looking outside the service sector....
the american tangible economy is being propped up NOT by the decades-long reliable mass market consumer, but by more fragile forces.
1. IT\AI capex , which is the first ever displacement of mass consumer spending since ? end of WWII ?
2. accelerated spend by the wealthiest
on the latter, the middle market spender is losing headcount to the poor, and gaining some dropouts from the top tier. but their spend has become a less meaningful % with concurrent rising debt.
the tangible economy is effectively relying on even greater excesses from the deca-millionaire class, and more than several businesses have indicated they will attempt to cater exclusively to the mass affluent.
call me skeptical, but i doubt its the bulk of MAGA voters that have made this wealth climb regardless of market index levels; just as during delusions of milk&honey in trump 1.0
https://www.mbi-deepdives.com/the-resilience-of-consumer-spending-in-the-us/

What good will more passports do you in a detention camp for "left-wing terrorists"?

Difficult for me to think that you missed my point. A choice of passports permits the holder to land elsewhere in order to escape the mountain of Orange feces.

of course. fund managers have interest rate strategies, no one would claim they set interest rates.
but i am searching for bond fund managers who have considered a minor fed rate cut will have trivial impact , and trump's most likely (only?) move to kick the can and avoid pain is suppressing long rates via ycc. so very specific to that.
several good recent posts exist :
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe-could-escape-bond-doom-loop-us-not-so-much-2025-09-09/
am also open to the fact that trump may not care re:long rates, given its non-factor on his family grifting, but this goes against his initial trade taco move, as well as the truss experience in the UK.

very clever, that trump.
forcing foreign companies to bring over talent unavailable locally means continuous fodder for his ICE gestapo newly funded with $billions. (or frozen sunk capex gone towards gop infrastructure PR, ala foxconn)
there is no taxpayer limit for the MAGA entertainment budget.

given self tax and wealth scenario...tax-free bonds (narrowly) escaped being targets for trump grift and chaos.
consider active bond funds as managers selecting the economically best among thousands of american infrastructure projects, many of which are immune to (even supported by) local conservatives who dont need to rely on trump bribes or his mood.

One concern has been what if the Gov provide all this "assistance" to INTC for its chip foundries & then INTC just sells majority stake or all of its foundries.
After all, INTC efforts to become contract manufacturer for others failed miserably. It was actually worse - INTC setup contract manufacturing production, but customers didn't come, so lot of that capex went down the drain.
Previous Administration's approach was to slow the release of promised "grants", demand to see actual customer orders, put restrictions on any foundry sales, etc.
This Administration has a different approach - convert "grants" into equity stakes. But it has released all of the promised money to INTC (to lose or profit) and got 9.99% stake for now.
One overlooked provision of this new deal is that if INTC sells majority stake or all of its chip foundries (where the Gov "assistance" is going), the Gov will get ADDITIONAL 5% stake. So, the Gov may end up with 9.99-14.99% stake in INTC.

Following are edited excerpts from a current report in The Wall Street Journal: (The link to the full report should be free.)
The European Commission warns that a chiller trade landscape represents a major headwind to economic recovery

The eurozone economy is set to grow a little more slowly than previously forecast next year, but even that downbeat projection could prove optimistic if exporters face higher U.S. tariffs, according to new forecasts from the European Union.
All of the eurozone’s major economies are projected to see steady growth next year, despite political and fiscal challenges in France and a likely downturn this year in Germany. Spain is set to outpace its peers, expanding 3% this year and 2.3% in 2025, according to the forecasts laid out Friday in the commission’s autumn forecasts.
The European Commission further said-
 • The Euro nations should book an increase in their gross domestic output of 1.3% in 2025
 • This year, the currency union should grow by 0.8%
 • A chillier trade landscape represents a major headwind to the eurozone’s economic recovery
 • The ravages of a changing climate also threaten Europe
 • Inflation should average 2.4% in 2024 and 2.1% in 2025
 • Lower growth means less state revenue, adding to the strain on EU governments’ budgets
 • Still-high deficits and steeper interest payments will keep the debt-to-GDP ratio climbing
The dimmer outlook for growth and inflation will likely reassure the ECB that it can continue to lower borrowing rates, albeit at a gradual pace. The forecasts are the first since May and in the meantime, the ECB has begun a cycle of lower interest rates, taking the deposit rate to 3.25% from 4%, where it had stood since last September. The bank has indicated it will continue to trim borrowing costs as it looks to ease some of the burden on investment and activity.
The eurozone’s manufacturing sector in particular is struggling to recover from the blow it was dealt in 2022 when Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine triggered a surge in energy prices. It again produced less in the third quarter of the year compared with the previous quarter, figures showed this week. Compared with January 2022, just before the invasion, eurozone industrial production has fallen a steep 6%.
While the European authorities base their projections on existing policy, a looming trade battle could add insult to injury for the beleaguered industrial sector and further depress eurozone growth. President-elect Trump has threatened to impose tariffs of 10% on European goods imported into the U.S. in what he says would be a measure to safeguard American manufacturers and manufacturing jobs.
Those tariffs could cost Germany some 1% of its GDP, Bundesbank President Joachim Nagel warned this week. And the reverberations would likely be felt across eurozone industry, hitting smaller suppliers. Nearly 25 billion euros’ worth of German exports would be at risk in the event of an out-and-out trade war next year, according to projections from insurer Allianz. French and Italian exports would also suffer a major blow.
Economists are nevertheless divided on the effects of potential new tariffs, with some even suggesting a stronger U.S. dollar could outweigh the higher duties and boost demand for European goods.

