And now another crash: https://cnn.com/2021/05/19/investing/bitcoin-price-drop-china-crypto-intl-hnk/index.html

Oy: https://cnn.com/2021/05/19/investing/bitcoin-price-drop-china-crypto-intl-hnk/index.html

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1081400/000108140021000358/divequitysupp.htm
Acquiring Fund: Wells Fargo Spectrum Aggressive Growth Fund

>> This idea that SS increases at 8% per year strikes me as fallacious. In "dollars," sure, but not in purchasing power ... the rate at which SS benefits are adjusted for inflation is only a fraction of the rate of inflation actually experienced by most people, especially seniors. Rerun those numbers with annual benefit increases that account for 4.0 to 4.5% inflation, a number more people are actually likely to face
Huh? The 8% figure is for delaying.
Not CoLA.

Absent COLA adjustments, the real value of waiting would be substantially less, and could even be negative. To take an extreme example, suppose prices doubled in a year. Then your 108% of benefits would be worth 54% of what your base benefit was worth a year before. That is, rather than getting an 8% return, one would suffer a 46% loss.
But because the payments would go up not 8% (nominal) but 8% in real terms, you really would get 8% more purchasing power by waiting a year.

CPI of course does not take into account (e.g.) property tax increases, or only very indirectly.

You might as well say that CPI of course does not take into account the cost of buying or financing a home. That's because homes are capital goods, and CPI measures consumables (services are considered consumables). So instead, CPI considers rent equivalent (what you'd have to pay in rent for the shelter you own).
The cost of rent incorporates all the landlord's costs that get past through, including property taxes. Just one step of indirection, not so tenuous.
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/owners-equivalent-rent-and-rent.pdf

But on what bases do you state what you state?

That's the key question, because all we have here is a bald assertion about costs people are likely to face. Spot checking a few numbers ...
Not seasonally adjusted, April Y/Y inflation is 4.2%. Food is up 2.4%, energy is up 25% (with some components like gasoline up 50%). Used cars are up 21%. Car/truck rentals are up 82%.
Drug prices are down 1.5%. Medical care services are up 2.2%. Health insurance is down 3.0%. Shelter's up 2.1%.
While it may seem that inflation is outstripping COLA, it's worth taking a close look at everything, not just the high flying items that are catching your eye.
And the one figure that might matter most here: Financial service costs are down 0.2%.
All numbers above are from Table 2 in the latest BLS CPI news release.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/cpi_05122021.htm#cpipress2

>> This idea that SS increases at 8% per year strikes me as fallacious. In "dollars," sure, but not in purchasing power ... the rate at which SS benefits are adjusted for inflation is only a fraction of the rate of inflation actually experienced by most people, especially seniors. Rerun those numbers with annual benefit increases that account for 4.0 to 4.5% inflation, a number more people are actually likely to face
Huh? The 8% figure is for delaying.
Not CoLA.
But you must know that.
As for the rest,
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/consumer-price-index-and-annual-percent-changes-from-1913-to-2008/
CPI of course does not take into account (e.g.) property tax increases, or only very indirectly.
And there is core inflation, which does not take into account food and energy (a big 'not').
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/united-states-core-inflation-rates/
But on what bases do you state what you state?

There was an interesting article in The Guardian (UK) today about the global plastics nightmare which is set to get even worse in the coming years. Among other apalling facts, the article details how some of the major world banks have invested tens of billions of dollars in single use plastics producers. Here's the link:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/18/twenty-firms-produce-55-of-worlds-plastic-waste-report-reveals
This got me wondering how many ESG funds are actually invested in these banks. And if they are, then how can they claim to be ESG funds? I had time only to conduct a brief survey of six ESG mutual funds, but will continue my research. Five of the six funds held at least one of the offending banks in The Guardian article. Two funds held two or more of the banks, and one fund held the top four worst offenders. Only only fund, Brown Advisory Sustainable Growth, held none of the banks.
It pays to dig deeper. If you are sleeping soundly at night believing your ESG fund is doing the world a favor wake up and think again.

