Let’s look at it this way: If you invested in a real estate fund a year ago you’re up roughly 25% over that time. If you invested in a commodities fund year ago you’re also up about 25% over that time. If in a gold (mining) fund, you’ve gained about 15% over the past year. And if you’ve held a passive S&P index fund for a year you’re also up 15% over that time. If you own a home it’s likely appreciated more than 15% over the past year. (And you can still borrow against it if you want for under 5%.)
I never hear anyone gripe when their investments do well - even extraordinarily well. That kind of “inflation” is presumably OK … simply means you and I are “smart.” While the (often related) increases in reported cost of living somehow elicit ire.

https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=370245
The above link is must reading for anyone considering purchasing an immediate annuity. Immediate annuities are beginning to make some sense now that the 10 year Treasury is no longer in the 1% range. What you receive from an immediate annuity is dependent on your age and the 10 year rate. I would think an immediate annuity also makes more sense for a very healthy retiree in their mid to late 70s as opposed to someone younger and still in the accumulation phase. Anyone with health issues shouldn’t even consider an immediate annuity.
Except for a QLAC, I don’t believe you can buy a deferred annuity if you are over a certain age (70?). I would think the biggest benefit for purchasing an annuity is peace of mind. I realize there are many cons against buying an annuity. I would also suggest sticking with only the soundest of insurers aka Massachusetts Life or New York Life. The former pays more than the later.
It has been said immediate annuities are best for those worried about outliving their nest egg in old age. I can make a case they are best for those not worried about outliving their nest egg. If you are in the later category why not buy an annuity where your expenses are pretty much paid till death and then with the remainder be more aggressive in investing or spending worry free,

My parents bought LTC insurance that reimbursed my mother about $45,000 for the last year in Assisted living ( not a nursing home or SNF) at a max $108 a day out of a total allowable benefit of $130,000.
I don't know when they purchased the policy so I do not know how much it cost, but is was more than $45,000, and if that money had been in the SP500 would have accumulated far more than $130,000. I am sure they started the policy in the 1990's, so they paid on it for over 25 years.
I think there are two lessons
1) one of the reasons her LTC costs were so low was she lived in Texas, where the Assisted Living was "only" $4500 a month. IT was a high quality well run institution. If she had been in CT where we lived it would have been up to $10,000. Most of this is due to lower labor costs and much less regulation. SNF is far higher.
This would seem to recommend moving to Texas, but while I have not checked into it, Title 19 in Texas likely does not cover much in LTC, as it covers very little anything else.
In CT ( once you have exhausted all your money) the state will pay for your nursing home (only skilled nursing, not Assisted Living)
2) either way if your family can't keep you at home it is very expensive.

Nocera (following Greenberg) has been muddying the water b/w shorting, even aggressive and disinformation-spreading shorting, and naked shorting (increasing the float) for many years now, building strawmen, blaming the victim, building defenses upon the low or zero effect of the wrongdoing. (Remember, thieves are a helpful reminder to lock our doors; we're all safer for it. A company so thoroughly crappy deserves to go down; if it was truly valuable someone would buy it and stop the shorting; studies show even naked shorting has no effect.' Etc.)
But naked shorting is shorting more shares than there are in a company, and is unlawful. Weakly enforced, if at all. With it the stock volume can be larger than the tradable shares in the market. Does that sound like a good idea, or just the side of an argument, to be able to do this w impunity?
For those into detail:
https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=748001100113103125085064113123017030099042041058020023102082095068097107009022099065019107039057114029060023093091020114126106017070064086060028019031087094093094092088029095069067091094112081087093125081004003029075068094015106072026009099026083005083&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE
No one is going to read all that but the conclusion (the second one), about SEC overhaul and aggressiveness, is altogether warranted.
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/55474/1/WRAP_Raman_1173295-wbs-100713-nss_jfe_2011_784_resubmission_20121224_revised_manuscript.pdf
This is thorough and does find delivery fails did not play a part in price declines in '08.
These could be superseded, but I could not find updates.
State of play, at least by the date:
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/sec-brings-naked-short-selling-case

Here's a good video explaining the lawsuit:

and the actual complaint (courtesy of that video):
https://www.classaction.org/media/verduce-et-al-v-vanguard-chester-funds-et-al.pdf
What I was saying above about the actual damages not being as large as claimed is covered in the video starting about 17:15.
I agree with the video that win or lose, this is a big PR problem for Vanguard. In essence because its defense will likely be in part that on balance, investors were helped - it's just that the institutions (401(k) plans) were helped at the expense of the little guys (retail investors).
Though that framing isn't exactly objective because who invests in 401(k) plans? Not just CEOs but line workers (and CEOs have private plans that are much more lucrative). Still, it will be difficult for Vanguard to manage what this looks like.
The complaint seems to be asserting that Vanguard (or any fiduciary) cannot disadvantage anyone even if the overall effect is positive. IMHO that's a losing argument.
Suppose the situation were somewhat reversed, if instead of supposedly helping the institutions at the expense of the little guy, Vanguard had made a change that significantly helped the little guy while dinging the institutions. Would people be complaining? Yet the same argument would apply.

