Still working, so contributing to 401 (k). Early in 2021, revised new category purchases from U.S. equity to international, real assets, and low duration bond funds. In Roth accounts with more flexibility, considering orienting towards financials through IYF.

+1.

JD With an investment minimum of zero, you can start dollar-cost averaging into FSMEX tomorrow. In addition, since Fido has closed the fund once already, you may want to invest $100, or $1 to secure access to the fund.

Why not just do QQQ?

@carew, Thanks, I am aware. I had sold FSMEX recently, and was hoping to get back in a bit lower. But like your idea of a $1 placeholder in case it closes.
Been having fun with buying fractional shares now at FIDO as well (i.e. AMZN, SPY). Can nibble all you want just to keep small positions on your trading screen.
Just noticed that RLSFX is only $100 min at ETrade. That goes on the watch list again. WBALX is my current small add each trading day (also $100 min initial at ETr).
This market is no fun right now. Need a big dip, not just a few negative days. What's it gonna take?

There is some explaining I would like to see, e.g. the drop in the 1980s, when they reached levels from a century earlier --- was that all population ... decline ?

yes, almost all coal, from what I read elsewhere

JD With an investment minimum of zero, you can start dollar-cost averaging into FSMEX tomorrow. In addition, since Fido has closed the fund once already, you may want to invest $100, or $1 to secure access to the fund.

Here's SSAs summary of ways to make social security solvent. 22 out of the 33 pages are tables with bullet items and brief descriptions of different changes that could be made.
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/summary.pdf
For the gory detail, see https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/index.html
One of the changes caught my eye because by itself it would reduce the long range actuarial balance shortfall by 86%. (For limitations in using the actuarial balance as a single magic number, see here, under A Range of Financial Measures.)
People are likely familiar with the fact that one's primary insurance amount (PIA), i.e. what one receives at full retirement age (FRA), is calculated based on one's 35 highest years of earnings. But earnings 35 years ago have to be adjusted; $1K in wages in 1986 was worth a whole lot more than $1K in wages today.
Have you ever thought about how that adjustment is made? I suspect that most people who have given it any thought believe that one's earnings are adjusted for inflation, just as SS payments have a COLA adjustment.
The proposed change, item B1.1 in the summary, is to calculate PIA precisely this way. This change would take care of most of the shortfall because in reality the current system is much more generous than merely adjusting past wages for inflation.

When we compute an insured worker's benefit, we first adjust or "index" his or her earnings to reflect the change in general wage levels that occurred during the worker's years of employment. Such indexation ensures that a worker's future benefits reflect the general rise in the standard of living that occurred during his or her working lifetime.

Emphasis added.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/Benefits.html
While there are reasons I don't like this particular change, it would nevertheless be nearly invisible (as described) and come close to making SS solvent over the next 75 years (the planning horizon).

Old David and young JoJo, my 2 cents. I definitely agree that SS (and medicare) is one of the more efficiently run government programs. On the contrary, funding of that program is inadequate and has not kept up with the fact of increased life expectancy and the fact the ratio of ss receivers and tax paying workers has drastically changed in the last 30 years.
There are multiple ways to fund the program way past the life expectancy of a 32 year old or even a 3 year old, but politics always seems to be the road block. Politicians will always make short term decisions that get them reelected versus making hard decisions to protect the country long term,
Some thoughts to make ss viable for jojo:
1-raise the tax on the employee or the employer or both
2-eliminate or substantially raise the earnings ceiling that can be taxed
3-reduce the size of payouts based on need, means testing, or eliminate payment to those who don't need the money altogether
4-increase the retirement age
For me, all these are viable. Enact all and the pain likely will not be felt by anyone. Pick 2 out of these 4 and a 32 year old will not have to worry about SS not being there for their retirement.

I do.
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html
I am not clear what your second sentence means. Govs have headshaking inefficiencies, but many things are notably efficiently run (SS, MC, Darpa ...). Then again, I've had several public-sector jobs over the years.

