The OP also gave the day’s losses for the S&P and NASDAQ. Maybe I should have put all 3 in the header.
Wasn’t trying to make any particular point except that losses (ie 500 on the Dow) that might have provoked a post, comment (or mild scream) on the board a few months ago were becoming more commonplace and eliciting little reaction. Agree the Dow isn’t the best barometer. It is, however, widely watched and is usually placed first, above all the other indexes in the financial press.
Whichever index(s) you watch, if you string together multiple daily losses of around 1.5% they can add up in a hurry.
Latest losses according to Bloomberg …
Dow Jones -11% YTD
S&P -15.5% YTD
NASDAQ -24.5% YTD

Healthcare VGHCX and value TBGVX are featured in Barron's this week. Summaries are from LINK.
Barron's Issue (may need subscription) https://www.barrons.com/magazine?mod=BOL_TOPNAV
Jean HYNES, CEO (07/2021- ) of Wellington Management and Manager of VG Healthcare VGHCX (active). VGHCX has exposure in biopharma (overweight), healthcare services (overweight), medical technology (underweight as many stocks have runup). Biotech (IBB) have been hurt by speculation, IPOs, difficult clinical testing and FDA approval process, and higher interest rates; many biotech are trading below their cash levels and their further downside may be limited. Megatrends include revolution in biology (ILMN, MRNA, PFE, AZN, TMO, DHR, etc) and healthcare digitization (UNH, ANTM, etc). We may be better prepared for the next pandemic. AI will have a huge impact in future. Unfortunately, many diseases have not received much attention or investments. (Nothing about Wellington Management)
FUNDS. Comanagers Thomas SHRAGER and Robert WYCKOFF of international value TBGVX (ER 1.37%) don’t rely on old value metrics such as book value, but on the newer EV/EBIT (more relevant for buying whole companies), etc. The current tectonic shift to value started in 2020/Q4. Higher rates also favor value vs growth. Fund holds a mix of high-quality steady companies, cyclicals and deep-value; Europe accounts for 42%.
Also
REVIEW. BIOTECH stocks are in a bear market (XBI -39% YTD, -61% since 02/2021). 120+ biotech have market value less than their net cash on hand. Only a handful of biotech are doing well or OK – AMGN, VRTX, IONS, ALKS, EXEL, MIRM, ALBO, VIVO, IRWD, etc.

I have thought about these BRK problems too for a long time as a shareholder. On the optimistic side I feel:
1. Apple after Steve Jobs didn’t feel like it would be able to carry on. But strong institutions have a way to last and thrive will beyond the first generation.
2. We will get to a Day when the index fund holders will get direct ability to vote on proposals. It might be too much for most people to handle. But the options Are more likely to exist in the future than not. The form and design will be decided by the Congress or the sausage makers.
3. Notwithstanding the above, there will be a class of shareholders that will go along with Warren. Their children might not want the shares either. Being an investor today requires having faith in institutional strength beyond the next few years COMPARED to institutional strength elsewhere.

May 13th Episode:

What is happening with U.S. energy independence? After decades of decline, U.S. oil production picked up significantly in the last decade and a half, largely thanks to the shale oil revolution, to the point where it surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia’s output to become the world’s largest oil producer. Despite that achievement, Petrie says the U.S. and the rest of the world are now approaching a possible energy crisis caused by a number of factors. One of the biggest: some new geopolitical realities, what he calls geopolitical fragility. We will discuss them at length as well as why he believes the current elevated levels of oil prices are unsustainable and why the of traditional energy stocks is as well!

+1.

This sentence that @msf posted from Buffett “because all of my Berkshire shares will be fully distributed to certain philanthropic organizations over the ten years following the closing of my estate.” is the most worrisome to me as a holder of the stock.
It will enable larger institutions and shareholders to exert a lot more influence and control than they are able to today. I think it represents a very big risk to the future of the company post Warren.
When he first joined the Giving Pledge - I was concerned. Now more so. This MW story offers a good summary of my concerns: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/buffetts-estate-plan-to-benefit-charities-could-kill-berkshire-hathaway-as-we-know-it-11652386090

Peter Bernstein suggested a 75/25 portfolio of stocks/cash equivalents
Not much different from Buffett's suggestion to skip bonds (2013 Berkshire Hathaway letter), except that Buffett felt 10% in cash equivalents (short term bonds) was sufficient.

My money, I should add, is where my mouth is: What I advise here is essentially identical to certain instructions I’ve laid out in my will. One bequest provides that cash will be delivered to a trustee for my wife’s benefit. (I have to use cash for individual bequests, because all of my Berkshire shares will be fully distributed to certain philanthropic organizations over the ten years following the closing of my estate.) My advice to the trustee could not be more simple: Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.) I believe the trust’s long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors – whether pension funds, institutions or individuals – who employ high-fee managers.

