"Investors have been conditioned for decades to believe they can withdraw only 4% a year
through a theoretical 30-year retirement, adjusted for inflation."
"But several studies and retirement experts now view 4% as too conservative and inflexible.
J.P. Morgan, in a recent report, recommended about 5%.
David Blanchett, who has a doctorate in personal financial planning and has studied retirement withdrawal rates for years, says 5% 'is a much better starting place, given today’s economic reality and people’s flexibility.'”
"The inventor of the 4% rule agrees.
Retired financial planner Bill Bengen tells Barron’s he is revising his benchmark in an upcoming book,
and that a rate 'very close to 5%' may be warranted."
This article (link below) places too much emphasis on bucket strategies.
While a formal bucket strategy can be beneficial for certain investors, it is not essential.
The "4% rule" is not an ironclad rule - it's only a decent starting point for retirement withdrawal rates.
1) What are your thoughts regarding retirement withdrawal rates of ~5% for the general population?
2) Which withdrawal strategy do you utilize and why:
a) fixed real withdrawal amount (FRWA); b) FRWA which skips inflation adjustment after annual portfolio loss;
c) RMD method using IRS Life Expectancy Tables; d) "guardrails" plan developed by Guyton and Klinger;
e) other strategy.
Portfolio Withdrawal Strategies

Additional Morningstar Fee Level information for mutual funds.
Fee Level – Broad places funds into category groupings that are formed around the fund category
systems of each region. Some fund categories form their own category grouping, while other fund
categories are combined to form groupings of similar or related categories, particularly in the case
of categories with small numbers of funds.
Fee Level – Distribution creates smaller comparison groups within each broad category grouping
using the distribution channels available within each region.
Why have some categories been combined to form larger category groupings?
Morningstar categories that have a similar focus can be combined into larger groupings.
In most cases, those categories have relatively few share classes compared with most
other categories in that market. With a small number of share classes, the interpretation
of the ranks can be affected by a few share classes with an extremely high or low fees.
More share classes generally means a more even distribution of fees.
Still, it’s important that the categories that are combined generally have similar ranges of fees,
otherwise some of the categories may dominate either the higher or lower ends of the range.
Fee Level Global Calculations - PDF

"Assuming there are no typos there, that's a curious though not impossible situation -
institutional shares averaging a higher cost than retail shares.
One possibility is that there might be some expensive funds offering only institutional class shares."
I thought this was odd as well since institutional funds are usually less expensive than retail funds.
Unless M* provided inaccurate data, the lowest quintile fee levels referenced above are correct.
The M* Fee Level-Distribution Group (aka M* Peer Group) for FDIVX is "Foreign Large Cap No Load."
The fund's expense ratio (0.65%) resides in the second cheapest fee quintile for this group.
Consequently, your conclusion that Mr. Kinnel is using the M* Fee Level-Broad Group appears to be correct.
The corresponding Fee Level-Broad Group for FDIVX includes Foreign Large Cap Value +
Foreign Large Cap Blend + Foreign Large Cap Growth (all distribution channels and expense structures).
Thanks for your research regarding M* fee level methodology!

If such a process works consistently, it would be of interest. It may be just another gimmick.
The Deletions ETF (NIXT) is essentially a bet on long-term reversion to the mean. Index deletions are typically followed by sell-offs. Arnott hopes to find value in unusually depressed stock prices.
“.... historical evidence that they win by 5% a year for the next five years, at least.”

@dpf749
The Morningstar Peer Group for PRWCX is "Moderate Allocation No Load."
The lowest quintile fee level for this group is <0.50% while the expense ratio for PRWCX is 0.71%.
The Morningstar Peer Group for TRAIX is "Moderate Allocation Institutional."
The lowest quintile fee level for this group is <0.60% while the expense ratio for TRAIX is 0.59%.
Source: Morningstar Managed Investment Reports

TRAIX management fee is 59 basis points, still not the lowest quintile. It would have to be below 50 basis points to qualify.
Source?
On the TRAIX M* price page is a bar graph divided into quintiles that labels the price of TRAIX as "low" (first quintile).