“just as economists such as Summers predicted."
I follow Summers weekly on Bloomberg’s “Wall Street Week.” ISTM his main gripe has been with the Federal Reserve. They’re way behind the curve. (Wonder who nominated the current Chair?) As far as the parties go, didn’t the Rs initiate the mailing of stimulus checks? Why was it a good idea for Trump to send them out (accompanied by his personal signed letter) but a bad idea for the Ds to do the same?
Yeah - you can debate the whole ball of wax if you want to (tax policies, the impact of Covid, assorted legislation and years of very low interest rates). But let’s not oversimplify. You’ll find economists on various sides of the inflation issue (it’s complex and has more than 2 sides.)
I’ve always accepted in my mind that paper currencies eventually depreciate. Hence - the reason for investing is assets like homes, precious metals and stocks. The best way to make a paper currency “appreciate“ in buying power is to bring on a severe recession or depression that nobody wants.
ISTM Japan went down that road. Sure - the Yen appreciated, but their stock market was in the dumpster for 25 years.

Tiny ETF PVI is run like an ultra-short muni, so may be a cash-proxy. Nominal yield is 0%, 30-day SEC yield is negative, 52-wk range 24.81-24.94.

Thanks, Yogi. It would be nice to just get MUNI credit exposure without the interest rate exposure. I am assuming there are not any inverse floater Muni funds. I could do 50:50 - inverse floater: regular MUNI funds.
PVI (Invesco VRDO Tax-Free ETF) is the only floating rate MUNI fund (ETF) I could find and its performance is not worth bothering with.

If I’m considering buying something (especially a stock) I don’t mention it. After I’ve owned it a while I might. I mention this only because it makes so damned much sense. Why would anyone (particularly a fund manager) announce to the whole world that he “might be interested” in picking up a particular asset? If anything, it might drive the price up before he buys. Afterwards it’s likely a non-issue.
I realize my meager buys or sells won’t affect markets. Yet, it just seems like common sense to buy first before saying anything. I think a lot of “talking-up” of certain stocks or sectors goes on on Tout TV by all those “guests.” What good does it do you or me to buy something a fund manager bought a couple months earlier before the price rose 15 or 20%? While I personally think Bill Gross gets dumped on too much, I always thought his frequent stints on CNBC to be a bit disingenuous. Seemed me he’d predict bonds or interest rates to move in exactly opposite the direction he really believed. This allowed him to take the positions he wanted more cheaply after the herd leaned the other way based on his statements.
“Through the Retail Lens”
A new tool from JPMorgan allows Wall Street firms to keep an eye on what retail traders are doing, according to a Thursday report from Bloomberg.
The bank's "Through the Retail Lens" tool launched in September and is now being used by about 30 asset and quant fund managers, Bloomberg reported. The new tool shows retail flows, predicts the next "short-squeeze," and combs through Reddit and Twitter to determine retail traders' sentiment on a stock, the report said.
A bank representative did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment. JPMorgan told Bloomberg that without a keen eye on retail, investors may feel like they're "driving partially blind."
Source

Thanks @ Derf, I didn't even know there was an option for the average investor to redeem MF into appreciated shares. Can an average investor do this?
-----
Derf
March 18 Flag
Thanks @Devo : If you reached your limit on articles , then try here :: https://www.investopedia.com/how-vanguard-patented-a-system-to-avoid-taxes-in-mutual-funds-4686985
So with that read, should or could the "average" investor try to do the trade of MF's to appreciated stock while doing a redemption ? A step up in bias sounds good to me if the proceeds are to be passed on ! Granted the stock could go down in price before one gets to pass it on.

The performance of my portfolio's individual holdings is checked almost daily (for no good reason).
The entire portfolio is "X-Rayed" from 3-5 times per year.
I usually rebalance annually if the stock/bond allocation varies (+/- 5%) from my target threshold.
This rebalancing occurs near the very end/very beginning of the year.

