shot across the bow to full-service providers who have become very comfortable charging 1% to 1.5%.”

Year 1: $300+(12x$30) = $660; regardless asset base.
Year 2 and on: 12X$30 = $360
Advisors operating based on AUM will have a sizable hurdle to overcome fee at this level. Who is next to lower their fee, Vanguard?

FYI: There was a seismic shift in investor psychology when the yield curve inverted this past week on Friday. A trifecta of events drove investors to safety in long-term Treasuries, causing yields to fall lower than that of shorter-dated Treasuries—what is called a yield-curve inversion. This recession signal was flashing red, but there was—and still is—green to be made.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-best-bond-etfs-for-playing-the-yield-curve-51553791247

FYI: Charles Schwab's announcement Thursday that it was moving from an assets-under-management fee to a flat monthly charge for its robo adviser sent shock waves throughout the industry.
For Gavin Spitzner, president of industry consultant Wealth Consulting Partners, this is the modern-day equivalent of May Day 1975, when the deregulation of commissions allowed for the creation of discount brokerages like Schwab in the first place.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?ei=qB2fXPOhBY-OsQXTgZn4Cg&q=schwab+moving+fees&oq=schwab+moving+fees&gs_l=psy-ab.3...12868.16606..16966...0.0..0.90.779.12......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j35i39j0i131j0j0i131i20i263j0i20i263j0i22i30j33i299j33i160.WL0MsDmLlvg

Nice eye candy. A fun chart to look at. Seriously.
Of course it has to be true that all else being equal cheaper is better. But all else is virtually never equal, and there's a lot being glossed over in this one chart.
* It's comparing apples and oranges - asset weighted performance vs. unweighted share classes:
A fund could have five expensive share classes with few assets and one cheap share class; the performance could look good on an asset weighted basis because of the cheap share class but the fund family would look expensive because of all those "empty" expensive share classes.
Note also that while a load share class might be considered expensive on an absolute basis it could still be rated average or below average in cost. That's because M* groups share classes by type: load, institutional, no load, before ranking their costs as relatively high, average, or low.
For example, LCEVX, a LCV fund with an ER of 1.56% is said to be "below average" in expenses. Its sibling classes include LCEAX, ER 0.81%, called "low", and LCEIX, ER 0.76% called merely "below average" because NL shares are expected to have lower costs than their loaded brethren. (I'm not faulting M* here for how it evaluates costs; just pointing out what's going on beneath this chart.)
* Load families tend to make costs look less relevant. As noted above, A shares can be counted as "cheap" even as their costs drag down their performance.
* At least according to papers I've read, the correlation between costs and performance is stronger for bond funds than for equity funds. That could skew the per-family data, since some families specialize in bonds, while others have more assets in equities.
* How meaningful is data about share classes for families with very few (say, five) share classes total? As opposed to one with hundreds of share classes.
There's the usual caveat of relying on stale data. Here's the source of the chart, from four years ago.
https://www.morningstar.com/videos/691300/the-clear-link-between-fees-and-performance.html
Quoting from that page:

Dodge & Cox has a perfect 100% score in both metrics, which is a testament to its ...small fund lineup. Vanguard, the largest fund firm, has 100% of its funds with below-average fees. Considering its large lineup of funds, it has an impressive 75% that have a Morningstar Rating of 4 stars or better.

If you to play with more extensive data, there's the Morningstar Fund Family 150 (Jan 1, 2019): "a semiannual publication that gives investors access to the same analytical rigor our own analysts use to keep tabs on the 150 largest fund families in the United States."
Highlights: https://www.morningstar.com/blog/2019/02/22/top-fund-families.html
Full paper: https://morningstardirect.morningstar.com/clientcomm/DueDiligenceReports/FundFamily150.pdf
Spreadsheet data: https://morningstardirect.morningstar.com/clientcomm/DueDiligenceReports/FundFamily150_2018_Q4.xlsm

This used to belong to Monsanto. There have been spin-offs and re-iterations. So now Bayer owns it. My aunt worked for Monsanto for a million years. She gave us nephews and nieces stock in the company. In those days, the 1990s, Monsanto could neither see nor shoot straight. Everything they did turned to shit, resulting in lawsuits due to totally unethical behavior. I sold and re-deployed the money.

Hi Guys,
The negative correlation between mutual fund end performance and costs is well documented. This single graph tells the whole story nicely:
https://im.mstar.com/im/newhomepage/chartofweek_mutualfundcompanies_040215.png
Costs just don’t matter. They matter greatly. Control the mutual fund costs and enhance your payday. The size of each data point is a measure of the money being managed. Dodge and Cox is a winner by the graph measurement scales.
Best Wishes