Following your TRAIX price page link it seems I misread the price quintile score, which I had sourced from an earlier post by commenter @Observant1. However, that same Morningstar price page lists the "Min. Initial Investment" at $500,000.00, which explains why TRAIX failed Kinnel's screen.

Thanks for the MFO article. Interesting concept. I will add to my watch list. NIXT concept should be easy to validate by back testing since little room for judgement. I wonder how they populate the portfolio at startup? Depending on how they do that might affect volatility. Cash might flow in faster than stocks purchased "dumped stocks" in portfolio. They say the fund will be small cap value. It seems some of the S&P 500 dumps might be larger cap?? Thanks for making me aware.

Personal finance master Jonathan Clements is turning his recent terminal cancer diagnosis into an important teaching opportunity on money and life.

Also,
Previous Clements interview:

NOTE:

My intention, at this time; is to present the data for the select bond sectors, as listed; through the end of the year (2024). This 'end date' will take us through the U.S. elections period, pending actions/legislation dependent upon the election results, pending Federal Reserve actions and market movers trying to 'guess' future directions of the U.S. economy. As important during this period, are any number of global circumstances that may take a path that is not expected; and/or 'new' circumstances. In the 'cooking pot' we currently have the big ingredients of the middle east and also, how much damage Ukraine may inflict upon Russia and the response.

W/E September 6, 2024..... Weak equity = +++ returns for quality bonds
--- With downward pressures, this week, in most equity sectors, quality bonds performed as would be expected, with very good price gains.
Bond NAV's had very good positive pricing through the 4 day week, with slight pull backs on Friday only. *** I'm going to attempt to discover going forward, if there becomes any selling more directed towards the end of the week(s). A few numbers for your viewing pleasure.
FIRST:
*** UST yields chart, 6 month - 30 year. This chart is active and will display a 6 month time frame going forward to a future date. Place/hover the mouse pointer anywhere on a line to display the date and yield for that date. The percent to the right side is the percentage change in the yield from the chart beginning date for a particular item. You may also 'right click' on the 126 days at the chart bottom to change a 'time frame' from a drop down menu. Hopefully, the line graph also lets you view the 'yield curve' in a different fashion, for the longer duration issues, at this time. Save the page to your own device for future reference. NOTE: take a peek at the right side of this graph to find the yield swings of the past week, and for the current yields for the last business day.
For the WEEK/YTD, NAV price changes, September 2 - September 6, 2024
***** This week (Friday), FZDXX, MMKT yield continues to move with Fed funds/repo/SOFR rates; and ended the week at 5.15% yield. MMKT's yields remain basically unchanged for the past weeks. Fidelity's MMKT's continue to maintain decent yields, as is presumed with other vendors similar MMKT's. Yields were down a few 100's of a percentage.