While the article says that Danoff donated those shares, I wonder if this deal is structured so that those receiving distributions can treat them as carried interest, as "at risk" money.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-carried-interest-and-how-it-taxed
With respect to the original WSJ article, Fidelity's pushing the envelope in signing up kids. This seems a far cry from the old Stein Roe Young Investors Fund that did not just throw kids into the deep end:

Stein Roe & Farnham, with its $708 million Young Investor Fund, does more than just accommodate children with low minimum investments. It provides newsletters and games to teach the fundamentals of investing and the economy, and it created a portfolio of companies such as Nike Inc., McDonald's Corp. and Walt Disney Co. that young investors will recognize. That has been a winning formula.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1998/05/10/the-young-and-invested/83fe06a6-4542-4b9a-ab95-158f35c95fd2/
Nor does it seem the market now is so much larger, rather the marketing is more aggressive.

According to one survey, 31% of youths in grades 8 through 12 now own stocks, bonds or mutual funds, up from 14% in 1993.

LA Times, Oct 3, 2000.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-oct-03-mn-30317-story.html

This idea that SS increases at 8% per year strikes me as fallacious. In "dollars," sure, but not in purchasing power, which decreases each and every year (unless we hit an extended period of deflation, which I'd have a problem counting on). Moreover, the rate at which SS benefits are adjusted for inflation is only a fraction of the rate of inflation actually experienced by most people, especially seniors. Re-run those numbers with annual benefit increases that account for 4.0 to 4.5% inflation, a number more people are actually likely to face, and the results are very different. In simple terms, the individual "breakeven" point is pushed out quite dramatically.

“Fidelity Investments Inc. plans to open the door to a new generation of investors who will be able to trade stocks even before they learn how to drive or head to college. Fidelity said Tuesday it will issue debit cards and offer investing and savings accounts to 13- to 17-year-olds whose parents or guardians also invest with the firm. The accounts will let teens buy and sell U.S. stocks, Fidelity mutual funds and many exchange-traded funds. Similar to how it works for adults, the service won’t charge account fees or commissions for online trading.
“The offering marks Fidelity’s latest move to position itself as a lifelong financial adviser to millions of Americans. Once known for the stock-picking mutual funds it sold through other brokers, the firm has spent the past few decades building direct connections to individual investors. Today, Fidelity runs one of the world’s biggest brokerages and the nation’s largest servicer of 401(k) plans and other retirement accounts offered by employers.
“Fidelity and other major wealth managers slashed their stock-trading commissions to zero in recent years. Eliminating those costs had set the stage for the industry’s banner 2020, when many individual investors rediscovered the allure of trading stocks. Many brokerage and wealth-management firms reported a surge in enthusiasm and new accounts, especially among younger participants. Fidelity is among them. In the first three months of 2021, the company added 1.6 million accounts from investors 35 years old or younger—more than triple the number of new accounts from that demographic a year earlier, Fidelity said.”
The Wall Street Journal - May 19, 2021

https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2021/05/18/3-reasons-why-muni-bonds-are-still-a-good-buy/
What You Need to Know
Through May 17, the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Bond Index is up 0.51%, while the Agg is down 2.7%.
The prospect of higher income taxes on high earners seems to be supporting munis, along with more fiscal stimulus.
The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan provides $350 billion to state, local and tribal governments.***

FWIW, as of today, 05-19-21, neither ETF.com nor ETFDb.com properly recognizes DIVS.
https://www.etf.com/DIVS
https://etfdb.com/etf/DIVS/
However, ETFRC does recognize DIVS.
https://www.etfrc.com/DIVS
DIVS' homepage - on the sponsor's website - is here:
https://www.smartetfs.com/divs/
Finally, Morningstar recognizes DIVS, but sort of (you have to look at it, see link below) includes the performance of the predecessor mutual fund [GAINX] in the performance history for DIVS:
https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/arcx/divs/performance
More importantly - perhaps - given the ETF's "mixed" (i.e., mutual fund + ETF) history, Morningstar did not produce a 'Star' rating for the prior performance.

With a comprehensive personal investment strategy an investor can avoid the inevitable, repetitive and difficult questions like those asked in the OP. Or, at least have the answers at the ready.

