Looking through the comments here and doing some more reading this morning leaves me thinking it is good the Fed is taking a go slow approach. Here are a few takeaways....
A Center For Strategic and International Studies (CFSAIS) report indicates most of the worlds central banks have reached the experimental or pilot development phase of their examinations of CBDC use. The report indicates "The case for CBDC is based in large part on the underlying technology’s potential to improve payments efficiency and lower transaction costs, particularly for cross-border payments, as well as to bolster system integrity, spur financial innovation, and improve access to financial services."
The CFSAIS report also suggests that China's digital currency electronic payment (DCEP) program is significantly "motivated by concern that private digital payment platforms could displace traditional banks—posing a threat to financial stability and official sector oversight of economic and financial activity in China." Relatedly, a recent Asia Times article notes that "DCEP serves as a tool for the Chinese government to regain control over domestic financial crime, stabilize the financial system and protect China’s national security. Unlike many anonymous and decentralized cryptocurrencies, the DCEP is monitored and backed by the PBOC, affording China’s leadership supreme control over all transactions."
Proponents of a Fed based digital dollar think it would provide the unbanked with access to virtual dollars. However, a Bank Policy Institute (BPI) report suggests the banking community doubts the potential financial inclusion benefit would wind up being widespread. That report also suggests that fear of crytocurriences and stablecoins, widespread fear of China's DCEP advances, and European fear of US control over the global financial system are important motivators behind current central banker focus on CBDCs.

Call me dense on this subject, but ISTM we already have virtual dollars. Years ago, when the government printed money, it really printed it. Now the Fed just adds virtual dollars electronically to banks' reserves. Voila, instant, albeit virtual, cash. Obviously these virtual dollars are tied to "real" dollars because they're denominated in real dollars.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/081415/understanding-how-federal-reserve-creates-money.asp
https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2017/november/does-federal-reserve-print-money
The Digital Dollar piece linked to above claims that "Transfer payments, such as those provided by governments to people during the Covid-19 crisis, would be made faster and easier if that money could be deposited directly into digital wallets."
"Digital" currency wouldn't have made them go any faster, because the payments were already made electronically at least to some recipients.
What we don't have (yet) are virtual wallets. So called "virtual wallets" now are just software layered upon existing payment systems.
A prepaid, rechargeable card comes close to a virtual wallet. Conceptually, it stores cash value on the card, like a physical wallet stores paper money. Potential loss is limited to the amount on the card, as is potential loss from having a "real" wallet stolen. They can be recharged with cash without using a bank. (I suspect the reality is that prepaid cards still rely on being connected to a server. That would mean less anonymity than advertised, and a greater possibility of failure as compared with pulling a dollar bill out of your wallet.)
In short, so long as "virtual" dollars are linked to "real" dollars, I don't see a big difference between them and the current, largely virtual system. There are significant concerns (notably in privacy and access) with a cashless society. But that's a different question, one that arises as virtual dollars supplant physical money.

Thanks for that. I'm 56% bonds of all sorts, these days. But EM in my portf is tiny.

Old_Joe : I think you had a price increase of 12.5 % , without paying more !
Enjoy the treat, Derf

"...Demographic trends mean that women are controlling a greater share of financial wealth, since they live longer than male partners. At present, women control about 53% of investible assets; by 2030 this will rise to two-thirds, according to a study by the Family Wealth Advisors Council. ‘Making the industry more women-friendly has to be a clear priority,’ Jones says."
Is the goal to manage money and grow it, or to make women feel comfortable? Wise decisions are key. Men trade much more often, says the article. That may be true. So, they're shooting themselves in the foot. Seems to me, however, that it's not gender that matters, but a thing called WISDOM. I just made my first and only trade in YEARS the other day, buying a VERY small position in a foreign electric utility company. *The most recent "Wealthtrack" show with Consuelo Mack featured Dan Rosenberg. Right now, he's suggesting UTILITIES because they are currently out of favor. (Gretzky: "I don't skate to the puck. I skate to where the puck is GOING TO BE.")

Like many teenagers, Ronak Davé enjoys the videogame Roblox. But he doesn’t play much these days, preferring to trade the stock instead. He recently sold a stake in Roblox after holding it for a few weeks, notching a 25% gain, or about $200.
“I saw a pullback after looking at the technical patterns,” Davé says. “I noticed some resistance coming back and thought it would go down.” At 16, Davé isn’t your typical trader. A high school junior outside Chicago, he started trading a year ago and now spends a few hours a day on the markets ...
Fidelity investments introduced a youth account product last month for those ages 13 to 17. The accounts come with a debit card, unlimited trading, and access to nearly the entire US market - overseen voluntarily by parents …
Fidelity’s youth accounts are like a standard brokerage account with training wheels. Teens can trade all they want, but Fidelity restricts the types of stocks to U.S.listed companies, doesn’t allow options or margin trading, and recommends capping annual deposits at $30,000.
Barron’s June 14, 2021

I just completed an article on Seeking Alpha with the May data from Mutual Fund Observer. It is available in the link below. I hope you enjoy the article.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4434474-dancing-with-trend?v=1623516212&comments=show#comment-89202343

More detail on the debate surrounding the Fed's look into releasing a CBDC.

Neha Narula, who’s leading the effort at MIT to work with the Boston Fed on a central bank digital currency, called the project “a once-in-a-century opportunity to redesign the dollar” in a way that supports innovation much like the internet did.

But.....

