The diagram from @hank's link. Tagging @catch22.
https://www.psia-nw.org/wp-content/uploads/Blooms_Taxonomy-600x516.jpg
(Crap, I thought the image itself might appear, not just the link.)
It makes perfect sense, of course. And the process reminds me of similar charts and metrics along the way, which were more subject-specific, in my school DAZE.
It also calls to mind that business labelled as "iNtuition (sic) in the Myers Briggs universe. For the record, iNtuition is my "dominant function." I can cut to the heart of the matter and not be able to explain very well how I got there to anyone else. It's not just a hunch, a feeling; it's synthesizing and being able to apply tools/insights/patterns in new ways. Creating new information I had not been aware of, before. The Bloom item is excellent stuff.
So, Grantham is super-educated and knowledgeable. Maybe if the Markets had been left alone without Fed and Gov't intervention, Grantham would be more right than wrong. But ... When you cry "wolf" ALL the time, it wears thin.

Mike Wilson predictions, just like many other experts, are pretty bad, see (link).

Sonders is smart AND gorgeous.
...I'm glad, particularly now, that I've been overweight in bonds. But not very happy about my timing, initiating a spot in HY TUHYX (TRP.) Yes, my stuff is down, but it could be a lot worse. Bank Loans (PRFRX) are almost at "even-steven." Just below the zero-line, by a fraction. Meanwhile, divs get paid, still. This past Friday, I moved the lion's share of my PRIDX (smid-cap foreign) into PRFRX for protection. (PRIDX = down -13.48% ytd.) I've managed to do very well over the past 5 years in PRIDX. Up over +11% in that time period, annualized. so, ya: the portfolio is down, but if I were invested in a way to directly track the major markets, the bleeding would be much worse.

@msf, +1
I also found other inconsistent data in the performance tab to deem unreliable.

@davfor, which "VIX"?
There are "VIX" for SP500 [VIX], Nasdaq 100 [VXN], small-cap Russell 2000 [RVX], emerging markets [VXEEM], oil [OVX], gold [GVZ].
Precede these tickers with ^ at Yahoo Finance, $ at Stockcharts.

Interview from Schwab's chief investment officer, Liz Ann Sonders.
https://news.yahoo.com/investors-shouldnt-bottom-fish-based-on-stock-declines-strategist-195923273.html

@MikeM said “If I found that over the years I was substantially behind a benchmark I would just buy the benchmark.”
Ditto … When folks like Mike (and many others) who’s been posting here and at Fund Alarm for perhaps 15 years explain what they do and why they do it, it’s worth listening. One might assume they haven’t been “beating their head against a brick wall” all those years without any incremental advantage … over a single fund approach

From above post :
"A number of posters have referenced possibly investing 100% in their chosen benchmark fund. Not a bad idea. "

@Derf - Since you’ve quoted from my post I should say here (1) “Not bad” doesn’t necessarily mean “good” and (2) I enumerated 5 specific reasons why I chose not to do that.
That said, folks need to make their own decisions based on needs, risk tolerance, health, etc. Hopefully this discussion will help some.

One thing on the benchmark TBLQX. I compare to it "now" because it has a very similar equity percentage for where I want to be, where I've been the past couple years. The stated year makes no difference to me.

I don't use a bench mark & find my account continues to grow. I'm not trying to keep up with the Jones or Smiths , just sleep good !

@Derf, try a comparison. Just give it a look. What do you have to lose?
If I found that over the years I was substantially behind a benchmark I would just buy the benchmark. In fact, that was the purpose of putting a good chunk of money, over 1/2 my retirement savings, into Schwab's robo account. Most of us don't trail a benchmark because of the funds we choose or investments we make. I contend fund selection is secondary to portfolio management. We trail because humans tend to be undisciplined and move in and out of funds at the most inopportune times. Benchmarks don't, and they exceedingly win the race over time. I know @hank has mentioned over the years, it is hard to beat a benchmark. But I concede it is fun to try.