@Stillers: I agree with you that the total of 3 Discussion Topics you have posted for the community in the 16 months since you arrived are all vastly superior to any topic @Derf or I have offered up. That #3 - “Your tax dollars at work” sounds particularly compelling.
As to your investment prowess, I’ve been wanting to thank you for the tip on DODFX back during the first half of December.
“The conclusions that should be drawn are: DODFX is a mediocre FLV stock fund that has only kept pace with IC+ bond fund DODIX for the past ten years. DODFX is inherently a much higher risk fund than DODIX and the chance of it not meeting investors return expectations is significantly higher.” - Posted by @Stillers, December 2020.
Admittedly, it’s only been 5 months. But here’s what’s happened since your post:
- DODIX -5% (or more) / DODFX +14%.
- DODFX has outpaced DODIX by approximately 20% over the 5 months.
- DODFX is now in the top 20th percentile of its peer group based on recent performance (Lipper).
- Meanwhile, DODIX peaked December 17 at $14.98 and has been falling ever since. Looks like you caught the high. Sure glad I listened and sold my depressed DODFX at that time, while putting the money into high flying DODIX.

Just the facts, ma'am.
And here they are.
With a comprehensive personal investment strategy an investor can avoid the inevitable, repetitive and difficult questions like those asked in the OP. Or, at least have the answers at the ready.
Alternatively...
(1) The S&P is currently testing its 50dma. So there's that.
(2) https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/466152a2-3851-3e1f-b62c-404994dc13f4/market-timer-mcclellan-turned.html
(3) (Enter favorite article or reference here.)

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/793769/000119312521166201/d168244d497.htm
 
111 South Wacker Drive, 34th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606-4302
harborfunds.com
Supplement to Statement of Additional Information dated March 1, 2021
May 19, 2021
Harbor Mid Cap Growth Fund
The Board of Trustees of Harbor Funds (the “Board”) has approved a change in Harbor Mid Cap Growth Fund’s (the “Fund”) name and principal investment strategy, together with certain related changes. Effective on or about September 1, 2021 (the “Effective Date”), the Fund will be renamed the Harbor Disruptive Innovation Fund and will no longer have a policy to invest, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets, plus borrowings for investment purposes, in securities of mid cap companies. As of the Effective Date, the Fund will seek to invest in what it believes to be disruptive and innovative companies of any market capitalization. The Fund’s benchmark index will change from Russell Midcap® Growth Index to the S&P 500 Index and the Russell 3000® Growth Index. There will be no change in the Fund’s investment objective.
In connection with the changes noted above, Wellington Management Company LLP will no longer serve as the Fund’s suabadviser as of the Effective Date. Instead, the Fund will employ a multi-manager approach to seek to achieve its investment objective, whereby Harbor Capital Advisors, Inc. (the “Adviser”), the Fund’s investment adviser, will manage the Fund’s assets based upon model portfolios provided by multiple non-discretionary subadvisers. The Board has appointed 4BIO Partners LLP (pending approval of its registration as an investment adviser with the Securities and Exchange Commission), NZS Capital, LLC, Sands Capital Management, LLC, Tekne Capital Management, LLC and Westfield Capital Management Company, L.P. to serve as subadvisers to the Fund as of the Effective Date.
The Adviser will, starting on the Effective Date, reposition the Fund’s portfolio in accordance with the new investment strategy for the Fund. In connection therewith, the Fund expects to experience portfolio turnover, which will result in higher than normal transaction costs to shareholders and may also result in the realization and/or distribution of higher capital gains than might generally be expected under normal circumstances.
In connection with the changes described above, the rate of advisory fees payable by the Fund to the Adviser will be reduced as of the Effective Date from 0.75% to 0.70% annually as a percentage of the Fund’s average net assets. In addition, as of the Effective Date, the Adviser has contractually agreed to limit the Fund’s operating expenses, excluding interest expense (if any), to 0.50%, 0.58%, 0.83%, and 0.94% for the Retirement Class, Institutional Class, Administrative Class, and Investor Class, respectively, through August 31, 2022.
An amended and restated Statement of Additional Information will be available for the Fund on the Effective Date.
Harbor Global Leaders Fund
Effective immediately the following information replaces the corresponding information on page 52 of the Statement of Additional Information.
Harbor Global Leaders Fund. The Fund is subadvised by Sands Capital Management, LLC (“Sands Capital”). Sands Capital is an independent investment management firm, ultimately controlled by Frank M. Sands, Sands Capital’s CEO and CIO. Frank M. Sands controls Sands Capital by virtue of his position as, among other things, trustee, manager, or officer, respectively, of various intermediate holding entities and trusts through which voting or management rights with respect to Sands Capital are held and/or exercised.
Investors Should Retain This Supplement For Future Reference
S0521.SAI