March 18th Episode:

Barron's is reporting:
Value investor Michael F PRICE (Mutual Shares/MUTHX, 01/1975-11/1998) passed away at 70. A short obituary was by Barron’s Roundtable member Meryl WHITMER.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/michael-price-value-investing-51647646915?mod=past_editions
M* MUTHX http://financials.morningstar.com/fund/management.html?t=MUTHX&region=usa&culture=en-US

Never, at least not on purpose. I would prefer not to hold any income producing investments but lenders, rental companies, utility companies, etc., like to see income.
Nearly all of my equity positions pay dividends and/or produce income distributions (e.g. equity CEF's). My fixed income portion, roughly 20-25% at the moment, consists of primarily PIMCO bond CEF's, CHS preferred shares plus some cash. That percentage has been as low as 5-10%. One could say that I just prefer to hold stocks.

Here's the page from which @bee's except was taken:
https://www.deepcapture.com/the-story-of-deep-capture-by-mark-mitchell/
naked shorters ... (it's flatly illegal goes the argument
Is naked shorting flatly illegal, or is that just one side's argument?
Naked shorting is not unconditionally illegal, just as going long without having the money to cover it on the trade date is not unconditionally illegal.
Is it illegal to buy a security and then talk it up? It depends.
"[A]busive 'naked' short selling as part of a manipulative scheme is always illegal under the general antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, including Rule 10b-5".
SEC Rule 10b-21 https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2008/34-58774.pdf
Absent fraud, naked shorts can be legal, so long as they comply with other SEC regs. "'Naked' short selling is not necessarily a violation of the federal securities laws or the [Security and Exchange] Commission’s rules. Indeed, in certain circumstances, 'naked' short selling contributes to market liquidity."
https://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/regsho.htm
Apparently naked shorting is not flatly illegal, goes the official argument. The DTCC agrees, saying that "there is some legal naked short selling.
With respect to Overstock, "In 2004, Cohodes, a partner at a hedge fund called Rocker Partners, and David Rocker, the fund’s founder, shorted Overstock after concluding that Byrne was making untenable promises about its financial performance. "
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/12/14/a-tycoons-deep-state-conspiracy-dive
That's 18, not 15 years ago. This matters because Regulation SHO became effective January 2005, and Rule 10b-21 became effective Oct 2008.
For a very different, expansive perspective of the alleged conspiracies, here's Joe Nocera's business column from Feb 2006:
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/25/business/overstocks-campaign-of-menace.html
To bring this back to the Reuters piece - put options were purchased. That's a way to gain the same exposure as with a short, but there's no failure to deliver; no security lending is involved. As the CEO of Farmland stated, ""This is not about shorting. This is about securities fraud."

2Y-10Y spread was only 17 bps. Yield-curve also has a tiny hump at 7-yr.
EOD chart should update soon, https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$UST10Y-$UST2Y&p=D&yr=1&mn=0&dy=0&id=p13919226325
Treasury Rates https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/TextView?type=daily_treasury_yield_curve&field_tdr_date_value_month=202203

Blanchard asks about projections, plus rate of IR increases
https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1504797235745370113

PByrne was treated outrageously way back when (15y ago) by naked shorters, whose actions eventually resulted in increased crackdown and the rare prosecution attempt (it's flatly illegal, goes the argument). Herb Greenberg (MarketWatch and elsewhere) et alia were the evildoers at the time. I made a lot and then lost it all and a bit more when Novastar got naked-shorted. Byrne was a hero to many w Overstock.
Now of course he himself has become this total bad actor, destructive on so many fronts. Some of us chagrinned are reevaluating our sentiments and thinking from the housing bubble crash.

@Junkster, T-Bills are now better than m-market funds. Buy those commission-free at Fido, Schwab, etc. There is a nearby thread on the details for T-Bills and T-Notes.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/59328/tough-day-in-bond-land#latest

Thanks yogi. Am ignorant on T-Bills. Always thought they weren’t as liquid as money market if I needed the money for an immediate fund trade?

Most people hold them to maturity but you can buy/sell them at tiny bid/ask spread ANYTIME. There is nothing more liquid than T-Bills.

@Junkster, T-Bills are now better than m-market funds. Buy those commission-free at Fido, Schwab, etc. There is a nearby thread on the details for T-Bills and T-Notes.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/59328/tough-day-in-bond-land#latest

Thanks yogi. Am ignorant on T-Bills. Always thought they weren’t as liquid as money market if I needed the money for an immediate fund trade?