And now, THIS:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/crypto-is-95-fraud-hype-noise-and-confusion-says-feds-neel-kashkari-11629236416?mod=home-page

The fund is listed in Artisan’s institutional website, not retail. Minimum is $1M.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1081400/000108140021001053/divequitysupp.htm
SUPPLEMENT TO THE PROSPECTUSES, SUMMARY PROSPECTUSES AND
STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
OF WELLS FARGO U.S. EQUITY FUNDS
For the Wells Fargo Diversified Equity Fund (the “Fund”)
The previously announced merger of Wells Fargo Diversified Equity Fund into Wells Fargo Spectrum Aggressive Growth Fund, if all conditions to closing are satisfied, is now expected to occur on or about October 22, 2021.
August 17, 2021
EGAM081/P903S2

My PRWCX is in Roth. Best place for that type of fund. 10 years earlier it was in taxable, but sold and bought in Roth.
With the change, it might make it easier to reopen because the overall company wide ownership in some holdings might be low enough. If it did, the rush would likely cause a fast closure. Hope you can get in, Mike.

Here is a Summary of a recently released Global Commons Survey. The Survey measures the level of responder awareness regarding changes deemed crucial by members of the scientific community to limit climate change. And it looks at barriers to taking rapid action regarding those changes (pages 15 - 16 of the Survey are one place to look). It appears there is only limited agreement it is necessary to take substantial and widespread rapid action involving the recommended changes. One comment from the Summary:

...although 59 percent of people surveyed said they believed in the need for a rapid transition away from fossil fuels, just eight percent acknowledged the need for large-scale economic shifts this decade.

Not really dropped off the face of the earth: https://cnbc.com/2021/06/15/billionaire-alibaba-founder-jack-ma-spending-his-time-painting.html

I'm interested in this strategy, does anyone have any inside info on timing of potential mutual fund. The strategy currently appears only on institutional (separate managed account) side of Artisan.

The strategy is targeting 15% in private investments, so it's a poor fit for a mutual fund.

At least with FHKCX , you can sell it without incurring early redemption transaction fees(amounts under 10k). I just invested $100 in my Roth IRA .

IMHO the headline is clickbait.
The column that is the source of these findings includes the paragraph:

And not just impulsive, but sometimes inebriated: 32% of investors admit they’ve traded stocks while drunk. ... younger investors admit to falling into this trap much more frequently than older traders, with 59% of Gen Zers admitting to drinking and trading, versus just 9% of baby boomers.

I lean more toward teetotaling myself, but I thought there was a distinction between taking a sip of an apéritif to whet one's appetite for a share of BRK.B and getting sloshed before sinking one's life savings into bitcoin. Drinking and getting drunk are not the same.
I find the results (what little is presented) suspect. Generally, a question along the lines of "have you ever ..." should have more positive responses from older people than younger ones, because the older one is the more opportunity one has had to do whatever. Even trading with an app (which goes all the way back to Schwab's Equalizer on DOS). Even trading over a nice chardonnay. Yet on every question, the percentage of respondents who have ever done x declines with age.
The MagnifyMoney column reads like a commercial for its financial adviser referral program. It's got this big bar chart showing how people who invest with advisors are less likely to feel regret, make emotional investments, lose sleep over the market. And it concludes: "Sometimes the smartest move to take control of your finances is to let an experienced professional guide you."

I read about this when it was announced. Morningstar did an article about this a while back and after reading that, it made sense to me.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1026626/what-t-rowe-prices-split-means-for-fund-investors
I have about 25% of my investments with TRP PRWCX, RPMGX and TRSGX .
The change makes sense to me. I don't see any downside. There could be some portfolio improvements. The analysts will change which could make some differences, but the managers will stay the same.

Thank you! Didn't see that article

I'ves seen an increase in the use of harmonic average, because it supposedly eliminates outliers, is that correct?

Since no data points are excluded in calculating a harmonic average, outliers are not being eliminated. The formula doesn't even identify which points, if any, are outliers.
Arguably one could claim that taking the harmonic average of a data set has a natural tendency to underweight extreme points. But even that is a myth.
Consider the data set {9, 10, 11, 20}. 20 is supposedly an "obvious" outlier. Without it, the average is 10. With it, the average is 12.5. The harmonic average is 11.36, which seems somehow "better".
Now consider the data set {1, 9, 10, 11}. Here 1 is the "obvious" outlier. Without it, the average is 10. With it, the average is 7.75. The harmonic average is 3.07. That seems somehow "worse".
The difference between these two examples is that inverting numbers gives proportionately less weight to larger numbers (desirable when 20 is the outlier) but more weight to smaller numbers (undesirable when 1 is the outlier).
I did cringe when I read in the Bogleheads wiki page I cited that " Using a harmonic average presents the advantage of reducing [not eliminating] the effect of outliers". I gave the page anyway because I felt the rest was useful as a terse summary.