I've read numerous stories about the imminent death of the 60/40 portfolio during the past decade.
All these prognosticators were wrong.
I realize there has been much turmoil in both the stock and bond markets recently.
So, perhaps 'this time is different?' ¹
Although I don't expect spectacular performance for the 60/40 portfolio over the next decade,
what are viable alternatives for typical investors?
Peter Bernstein suggested a 75/25 portfolio of stocks/cash equivalents as an alternative to the 60/40 portfolio. Ben Carlson wrote a recent article about this portfolio.
Link
¹ "The four most costly words in the annals of investing" according to John Templeton.

Regarding option #2 - Transfer previous 401(k) to new 401(k).
Since you have to sell all positions, this is a risky move in the current volatile market environment.
I have the same concern for option #3 if assets can't be transferred in-kind into an IRA.
You may be able to implement a work-around by selling non-transferrable funds and buying transferrable funds prior to initiating the transfer. You would need to analyze this maneuver to determine whether or not it could be potentially beneficial in your specific situation.

When moving money by cashing out and repurchasing on the other side, it doesn't matter whether the market is high or low. What matters is short term movement. Will the market go down during those few days you'll be in cash? Then you "win". But if the market goes up, you lose - selling at $X and repurchasing at $(X+Y). Short term, the odds tend to be 50/50.
As Yogi mentioned, federal law provides unlimited protection in bankruptcy from creditors on money transferred from a 401(k) to an IRA. But only in bankruptcy. Federal law doesn't provide any protection from creditors if you don't declare bankruptcy (assuming you're not forced into involuntary bankruptcy by creditors). You'll have to rely on your state's laws to protect that money outside of bankruptcy.
Even if you don't comingle IRAs, a creditor may demand that you prove that you haven't tainted the account. That means keeping records for the life of the IRA, showing the absence of any contributions.
The age 55 benefit¹ applies only to the 401(k) at your current employer. If you're planning to tap into your money this way, that's an argument for moving money from the old employer's plan to the new employer's plan. Consolidation/simplification is another reason. IMHO the case against consolidating is the risk of the market moving up while the move takes place (first paragraph above). I try to make moves like that only when the market is fairly quiescent. Hardly the situation now.
¹ You must leave your employer in (or after) the year when you turn 55. You don't have to actually have to be 55 at the time. You might turn 55 in November but quit in June. That's okay.
https://smartasset.com/retirement/401k-55-rule

Great advice @yogibearbull
Edit add: I would likely always move Old Fido 401k to Fido (Rollover ) T-IRA due to more choices available unless age was a factor as he said.

Factors to consider:
Old Fido 401k to new Fido 401k - typically, you would want to move from a poor plan to better plan. There may be minor differences still between the 2 Fido 401k, but they should be broadly similar. So, it's a wash.
Old Fido 401k to Fido (Rollover ) T-IRA - There may be more flexibility and options in T-IRA. The 401k do have more rules and headaches, but they have the highest protections from creditors and in bankruptcy; most of these protections carryover to pure (Rollover) T-IRA; contributory T-IRA have variable state protections (some good, but some terrible). A lesser known benefit of 401k is that if you quit/retire early between 55 and 59.5, you can withdraw penalty-free from 401k right away; in T-IRA, penalty waiver only after 59.5.
Do check online or by calling Fido - transfers/exchanges from Fido 401k to Fido T-IRA may be done overnight.
BTW, in spite of "Rollover" in T-IRA name, there is no distinct Rollover IRA type. It is generally recommended not to mix contributions with rollover money and some brokers add a name "Rollover" to the T-IRA. But it is up to you keep it a pure T-IRA with rollover money only. In case of mixed/tainted T-IRA, the protection situation becomes muddy and federal vs state rules will apply to different types of contributions. So, why create a mess? And you are not here.

I just started a new job and the new 401k at the company is run through Fidelity. My previous employer also used Fidelity...So, I have a new (unfunded) 401k, a 401k from my previous employer and an IRA Rollover all there.
Just curious what others thoughts are about consolidation etc. I have other accounts there including my wife's,
I have 3 choices (IMO) -
1.) Leave it as is and just start funding the new 401k
2.) TRansfer previous 401k ti new one. *Note - I have to sell all positions an can only move Cash in this type of transfer. Considering the markets and some losses, is that wise or does it matter since I'd be getting in at a low point with my new positions?
3.) Rollover previosu employers 401k assets to my existing IRA rollover at Fidelity
Just looking for some perspectives and see if I'm missing anything - Thanks in advance!