Grantham has been wrong for over 15 years.
Hussman and Arnott have been wrong for as long.
These people forgot that markets collapse many times based on special conditions/situations.
2008-MBS
2018-Fed raised rates 3-4 times within a year.
2020-Covid
2022-Inflation made the Fed raise rates very rapidly.
Valuation models aren’t gospel. They’re frameworks, often rigid ones. Markets don’t “obey” a PE ratio, a CAPE model, or any single metric. They move based on flows, positioning, liquidity, sentiment, and risk appetite — none of which those “experts” fully capture.
Articulation ≠ expertise. Some people build reputations on talking smoothly on CNBC or writing clever papers. But if you look under the hood, their track records are mediocre or not disclosed at all. A true expert has numbers behind them, not just words.
Macro talk rarely drives short-term results. Tariffs, inflation debates, and political narratives — they sound convincing, but the link between those stories and stock prices in the next 1–12 months is weak. Liquidity and momentum can swamp those factors.
The real experts are rare. They don’t talk much because they’re too busy managing money. They know the limits of prediction and don’t oversell their opinions.
So, how can anyone listen or invest with these guys?

If you're a puppet haven't you given up whatever prestige or respectability you might have had? I'm guessing they all just figured Powell would rollover like they all did while also forgetting that he is just one vote of many.

And one can extend this to the new FED chair. Anyone competent will know that doing political bidding/messaging can only lead to massive reputational harm. The term "scapegoat" immediately comes to mind.

Excellent post this a.m. from Krugman about the attempted tariff extortion on Brazil to save his authoritarian pal Bolsonaro from trial, conviction, and prison.
Short version: It's delusions of grandeur to an absurd level: Dump doesn't have "the juice" to pull it off. Brazil isn't dependent enough on the U.S. to get them to blow up their legal landscape to please Dump. And it's clearly illegal to use tariffs to interfere in the entirely internal affairs of another nation.
Oh, and if anyone's worried about orange juice prices, it's exempted from the 50%, making the extortion demand even more absurd.
Investment implications: Don't need to worry overly much about investments in Brazil or in OJ, e.g., Tropicana (PepsiCo) and Simply Orange (Coca-Cola).

And yet ol' Donnie would absolutely blow a screed-laced gasket if some country 'sanctioned' a judge here for something similar.
This is not 'his' government for 'his' personal use and benefit. Sadly, few in this town are willing to publicly agree with that sentiment.

Excellent post this a.m. from Krugman about the attempted tariff extortion on Brazil to save his authoritarian pal Bolsonaro from trial, conviction, and prison.
Short version: It's delusions of grandeur to an absurd level: Dump doesn't have "the juice" to pull it off. Brazil isn't dependent enough on the U.S. to get them to blow up their legal landscape to please Dump. And it's clearly illegal to use tariffs to interfere in the entirely internal affairs of another nation.
Oh, and if anyone's worried about orange juice prices, it's exempted from the 50%, making the extortion demand even more absurd.
Investment implications: Don't need to worry overly much about investments in Brazil or in OJ, e.g., Tropicana (PepsiCo) and Simply Orange (Coca-Cola).

