@msf said, ”If China is doing so well, should one be investing more in China, despite the political risks involved?”
That would be a contrarian bet for sure. All my sources (various financial writers / commentators / pundits) are really down on China as an investment, chiefly because of what they see as deterioriating relations with the U.S. However, in Orwell’s 1984 alliances were constantly shifting - sometimes overnight. So one never knows. And TMWOT the pundits as a group are wrong more often than they are correct on the big issues.

Diversification means always having to say you're sorry about some investment in your portfolio!
Thanks @Observant1. I’m quite fond of Love Story with Ali MacGraw and Ryan O’Neil having first seen it around ‘71, a few years after graduating from college.
Agree @Old_Joe / I’d say Brexit played a big part. Humans worldwide appear equally adept at shooting themselves in the foot. (or is it feet?) We enjoy no monopoly in that regard.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2024/06/16/fareeds-take-europe-america-pace-gps-digvid.cnn

Insightful, but does the current US/Euro gap indicate future trend or represent a possible turning point? One thing for sure, the US will not stay this far ahead forever. There is good growth in the US, but possibly better value may be found overseas.

Ya, I ventured overseas years ago. The "old saw" was that Europe was "old money." I was looking for a bargain. And I had some EM holdings, too. These days, Europe is even more complicated: Ukraine war, Right-wing election gains. One currency, but many different national budgets.... I did well investing in EM bonds through the GFC and for a while beyond, and then I got out, following some good advice from someone in here.
Politically, China is uninvestable these days. Authoritarian. Curtailed civil and human rights. They're putting the screws to "special territories" Hong Kong and Macau, too. After having visited there in early 2019, it makes me so sad and angry to see it happening. The Markets have no conscience. But this whole business in China is morally distressing. I'm sworn off of foreign investments in my mutual funds; funds are still the lion's share of what I own. My fund managers have me in UK and Europe, just a tiny bit. I own a Canadian stock with a great dividend; is that "foreign?" Also, a Luxembourg-based maker of oil drilling pipes. Two still very tiny single-stock holdings. In retirement, I like YIELD. My (junk) bond funds provide most of that. Keeping a close eye on them--- a "short leash." Currently, my portfolio provides a 4.05% yield, as calculated by the ever-reliable (LOL) Morningstar.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2024/06/16/fareeds-take-europe-america-pace-gps-digvid.cnn

Insightful, but does the current US/Euro gap indicate future trend or represent a possible turning point? One thing for sure, the US will not stay this far ahead forever. There is good growth in the US, but possibly better value may be found overseas.

14% developed, 1% emerging markets. Currently reducing exposure by switching out some pure Internationals for 60/40 globals. I think that there is likely more overall potential lurking in foreign markets than in the possibly somewhat over-valued US, but it's important to invest with skillful managers who can find it in this higher risk arena, or at least a very strict and well constructed specific index.

Crash, technology isn't perfect, but the old ways isn't either. Technology has presented us with a lot more choices. Choices = a lot more development and interactions between systems.
I used to pay $1.5 per minute calling abroad, I have used WhatsApp for years paying nothing. Sure, sometimes it's not clear but it's FREE.
Google Maps gives you driving, walking, and public transportation for FREE. Yes, I know Google also gets the info they need to make money, but you have a choice. 40 years ago, you had no choices.
I like choices. Maybe you prefer to drive downtown to city hall, use gas, pay for parking, and pay your bill with cash, and spend 1-2 hours. I prefer paying online in one minute.
Sure, I don't like state/gov bureaucracy, I would fire tomorrow at least 20% of them.
A city near us did just that. They hired private companies to do a lot of stuff and that saved them a lot of money.

Missed my point entirely. You must have tried very hard.

Suppose you have 1 million in Fidelity SP500 (FXAIX) and you want $4K monthly. You can create a sell monthly trade on a specific date to run for years to do it...and you are done.

Only if you have the stomach for it. If you had $1M on Jan 1, 2022, and set up that trade you would be down $283,000 come October with zero guarantee that things were about to improve, and most likely torturing yourself thinking about what a terrible mistake you made.

It's a very old argument that higher distributions are better than lower ones (or none)...and it's a bogus one.
Until the 70s blue chip big companies paid div to prove they are healthier. Then the technology revolution took off and these new companies have been paying nothing to lower distributions which did not hurt their stock TR...but this notion of higher distributions has not gone away and cost these investors a lot of performance and money.
Many retirees fall into it too thinking they must have these higher distributions to survive. No, they don't, the following is an easy example how you can generate monthly distribution.
Suppose you have 1 million in Fidelity SP500 (FXAIX) and you want $4K monthly. You can create a sell monthly trade on a specific date to run for years to do it...and you are done.

Crash, technology isn't perfect, but the old ways isn't either. Technology has presented us with a lot more choices. Choices = a lot more development and interactions between systems.
I used to pay $1.5 per minute calling abroad, I have used WhatsApp for years paying nothing. Sure, sometimes it's not clear but it's FREE.
Google Maps gives you driving, walking, and public transportation for FREE. Yes, I know Google also gets the info they need to make money, but you have a choice. 40 years ago, you had no choices.
I like choices. Maybe you prefer to drive downtown to city hall, use gas, pay for parking, and pay your bill with cash, and spend 1-2 hours. I prefer paying online in one minute.
Sure, I don't like state/gov bureaucracy, I would fire tomorrow at least 20% of them.
A city near us did just that. They hired private companies to do a lot of stuff and that saved them a lot of money.

+1

I never paid attention to MM before 2022 and after that because I'm invested at 99+%, but I was in MM from 01/2022 to the beginning of 11/2022.