”I believe she just loaded up on HOOD, a company I never really understood and felt slimy from the beginning.”

Robinhood Stock Rockets

Thanks Yogi. Trying to lighten up a bit on DKNG. With moves of up 10% and down 10% on any given day it’s ripe for this kind of trading. I’ve observed it after hours before and it does bounce around quite a bit.
If it doesn’t work no problem. There’s always Monday … Tuesday … Wednesday … :)
5/13 Brief update: Did not work in after hours Friday. But it did work in the pre-market hours Monday when the bid jumped higher. (needed to be resubmitted). Glad to unload a bit.

This Nature article describes the manufacturing life cycle of EV batteries. The ability to recycle spent batteries is the key to make EVs sustainable and to replace internal combustion engines. Much higher energy density battery technology is needed to provide longer driving range.
https://nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02222-1

Thanks for the info ProtonAnalyst33.
I recall that Robert Harvey and the global CIO left.
The global CIO departure after a very short tenure was highly unusual.

You bet. Yes, highly unusual. Where there's smoke, theres fire

BofA Securities, the same firm saying in 2019 that the 60/40 portfolio was dead. Imagine if you'd gone to cash then (as the Barron's article suggests) instead of earning double digit returns in 2020 and 2021.
Admittedly that's an ad hominem remark; we should instead look at the numbers. Unfortunately the piece doesn't indicate the assumptions BofA made or the actual numbers it used. Instead, the piece presents general numbers (e.g. AGG loss of 10%) to give the reader the sense that the bottom line figure (49% projected loss) is correct. So I rolled my own.
Here are some YTD numbers (through May 12, 2022, data from M*):
50%-70% allocation category average: -12.44%
VWELX (actively managed): -14.79
VBIAX (index, 60/40): -15.01%
Portfolio visualizer, using a 60/40 mix of VTSAX and AGG reports a -12.10% return through the end of April (rebalanced monthly), vs. a -12.20% return for VBIAX. Since VBIAX shows the worst return YTD anyway, we can use it as our metric. I took the -15.01% YTD figure and projected it out for the year.
I used actual day count (7 days/week, 365 days) to get the fraction of the year so far. The Excel expression used was: YEARFRAC(DATE(2021,12,31),DATE(2022,5,12),1). The fraction of the year so far is 0.361644.
To compute an annualized (extrapolated) return, one takes (1 + YTD) return and raises it to 1/fraction-of-year power. For example, if we were halfway through the year and had lost 1/3 of value, the projected value at the end of the year would be 2/3 x 2/3 = 4/9 of the original value.
That's just (1 + YTD) to the power 1/½
Here, the projected YE value is 84.99% raised to the 1/0.361644 power = 0.63781, or 63.78% of the starting value.
Finally, we need to incorporate the effect of inflation. Here's the formula:

Solving for the 2022 inflation rate gives 25%. That is the annual inflation rate that BofA is assuming for Dec 31, 2021 through Dec 31, 2022. Does this pass the laugh test?
This is so absurd that I did a streamlined sanity check. Please correct if anything looks wrong:
YTD, down 15% in a bit over 4 months. Annualizing (three thirds of a year): 85% x 85% x 85% = 61.4%
End of year real value: 61.4%/1.25% (for inflation) = 49%, i.e. a 51% loss of real value.
Pretty close to the 49% projected.
Edit: I've been trying to guess how BofA could possibly have come up with a 25% inflation rate. I finally came up with a possibility, though it is astoundingly stupid:
8.3% (annualized) inflation rate in April x 3 (since Jan-April is 1/3 of the year) ≈ 25%

What a couple astute observers have noted is that while the Dow Jones average is a numbers based index, its relevance at any given time is better considered in percentages. That’s true. But I myself don’t view that as a problem. I believe the human mind is very adapt of drawing the necessary logical relationships. If I’m driving 70 in a 60 mph zone it’s not hard for me to estimate that I’m going about 15% too fast. Conversely, if a 750 ML bottle of scotch appears 33% full, I can easily surmise that about 250 ml of scotch remains. Point being … we go back and forth in our minds between numerical values and percentages all the time.
In 1970, the Dow Jones’ average closing value was 753 - roughly 2.5% of today’s. And in 1970 I purchased a new full-sized car off the lot for $2800 - about 5% of what a similar vehicle costs today. Now, when looking for new cars today I would no more expect to find one selling for $2800 than would I associate 753 as a meaningful Dow average. In both instances, my mind has already adjusted to the changes in value over time. I believe most normal minds work that way.
Numbers? Percentages? It’s all in the mind. Either one works for me. :)

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1795351/000174177322001745/c485apos.htm
T. Rowe Price U.S. High Yield ETF
T. Rowe Price Floating Rate ETF