Thanks! Always a “must watch.” For a year or two (mid-90s) it was broadcast about an hour apart by 2 different PBS stations. I usually watched it twice. I imagine you could learn just as much today about investing from these old shows as when they first aired.
In the mid 90s Lou celebrated 25 years on the air. A real treat with his lovely daughters there with him and 3 really big names in finance. Henry Kaufman was one. John Templeton another. The 3rd escapes me at the moment, as it’s been a while. Possibly Lynch?

I enjoyed this thought-provoking discussion with Larry Swedroe.
"Larry dives deep into the concept of 'self-healing mechanisms' in markets,
explaining how periods of poor performance often set the stage for strong future returns.
He uses fascinating examples from reinsurance to value stocks to illustrate this principle.
The discussion also covers why 'Sell in May and Go Away' is a dangerous myth,
why active management continues to disappoint, and why proper diversification means
always having some parts of your portfolio that aren't performing well."
0:00 - Introduction to timeless market lessons
3:00 - Why Warren Buffett and Peter Lynch's advice gets ignored
9:52 - Why valuations can't be used to time markets (PE ratios & CAPE)
16:48 - The importance of patience and discipline in investing
21:00 - Three shocking periods where stocks underperformed T-bills
28:49 - Understanding "self-healing mechanisms" in markets
40:00 - Why even a perfect crystal ball wouldn't help predict markets
44:00 - Debunking the "Sell in May and Go Away" myth
47:24 - Why last year's winners often become this year's losers
50:39 - Active management's persistent underperformance
55:28 - Why proper diversification means something always looks "wrong"
1:03:00 - The postage stamp analogy: Sticking to your investment plan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdQWw6amBg8&list=PLOPDD0ChIJDhoLhgfYwTpLn116h-rVM1x&index=32

During the Scotland escape, Dump rails against the use of windmills ahead of the EU meetings.
He is an embarrassment.
I would not let this guy handle any kind of negotiations. Tariff or otherwise.
15% later announced with EU on all goods. I'm sure he will pat himself on the back, no matter what the implications.

I'd still be asking questions here for real world, brain power resolutions.
Enjoy.....
--- Based on statements from MIT researchers and experts, there's a strong belief that AI could be capable of managing financial accounts autonomously within approximately five years.
Specifically:
Andrew Lo, a finance professor and AI expert at MIT, believes large language models (LLMs) could have the technical ability to make real investment decisions for clients within five years. He envisions a future where AI can meet fiduciary standards, understand human emotions, and learn from feedback.
He also emphasizes the importance of human-machine collaboration, suggesting that combining human intuition with AI's capabilities could lead to optimal financial strategies.
Other MIT Sloan researchers highlight the increasing use of AI in finance, particularly for research, automation, and personalization of financial strategies, making insights more accessible and affordable.
While there's enthusiasm, it's also recognized that implementing AI in this context presents challenges, including reliability in high-stakes decision-making and ethical considerations, according to Bloomberg AI.
In summary, MIT experts like Andrew Lo foresee the potential for AI to autonomously manage financial accounts within the next five years, emphasizing the crucial role of AI meeting fiduciary standards and the benefits of human-machine collaboration in this evolving landscape.

There are a lot of ways to look at it but starting at today's value of Shiller CAPE PE Ratio for SP500 of 37, the subsequent 10 year returns have never been above Zero