Of course you were LOL, Not bad but I moved everything into MM on 1/3/2022 and back into the market on 10/11/2022... SMH You're slipping... you missed the exact top and bottom by a few days.... SMH FD you're laughable... LOL
ADD: so you moved all your money into a MM fund paying ~0.05% at the time-- good move.

I never paid attention to MM before 2022 and after that because I'm invested at 99+%, but I was in MM from 01/2022 to the beginning of 11/2022.
To get the best Schwab MM you need one million. I bought all/most of the options(SNAXX,SUTXX,SCOXX) in our Trad IRA and transferred one share to Roth and Joint accounts. I reduced it to just one share so I can get back in when I need to.
In 2022 I felt more comfortable using Gov MM, when the risk went down, I used SNAXX.

guaranteed-income or lifetime-income ... Old name for these is annuities but that tainted term is now avoided.
Love it. See George Carlin's bit on euphemisms (shell shock)

Defined-benefit (DB) pensions have gone away except for some federal & state employees.
It certainly seems that way, but according to the latest BLS statistics, 15% of private industry workers have access to DB plans. More like an endangered species than extinct.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/15-percent-of-private-industry-workers-had-access-to-a-defined-benefit-retirement-plan.htm

PRCWX traditionally lags its peers further and further as the year goes on, then distributes a massive dividend and CG payout in December, putting it squarely back in the pre-tax Total Return lead.
This statement says that the dividend adds to total return - the "massive dividend" helps a fund that is lagging to catch up (and surpass) in Total Return. In 2023 the price of PRWCX declined on Dec 19th (ex-div date) commensurate with the size of its dividend, thus netting zero increase in Total Return. That is, not putting it squarely back in the Total Return lead.
The equalization of NAV to distribution only holds effect on the ex dividend date and NAV should revert to mean reasonably quickly.
This statement acknowledges this effect but says that it was temporary. Over time (two months was mentioned) the fund would recover this loss. At that point the dividend would have presumably added to the Total Return, putting the fund squarely back in the lead.
It's the underlined section that is problematic.
-------
Consider two funds that pay out over a year roughly equal dividends (percentage wise). One pays quarterly, one annually. As I understand the statements above, the one paying quarterly will pull ahead in total return during the year - it will pay out its quarterly dividend, see its price drop but recover sometime within that quarter. So its total return will for those first three quarters gradually exceed that of the other fund.
But come December, the second fund will make a larger distribution (full year's worth rather than a quarter) and that will let it catch up (perhaps surpass) in total return. That catch up will be complete in a couple of months once the price has "reverted to the mean". At least that seems to be the claim.
For simplicity and clarity, let's consider two purely hypothetical funds, each holding the same one stock. Fund A distributes quarterly, Fund B annually. Suppose the underlying stock pays a div on March 31 (record date much earlier, but irrelevant), and Fund A distributes divs on the same day.
To compute total return, one assumes all fund divs are reinvested. With that assumption, the pre- and post-distribution portfolios of Fund A are the same, and are also the same as the Fund B portfolio (which made no quarterly distribution). Going forward, both funds will have the same total return because they have identical portfolios.
Fund B does not lag just because it doesn't make quarterly distributions. It does not catch up with a "massive dividend" at year end. A dividend payment has no effect on total return.
------
Where I think the confusion arises is in how investors perceive stock divs. Many investors feel that higher div stocks have better returns. But consider stocks like BRK, or see:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/082015/3-biggest-misconceptions-dividend-stocks.asp
Even if one buys into this theory, funds don't work that way. In part because fund distributions include capital gains which are not part of this stock div theory. In part because there are so many moving parts in funds that one can't tell from the yield what's going on. A fund could be invested in a mix of money losing companies (with no divs) and companies with high div payout ratios (distributing cash since they are stagnant), or strong companies with respectable payout ratios. The fund yields could be similar either way.

I'm happy to share, but my allocation varies; as does its composition; so I'm not sure what benefit anyone could derive from that?
At the moment, there is a very narrow focus within US LC, and I'm effectively near my 'normal' allocation levels:
stock etfs: 61% (effective; some 2:1 leveraging)
ST Treasuries: 56%

Defined-benefit (DB) pensions have gone away except for some federal & state employees.
But many people have found defined-contribution (DC) plans to be problematic too.
Industry response is the new guaranteed-income or lifetime-income features within 401k. Such features have existed for 403b for years.
Old name for these is annuities but that tainted term is now avoided.
Let's see what Blackrock marketing can do that TIAA & others couldn't.

- Cash/MM/Treasury/CD: 14%
- International Bonds: 4%
- US Bonds: 22%
- International Stocks: 4%
- US Stocks: 10%
- Alternatives: 46%

Flowing distributions through NAV can be a confusing process. Account values may keep rising despite the reductions in NAV in the ex-dividend days. This is best seen for ultra-ST bond funds whose NAVs don't fluctuate much. So, the actual prices (_TICKER) remain range bound, sort of back-and-fill, but the account values (adjusted prices, TICKER) keep rising.
Distributions by funds are so that the IRS can get its annual cut, and they don't have much to do with the TRs.
BTW, variable-annuities don't make any distributions and their TRs are fine (i.e. NOT zero).
ICSH https://stockcharts.com/h-perf/ui?s=ICSH&compare=_ICSH&id=p12703106151
USFR https://stockcharts.com/h-perf/ui?s=USFR&compare=_USFR&id=p79039476549

@FD1000 congratulations on breaking your old record! 22-I's and 1-I'm.