@Baseball_Fan -
I’d never scoff at the tech people. I don’t understand it very well, but do try to draw some meaningful inferences from watching the charts. Occasionally this leads to some kind of tactical move. I thought you might enjoy a remark by Bill Fleckenstein about 2 weeks ago. I won’t bother with a link, since it’s accessible only thru subscription:
-
“On a related note, although I don't comment about it much, I've been watching a potential head-and-shoulders pattern form on Bitcoin and it looks like we may have a failed right shoulder coincidently with taking out the 50-day moving average. I don't want to make too much out of it, but to the extent that Bitcoin and weak bonds have hampered gold's progress, these developments may free it up a bit.”
- Daily Rap by Bill Fleckenstein, May 4, 2021

Wednesday & I'm seeing RED , just like last week . Is it time to sell or buy on the dipper ? Last week the last two days were up after the first three days were down. I took a peek on Saturday & decided to stay the course. Now I'm back at the same point. Time to take some profit or buy a little more value ?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-money-investors-suggest-the-cycle-has-peaked-morning-brief-101209858.html
Derf

… Fidelity's holding period to avoid early redemption fees is 60 days, compared to Schwab's 90 days.
Thanks @carew388,
That’s an unexpected issue for me. I shuffle a fair amount of $$ around at TRP (and Invesco). Not selling entire fund - just adding or subtracting. During periods like March & April 2020 you want to be moving from less aggressive into more aggressive funds. Usually abide by a self imposed 30 day rule - in addition to TRP’s own 30-day block.
*Question: Is that early redemption fee only applied to the most recent shares bought? First in / first out perhaps? Makes a heck of a difference!
I did find this …..
“Fidelity charges a short-term trading fee each time you sell or exchange shares of a FundsNetwork NTF fund held less than 60 days. This fee does not apply to Fidelity funds, money market funds, FundsNetwork Transaction Fee funds, FundsNetwork load funds … “
That’s good news. But still trying to figure out whether first in / first out applies in the NTF cases.
Ahhh … Fidelity sounds fine (as does Schwab). Fido has a lot of good funds of its own - and there’s no short term trading fee. Used to play around with their sector funds when younger.
I’ve dealt with TRP for 25 years. Their online system is great 99% of the time. Pretty slick. But the method of switching over to electronic delivery is a bit gimped up. My talk with them today reminds me of the old line: A man said to the Universe … “Sir, I exist …”

+ 1 Mark Hank, I've been with Fidelity since 1993 and highly recommend them. Transfers between brokerages are called In-Kind/ACAT transfers. For in-kind transfers, research Fidelity to make sure that they sell the TRP mutual funds that you are transferring in. I would also choose Fidelity over Schwab for two reasons: Fidelity funds are ntf with no minimum balance, and Fidelity's holding period to avoid early redemption fees is 60 days, compared to Schwab's 90 days. The ACAT transfers are easy to set up at Fidelity and you receive the incoming assets, whether mutual funds, etfs or cash within 5-7 business days.

“Decades ago, Fidelity nudged all investors off of their mutual fund platform onto their brokerage platform. (Who remembers T-account numbers?) Vanguard is in the middle of that process now.”
Thanks. Wondered about that based on some past discussions here. And the Fido rep I spoke with today never mentioned that little detail.
There is a difference. With a fund-to-fund exchange, it goes through at that day’s closing price. That’s handy if it’s a sector or very volatile fund and you’re watching the market. But in a brokerage, as I understand it, it takes 1 extra day to clear. One reason I never got into a brokerage. Admittedly, that kind of timing’s less important to me than years ago. (Still, OPGSX jumped over 5% yesterday.)
The way around that, I guess, is to buy and sell ETFs …. if you want the latest market price … Right?