For the curious. The information is presumed accurate.
Investing in private equity through a 401(k) plan is a relatively new and evolving concept that has generated discussion among investors and industry professionals.
Here's what to know:
Potential Benefits:
Higher Returns: Private equity has historically shown the potential for higher returns compared to public markets, according to SmartAsset. Private equity funds have delivered an average annual return of 13.1% over the previous 25 years, compared to the S&P 500's average return of 8.6% during the same period. This outperformance is often attributed to private equity's focus on undervalued companies, real estate, and infrastructure, which may be less exposed to market volatility.
Diversification: Adding private equity to a 401(k) can provide diversification beyond traditional stocks and bonds, potentially mitigating risk and offering exposure to assets less correlated with public markets.
Access to previously inaccessible assets: For individual investors, private equity investments have traditionally been limited to institutional and high-net-worth investors due to high entry barriers and complexity. Expanding 401(k) options could provide access to these alternative investment vehicles.
Potential Risks:
Illiquidity: Private equity investments are illiquid, meaning they are difficult to sell quickly or easily, often requiring capital lock-ups for several years. This can be a concern for individuals needing quick access to their retirement savings.
High Fees: Private equity funds typically charge higher fees compared to traditional mutual funds and ETFs. These fees can erode returns, especially over the long term. Private equity funds often charge a management fee (around 2%) plus a share of the profits (around 20%).
Complexity and Lack of Transparency: Private equity involves complex investment strategies and less regulatory oversight and transparency compared to publicly traded assets, making it harder to assess and value these investments.
Volatility: While long-term returns may be higher, short-term fluctuations in private equity valuations can be significant.
Regulatory Landscape and Future Outlook:
The Department of Labor (DOL) has issued guidance regarding private equity investments in 401(k) plans, allowing their inclusion within professionally managed funds like target-date funds.
However, the DOL also emphasizes the need for fiduciaries to carefully consider the risks and ensure appropriate safeguards, including disclosure, valuations, and addressing liquidity concerns.
Recent reports suggest potential further loosening of regulations, potentially allowing more direct access to private equity within 401(k)s. This has generated debate about the appropriate balance between expanding access to potentially higher returns and protecting retirement savers from undue risks.
Some major investment firms, including BlackRock and Empower, are already planning to offer private equity options within target-date funds or other professionally managed 401(k) options in the near future. BlackRock estimates that adding private assets could boost returns by approximately 50 basis points per year and increase the total value of a 401(k) by 15% over 40 years.
Important Considerations for Investors:
Consult a Financial Advisor: It is crucial to seek advice from a qualified financial advisor to understand the complexities and risks involved before considering private equity investments in your 401(k).
Risk Tolerance and Time Horizon: Private equity is generally suited for younger investors with a longer time horizon and a higher risk tolerance, as it involves greater volatility and illiquidity.
Fees and Liquidity: Carefully evaluate the fee structure and liquidity terms of any private equity fund before investing.
Diversification and Allocation: Consider a limited, strategic allocation to private equity within a diversified retirement portfolio, as advised by financial professionals. Some experts suggest limiting private market exposure to 5-10% for most investors.
AI responses may include mistakes. For financial advice, consult a professional.

Wow. Crazy. Can count about a half-dozen harrowing experiences in my long life that could / should have ended it. Escaped thus far. Was not aware of the shock hazard. Did a lot of foolish stuff with electricity as a kid but never tried replacing a tube. I do have a large bug zapper that even unplugged for several minutes retains quite a charge as I’ve learned the hard way. Suspect vacuum tubes may also be that way.
OMG - They make bug zappers too! See Ad

The referenced M* article examines the U.S. Dollar situation objectively.

I never claimed it didn't I just made extra observations and put it in a broader context and history. The 24/7 media love to tell bad/sad stories because you click and read, and they make money.

Information regarding the shifting landscape for the U.S. Dollar could be very useful for investors.

And I made observations about that too...and what to do.

Enigma: Why would anyone constantly tout their peculiar "investing system"
and proffer, in effect, the same unsolicited advice repeatedly?
I'm fairly certain most forum participants are not interested in reading the same commentary ad nauseam!

Everyone has their own style of investing.
Some hardly touch their portfolios, some trade weekly, and many like to post about it.
That’s exactly what this site is for—sharing opinions and perspectives.
If something doesn’t resonate with you, you can simply move on.
Was my post "the same commentary ad nauseam!"? No, for the first time in my life, my portfolio is invested mostly abroad.
I’ve said it before: my approach isn’t for everyone, and I’ve never claimed otherwise.
One of the best contributors here is Charles Lynn Bolin—he does a fantastic job analyzing the market each month according to his style and sometimes adds thoughtful commentary during the month.
Does it bother me? Not at all.
I read, think critically, and decide what fits my strategy.
Lastly, I never singled you out or criticized you personally in this thread.
You, on the other hand, have done exactly that.
Let’s stay focused on ideas, not on attacking others for having a different view.

The referenced M* article examines the U.S. Dollar situation objectively.
I don't understand why certain people become so defensive when factual data is presented.
These same people will often try to be clever by cherry-picking random data
and ignoring the big picture in a feeble attempt to "prove" their case.
Information regarding the shifting landscape for the U.S. Dollar could be very useful for investors.
This information should not be viewed strictly via a partisan political lens.
Enigma: Why would anyone constantly tout their peculiar "investing system"
and proffer, in effect, the same unsolicited advice repeatedly?
I'm fairly certain most forum participants are not interested in reading the same commentary ad nauseam!