Mona, look up TDF retirement & their 2020 TDF. You could use one or the other or split the two. I believe the 2015 TDF is close to rolling into the Retirement fund. You will get tips also. I haven't checked Life Strategy allocation. The 34% cash maybe a problem to find a bench marking fund. If you combine cash & bonds as one , you could luck out & find one.
FWIW, Derf

Following discussion with much interest. It occurs to me that while Grantham may or may not be 100% “correct”, his views can be included as part of one’s ongoing thought process and help us arrive at intelligent decisions. Had a wonderful college class in the late 60s where much attention was paid to “synthesizing” - forming judgements from different, sometimes contrasting opinions or observations.
“Synthesis suggests the ability to put together separate ideas to form new wholes of a fabric, or establish new relationships: putting together ideas and knowledge in a new and unique form. Can build a structure or pattern from diverse elements, potentially creating new meanings.”
If interested, link below will pull up a cool diagram (and discussion) of Bloom’s ctitical thinking hierarchy. Double-click on illustration to highlight.
LINK to Source.

From above post :
"A number of posters have referenced possibly investing 100% in their chosen benchmark fund. Not a bad idea. "
Had I done this , put 50 or 100 % in a TDF at Vanguard, I would have blown my fuse do to the LARGE cap gains that were issued for this tax year !
This subject was discuss about 2 months ago.
Enjoy your Sunday, Derf

This change requires a different way of thinking about the impact of energy price spikes.

The big picture: In the past, when oil prices spiked, the impact on the U.S. economy was straightforward: It made America poorer, as more of our income went overseas to pay for imported energy.
Now, after the shale gas revolution of the last 15 years, the impact is more subtle. Higher fuel prices disadvantage consumers and energy-intensive industries, yes. But there is a counteracting surge in incomes for domestic energy producers and their workers.
Higher oil prices no longer depress overall measures of prosperity like GDP and national income, but rather shift it around toward certain regions. Texas and North Dakota win; Massachusetts and North Carolina lose.

Link:
energy independent

Bloomberg Front Row Grantham interview (3 weeks old) -

Based on Jon’s summary above, I suspect Front Row interview is likely duplicative of the Fox Business video posted above.

Based on M* charts, POLIX has lost 19% in the past three months.

It's impossible to keep track of all these series without a scorecard, and even then, I'm not sure.
Until 2013, T. Rowe Price offered an aggressive, but stable (unchanged glidepath) product, unlike its leading competitors, Vanguard and Fidelity.
2011 Ibbotoson Paper, Bait and Switch: Glide Path Instability

“In 2008 and 2009, there was increased interest in adjusting our glide path more conservatively,” said Jerome Clark, portfolio manager of T. Rowe Price’s retirement funds. “We avoid making glide path changes based upon short-term market environments, which is consistent with the message we communicate to our investors to stay the course when markets swing to extremes.”

https://www.investmentnews.com/target-date-glide-paths-are-unstable-at-some-major-plan-providers-37617
By 2013, T. Rowe Price and Vanguard had well outperformed Fidelity over the preceding five years because of their more aggressive glide paths. Consequently, Fidelity again changed its glidepath, bringing it in line with its competitors. It seems like a stretch to say that T. Rowe Price at the same time introduced a less aggressive line of funds because of loud complaints received years ago as it began multi-year run of superior results.

Still, it is notable that as of Aug. 22, [2013] T. Rowe Price launched new funds that recognize that some investors are more risk averse as a complement its core T. Rowe Price Retirement Funds, which had $88.1 billion in assets as of March 31.

https://riabiz.com/a/2013/9/27/after-a-lot-of-flak-fidelity-investments-does-a-study-and-pledges-to-change-how-it-manages-its-170-billion-of-target-date-funds
Meanwhile, Fidelity was not only tinkering with its initial Freedom series, but creating a slew of variants: Freedom Index (same idea, but w/index funds), Managed Payout Funds and Simplicity RMD Funds (originally Income Replacement Funds launched in 2008, with dates every two years). That change came about around 2017.
You can find those four series on Fidelity's Asset Allocation funds page (click on Asset Allocation tab).
https://www.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/fidelity-funds/overview
What Fidelity isn't showing you there is that it has a fifth(!) series of funds. Fidelity Freedom Blend funds, which is a "blend" of active and passive management. See, e.g. FHARX. These date from 2018.
As Yogi noted, in 2020, T. Rowe Price decided change the glide paths of both of its series to make them more aggressive. Rather than make a quick change, it changed the allocations over a period of two years, which should be complete in the middle of this year.
In 2021, T. Rowe Price launched a series of blend funds (that appear to make more extensive use of index funds to reduce cost). These follow the same new ("enhanced") glide path that the Retirement Series are migrating to. But since the Retirement Blend series is new, it doesn't need to transition to the new glide path, it starts with that immediately. The two series, Retirement and Retirement Blend, should be tracking the same path within a few months.