--- AGG = +1.25% / +4.47% (I-Shares Core bond), a benchmark, (AAA-BBB holdings)
--- MINT = +.09% / +4.13% (PIMCO Enhanced short maturity, AAA-BBB rated)
--- SHY = +.54% / +3.76% (UST 1-3 yr bills)
--- IEI = +1.06% / +4.29% (UST 3-7 yr notes/bonds)
--- IEF = +1.63% / +4.41% (UST 7-10 yr bonds)
--- TIP = +.60% / +3.92% (UST Tips, 3-10 yrs duration, some 20+ yr duration)
--- VTIP = +.27% / +4.06% (Vanguard Short-Term Infl-Prot Secs ETF)
--- STPZ = +.33% / +4.05% (UST, short duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- LTPZ = +1.55% / +3.62% (UST, long duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- TLT = +3.51% / +3.36% (I Shares 20+ Yr UST Bond
--- EDV = +4.86% / +2.73% (UST Vanguard extended duration bonds)
--- ZROZ = +4.77% / +1.08% (UST., AAA, long duration zero coupon bonds, PIMCO
--- TBT = -6.36% / -1.07% (ProShares UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury (about 23 holdings)
--- TMF = +10.38% / -3.66% (Direxion Daily 20+ Yr Trsy Bull 3X ETF (about a 2x version of EDV etf)
*** Additional important bond sectors, for reference:
--- BAGIX = +1.31% / +4.69% Baird Aggregate Bond Fund (active managed, plain vanilla, high quality bond fund)
--- LQD = +1.38% / +4.54% (I Shares IG, corp. bonds)
--- BKLN = -.28% / +4.93% (Invesco Senior Loan, Corp. rated BB & lower)
--- HYG = +.23% / +6.53% (High Yield bonds, proxy ETF)
--- HYD = +.78%/+4.87% (VanEck HY Muni)
--- MUB = +.70% /+1.75% (I Shares, National Muni Bond)
--- EMB = +.21%/+6.73% (I Shares, USD, Emerging Markets Bond)
--- CWB = +.20% / +4.00% (SPDR Bloomberg Convertible Securities)
--- PFF = +.48% / +8.09% (I Shares, Preferred & Income Securities)
--- FZDXX = 5.15% yield (7 day), Fidelity Premium MMKT fund
*** FZDXX yield was .11%, April,2022. (For reference to current date)
Comments and corrections, please.
Remain curious,
Catch

The Week in Charts (09/06/24)
The most important charts and themes in markets and investing, including:
00:00 Intro
00:33 Free Wealth Path Analysis
01:27 Topics
03:04 The Cooling Labor Market
11:56 Longest Inversion in History Is Over
16:45 Be Careful What You Wish For
24:02 A September Swoon or Something Bigger?
36:20 Dollar Store Downturn
40:30 Wages Outpacing Inflation
Video

Thanks. Makes sense.
I feel I learn a lot by scanning a list of 15-20 funds, stocks or indexes at the end of the day. These are things I may never own. But together they tell a story. Takes less than 60 seconds out of each day. My $1.95 monthly app from Apple makes this extremely simple. Everything updates continuously and syncs across my devices.
The observations rarely produce “actionable” information. Rather, they add in small degree to my understanding of how various market components interact. Daily the tid-bits of data are meaningless. Over months and longer periods I think there is something to be learned.
Many profess not to care what markets do. Say they never look. Never react. Yet, many visit boards like this where markets and approaches to investing are discussed daily. It strains credulity to think we are all passive investors blithely sitting on the same mutual funds or stocks we’ve owned for 15 years - rarely bothering to look.

I do not track it daily or even yearly, though I have owned it for more than 15 years.

@BaluBalu - “Not looking” is commendable. But you must take note of BRK’s price movement sometimes. How else could you have known it was down 3% yesterday? Here’s your post from a day ago:

down nearly 3% today.