“The United States should not implement a [central bank digital currency] simply because we can or because others are doing so,” the American Bankers Association said in a statement to lawmakers this week. The benefits “are theoretical, difficult to measure, and may be elusive,” while the negative consequences “could be severe,” the group wrote.

Fed explores ‘once in a century’ bid to remake the U.S. dollar

June 12th Episode:

Interesting conclusion:

The decision to convert or not to convert may be influenced by external factors beyond maximizing disposable income. It would seem desirable to convert when asset prices are depressed because there is less tax paid and the state of the market is amenable to a recovery. Following the same logic, converting when asset prices are inflated would seem imprudent.

https://i-orp.com/modeldescription/Vol15Issue1.pdf#page=49
I found this tidbit as a referenced link within the Optimal Retirement Planner which @davidmoran has referenced often. I am finding lots of useful links and information embedded in this planner. If you are approaching retirement or even in retirement this seems like a worthy tool to use.
Linked here:
https://i-orp.com/Plans/index.html

I have several accounts which I treat each separately but with an eye on overall allocation. My primary accounts withover 50% of my assets is an IRA Rollover with 14 Funds focusing on low correlation, distinct style boxes, asset allocation etc. I rarely update this portfolio and have allocations to both Growth and Value in Domestic Large, Mid and Small. Also, I like to invest in Int'l Gorwth and Value where most investors pick one Int'l Fund. I also own EM and Int'l SMid, Fixed Inc Core Plus, Multi-Sector Fixed.
I have a Roth @ Vanguard with 3-4 Index Funds. My current 401k is my tactical portfolio with another 10-12 funds & ETF's.
I will consolidate over the next10-15 years as I get closer to retirement.

+1 hank. Based on the Fido chart of OPGSX, 10k invested as of 5/31/11 atrophied to $2,425 by year-end 2015! If I was going to play in this sector, I would consider GDX since I could sell without incurring transaction fees. I'm sure Rono could add quite a bit to this discussion !

I like Hank's approach a lot. I hold a fair number of alternative funds, as these types of funds work, until they don't. My expected yearly return for these funds is 2.5-3 % .My previous experiences with ACVVX QMNNX PAUAX and MFLDX, among others reinforce my wariness of these funds. In the future I may just rely on MERFX ADANX and CVSIX to simplify things.

I guess I felt obligated to caution the uninitiated about the volatility of this sector. There’s lots of different ways to play the inflation card - if you think that’s where we’re going. Bullion is tamer than the miners, and there’s lots of allocation funds with limited exposure.
Adding up the string of 5 consecutive red (loosing) years for OPGSX beginning in 2011 I get north of 120%. Ouch! Who has the stamina to ride something like that out? (And it’s “5 stars” at M* - which should make you wonder about those ratings).
OK - I did my civic duty.

I thought it was worth posting this illuminative chart uncovered doing research this morning. Might make one think twice. Personally, I’m bullish on gold. (But I know only slightly more than the lamp-post on the corner.)
As this Chart shows, you can lose a lot of money playing in this arena. Check out the “return” from 2011-2015. (And Morningstar has the audacity to give this baby a 5-Star rating!)
Disclosure: I own this fund. It is among my smallest holdings.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen it. I’ll give it a go.

The Duke
Kurt Jurgens
Peter Lawford
Rod Steiger
Eddie Albert
Robt Mitchum
Richard Burton
Paul Anka
Red Buttons
Tom Tryon
Sean Connery
Henry Fonda
Roddy McDowall
......................................And that's only what I can recall off the top of my head. It's really, really good.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056197/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0

It's well worth watching. Long, but good.
Gert Fröbe played the German milkman I mentioned. For those who don't know, he also played 'Goldfinger' in the Bond movie of the same name (but was dubbed b/c his accent was too thick for audiences)
Speaking of Bond, I think Sean Connery purposely asked to play a cut-up part to contrast with his Bond persona. For example, he comes off the Higgins Boat and does a clumsy face-plant into the water, and is a snarky 'everyman' type of grunt in his other scenes, too.

In our Roths, my wife and I both own about 12 each, all actively managed. We try not to have overlap, but still it's probably 50-60% overlap.
In our 401ks, we both own fewer since our employers both offer fewer options. In my 401k, I think I own 6, all but 2 are index. Wife 401k is about the same.

I think this "true tax rate" is ridiculous headline generating nonsense. They take the total unrealized gain of public companies stock and then claim Buffet and Bezos, etc should have paid taxes on that number. They may be "worth" that on paper but these are unrealized gains, not money in the bank.
Under this theory, we would all have to pay taxes on any unrealized gains, including the appreciation in your own real estate. If property values fall would the government give us a rebate?
Buffet's income tax rate is 24/125 or 19%. I agree this is low, but so does he. Buffet has always said that the tax system is stacked in his and other millionaires favor.
Wealth taxes have been tired and abandoned in Europe as ineffective. What we need is a simpler tax system, that makes it harder to game, and better audits and enforcement

Junk and semi-junk munis and securitized. Yup: PTIAX.
Muni: 40.35
Securitized: 47.19%
... Yet, alas: YTD up a mere 1.18 and in the 67th %ile. Love the monthlies, though. PTIAX.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen it. I’ll give it a go.

The Duke
Kurt Jurgens
Peter Lawford
Rod Steiger
Eddie Albert
Robt Mitchum
Richard Burton
Paul Anka
Red Buttons
Tom Tryon
Sean Connery
Henry Fonda
Roddy McDowall
......................................And that's only what I can recall off the top of my head. It's really, really good.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056197/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0