• The Retirement Blend Fund series is designed for investors who prefer a single, simplified, professionally managed solution for retirement investing and who want an approach that marries the benefits of active and passive investment styles, including placing a greater emphasis on managing overall cost.
• The Retirement Blend strategy has been in place at T. Rowe Price since 2018 but it was previously available only in the collective investment trust format. This mutual fund series extends the firm's Retirement Blend approach to a wider range of investors for whom a mutual fund is the preferred or most appropriate vehicle.
• The Retirement Blend Funds use the enhanced glide path and the same diversification and tactical asset allocation as T. Rowe Price's existing Retirement series of target date portfolios.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/t-rowe-price-adds-retirement-blend-funds-to-target-date-lineup-301343055.html
I respectfully disagree that T. Rowe Price has made this confusing to the max. IMHO that "honor" goes to Fidelity, with its ever changing glidepaths, its greater multiplicity of series, its "hidden" series of blend funds, and its changing of series names and objectives. And lest I forget, a slew of share classes, including K and K6, and Fidelity Advisor variants with their alphabet soup: A, C, M, I, Z, and Z6.

A number of posters have referenced possibly investing 100% in their chosen benchmark fund. Not a bad idea. That’s what prompted me to switch from TRRIX to PRSIX in early 2021 and than stake out a modest portfolio position in PRSIX. It’s a very good fund, and I anticipated ramping up the commitment in coming years with an eventual 100% stake in that one fund.
What changed my thinking? Here’s a few considerations:
- For one, I’d had some favorite long held funds at several different houses I didn’t want to part with.
- A second thought was the suspicion that some of PRSIX’s solid past performance was owing to the decades long bond bull market we’ve experienced and that if that trend reversed the fund would cease to post such fine returns.
- Third, 100% in PRSIX wouldn’t provide the level of exposure to commodities and precious metals I deemed important.
- Fourth, there was a reluctance to put all the eggs in the same basket.
- Lastly, while PRSIX’s 5% investment in a Blackstone hedge fund had appeal initially, after moving from TRP to Fidelity many alternative ways to hedge had become available.
Like most here, I suppose, I occassionally compare my portfolio’s performance to a wide array of funds. Benchmarking to one (or in my case 3) funds is fine - but not an end-all in itself.

+1 Thanks @yogibearbull -
Who’d of thunk target date funds or benchmarking could get so complicated?

@Derf, leave to Price to make it confusing to the max.
So, there were the original TDFs going back to around 2002. These are now called (TRP) Retirement 20xx. These were/are known as the most aggressive among the TDFs.
To address the criticism (that was LOUD in 2008-09), Price introduced a new but tamer TDF series around 2013 called (TRP) Target 20xx (see the naming trick?)
In 2020, Price decided to change glide-paths of its TDFs so that they keep higher equity for longer. This opened Price to criticism again that retirees may be hurt in big downdrafts.
So, Price decided in 2021 to make even softer cousins, "blends" it calls, of its original TDF series, and these were named (TRP) Retirement Blend 20xx (I think Price needs better fund-naming execs).
So, now Price has 3 variations for each retirement date. For 2010, they are (TRP) Retirement 2010 TRRAX (2002- ), (TRP) Target 2010 TRROX (2013- ), (TRP) Target Blend 2010 TBLQX (2021- ); these 3 are Investor classes, and there are 3 corresponding Institutional classes, so 6 2010 TDFs, or 6x the dates in the TDF series. Do you want add CITs to the count?
Clear? May be call Price on Tuesday and see if its customer service even has a clue.
Well, the others have a better system where each TDF is labeled as (BlaBla) Target/Retirement 20xx Aggressive, (BlaBla) Target/Retirement 20xx Moderate, (BlaBla) Target/Retirement 20xx Conservative; most just have one type per TDF date.