The unknown outcomes from future management of money and operations does make me nervous but not much I can do about it. I do not track it daily or even yearly, though I have owned it for more than 15 years.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1950357/000121390024076311/ea0213708-01_497.htm
97 1 ea0213708-01_497.htm 497
BCM FOCUS FUNDS
As to its Separate Series
BCM FOCUS SMALL/MICRO-CAP FUND
Supplement dated September 6, 2024
to the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated February 27, 2024
This Supplement to the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information for the BCM Focus Small/Micro-Cap Fund, a series of the BCM Focus Funds (the “Trust”), updates the Prospectus for the BCM Focus Small/Micro-Cap Fund, and the Statement of Additional Information for the Trust dated February 27, 2024, to amend certain information as described below.
NOTICEOF LIQUIDATION
OF THE BCM FOCUS SMALL/MICRO-CAP FOCUS FUND
At a meeting of the Board of Trustees held on August 23, 2024, upon the recommendation of Bares Capital Management, Inc., the Fund’s Investment Advisor, the Board of Trustees (the “Board”), including all the independent trustees of the BCM Focus Funds (the “Trust”), as such is defined under the Investment Company Act of 1940, unanimously approved a proposal to liquidate the BCM Focus Small/Micro-Cap Fund (the “Fund”) pursuant to a “Plan of Liquidation”. After careful consideration of several factors which they deemed relevant to their making the decision whether to liquidate the Fund, the Board concluded that it is in the best interest of the Fund and its shareholders to liquidate the Fund. The Board, therefore, approved that the Fund is to be liquidated on or about October 11, 2024 (the “Liquidation Date”). The Liquidation Date may be changed without notice at the discretion of the Trust’s officers.
Suspension of Sales. Shares of the Fund will close to new purchases as of the close of the market on the date of this Supplement and the Fund will begin an orderly dissolution. To the extent there are any dividend or distribution payments made prior to the Liquidation Date, they will continue to be paid either in cash or in additional shares of the Fund, depending on each shareholder’s current election, as disclosed in the Prospectus. The Fund reserves the right to change this policy at any time.
Liquidation of Assets. The Fund may depart from its stated investment objective and policies as it prepares to liquidate and distribute its assets to its shareholders. It is anticipated that beginning at the close of the market on the date of this supplement the Fund’s portfolio will be positioned into cash, cash equivalents or other liquid assets. Shareholders who remain in the Fund until the Liquidation Date will automatically receive, promptly following the Liquidation Date, a liquidation distribution equal to the net asset value of the shares of the Fund that such shareholder then holds plus, accrued and unpaid earnings of the Fund at the time of liquidation. The liquidation of the Fund’s portfolio is likely to result in increased transaction costs, which may be borne by the Fund and its shareholders and may result in higher capital gains for taxable shareholders. Shareholders should contact their tax advisers concerning the tax consequences of the liquidation.
The liquidation of the Fund may result in one or more taxable events for shareholders subject to federal income tax. The redemption of shares prior to the Liquidation Date will generally cause a redeeming shareholder to realize a capital gain or loss depending on the shareholder’s tax basis in the shares. Similarly, liquidation proceeds paid to a shareholder as of (or prior to) the Liquidation Date will generally give rise to capital gains or capital losses depending on the shareholder’s tax basis in the shares. In addition, on or prior to the Liquidation Date, the Fund may declare taxable distributions attributable to its net investment income and net short- and/or long-term capital gain (including capital gains, if any, from the liquidation of the Fund’s assets) in advance of the Fund’s regular distribution schedule. All or a portion of any such distributions may be taxable as ordinary income.
Shareholders should consult a personal tax adviser with respect to the effects of the liquidation and of any associated distributions.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTORS
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax advisor regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP), (IRA), you must roll the proceeds into another Individual Retirement Account within sixty (60) days of the date of the distribution in order to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income for the year. If you receive a distribution from a 403(b)(7) Custodian Account (Tax-Sheltered account) or a Keogh Account, you must roll the distribution into a similar type of retirement plan within sixty (60) days in order to avoid disqualification of your plan and the severe tax consequences that it can bring. If you are the trustee of a Qualified Retirement Plan, you may reinvest the money in any way permitted by the plan and trust agreement.
Shareholders who hold their shares through an IRA should consult their tax advisers concerning the tax implications of a distribution, their eligibility to roll over a distribution and the procedures applicable to such rollovers. Caution: If you hold shares through an IRA and do not reinvest liquidation or redemption proceeds through your IRA (i.e., if you cash a check representing those proceeds or deposit or reinvest them in a different account), such proceeds may be subject to a 10% penalty and taxed as ordinary income in the year of receipt.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED OR EXCHANGED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO OCTOBER 11, 2024 WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THAT DATE, AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OR ACCOUNT OF RECORD.
**********************
Shareholders should read this Supplement in conjunction with the BCM Focus Small/Micro-Cap Fund’s Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information, each as supplemented from time to time. This document provides information that you should know before investing and should be retained for future reference. This document is available upon request and without charge by calling UMB Fund Services, Inc. at (888)885-8859.
Investors should retain this supplement for future reference.

@WABAC and @yogibearbull
Too early in the day for me, I do think. The 2 holdings (50/50) portfolio indicates a 31.9% annualized return! Is this number generated as such from the $6,500 annual contribution setting?; which would equate a Roth contribution.
Thank you.

You're asking the wrong guy. I'm just a tool monkey.

@WABAC and @yogibearbull
Too early in the day for me, I do think. The 2 holdings (50/50) portfolio indicates a 31.9% annualized return! Is this number generated as such from the $6,500 annual contribution setting?; which would equate a Roth contribution.
Thank you.

Any fresh thoughts re investing a few bucks here?
A number of companies package up variable rate demand notes into bank account-like accounts. Features may vary slightly (e.g. min required, check writing ability, min transaction amount) but the underlying investments are similar as are the way these accounts work.
Companies that offer these accounts seem to be rated BBB or A and are using these accounts as a relatively cheap way to get cash. Some BBBs: Duke, Dominion, GM, and Ford. Some As: Toyota, Mercedes-Benz (only accredited investors), and Caterpillar
A couple of webpages from 2021 on these types of investments:
MyMoneyBlog: https://www.mymoneyblog.com/big-list-of-car-demand-notes-non-fdic.html
Bogleheads thread: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=340088
And a 2021 WSJ article cited in the Bogleheads thread (subscription or library card required):
https://www.wsj.com/articles/car-maker-notes-attract-investors-seeking-short-term-yield-11605781801

Called "variable denomination floating rate demand notes," the securities are basically unsecured bonds, paid by the company's cash from operations. There is no public market and investors can typically withdraw their money at will. Rates can be changed at any time by the company, which can call the securities at its discretion.

What's the risk?
For my money (pun intended), I'd rather go with a Treasury MMF yielding around 5.1%; since it's state tax exempt that's not much different from 5.5% fully taxable and a whole lot safer.
https://olui2.fs.ml.com/Publish/Content/application/pdf/GWMOL/ICCRateSheet.pdf
If I had to go with a single issuer, I'd look at the A rated companies.
A nuclear accident that bankrupts the company?
Not likely.

[The] Price-Anderson [Act has since 1957 freed] nuclear plant operators and all firms involved in nuclear construction and maintenance of any liability for offsite accident damage. The only chance for additional compensation lies in the act’s declaration that if accident damages exceed the legal limit “Congress will thoroughly review the particular incident” and will “take whatever action is determined to be necessary” to provide full compensation to the public. In short, a Fukushima-level accident would toss the costs of compensation and cleanup unto the lap of Congress.

https://thebulletin.org/2020/02/the-us-government-insurance-scheme-for-nuclear-power-plant-accidents-no-longer-makes-sense/
This was recently extended (for another 40 years) and expanded with little publicity. It's a sizeable and relatively unknown industry subsidy.
What was publicized were billions of dollars allocated in the Inflation Reduction Act for maintaining existing nuclear plants and building new ones.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/inflation-reduction-act-keeps-momentum-building-nuclear-power

What's more fun than complaining about kids these days? I say: Giving the indolent ne'er do wells advice they won't take.
Here are what I call Grumpy Grampy's Simple Portfolios for Widows, Orphans, and Kids that probably don't wash behind their ears. Can Grumpy Gramp's portfolios beat the clones? Let's find out together.
The first mimics the beta of the ICMUX/FPACX: Dinky linky.
And this portfolio mimics the beta of the LCORX/RPHYX portfolio: YADL.
Disclaimer: I am not a grandfather or an investment advisor.
Edit to add: PV does not seem to be accounting for fixed annuals contributions of 6500$. Suggestions and solutions are welcomed