" It is refreshing to have an established bond analyst to discuss the process of exploring various sectors of bonds and their inefficiencies."
But I don't see why we need an "established bond analyst" when we already have FD1000.

Well, if your toilet ain’t working, do you want a

general therapist who claims to know a lot about everything from gutter repair to toasters? Or do you want a dedicated plumber with all the right tools?

"great" post.
Since retirement I have been in at least 95% bonds. In the last 3.5 years, I have been in 99+%.
The images below, which I copied directly from Schwab, show I made 11.4% since 1-1-2018 and 11. 8% in the last 5 years.
Go ahead and find a bond fund that beat the above performance and never lost more than 1% from any last top.
https://ibb.co/yn39KpsC
https://ibb.co/27w1XV1w
My toilet is flushing pretty well.

[snip]
If your goal is to earn more with lower volatility, which is where I am since retirement,
then a few principles stand out:
Consider funds from small to medium-sized shops; they often have more flexibility
and can uncover opportunities larger firms can’t.
Newer funds can sometimes perform even better because they’re more nimble.
Don’t obsess over expense ratios; what ultimately matters is performance after fees.
The bond market is unique; certain segments can outperform for only a few months (sometimes longer),
so active trading and tactical skill really matter.
Timing is also critical, especially avoiding major drawdowns like in 2020, 2022, and 2024.
[snip]

For those who haven't listened to the podcast or read the transcript,
I would like to clarify that these "principles" were never mentioned during the extensive conversation.

Great interview—excellent explanation of why bonds are different and how skilled managers can take advantage of inefficiencies in the bond market.
If your goal is to earn more with lower volatility, which is where I am since retirement, then a few principles stand out:
Consider funds from small to medium-sized shops; they often have more flexibility and can uncover opportunities larger firms can’t.
Newer funds can sometimes perform even better because they’re more nimble.
Don’t obsess over expense ratios; what ultimately matters is performance after fees.
The bond market is unique; certain segments can outperform for only a few months (sometimes longer), so active trading and tactical skill really matter.
Timing is also critical, especially avoiding major drawdowns like in 2020, 2022, and 2024.
I listened to most of the interview, but I didn’t hear much about where to invest now, which is ultimately the guidance most of us are looking for.
CEFs? I only use them when I’m completely out of the market due to very high risk, like in 2022, when they can drop sharply within days. In those situations I trade them for hours. Other than that, I don't touch them.

Stable-Value (SV) Rates, 12/1/25
TIAA Traditional Annuity (Accumulation) Rates
EARLY release! 25 bps increases, except no change for IRA.
Restricted RC 5.00%, RA 4.75%
Flexible RCP 4.25%, SRA 4.00%, IRA-101110+ 3.75%
TSP G Fund pending (previous 4.125%).
Options outside of workplace retirement plans include m-mkt funds, bank m-mkt accounts (FDIC insured), T-Bills, short-term brokered CDs.
#StableValue #401k #403b #TIAA #TSP
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/2317/thread

Following are edited excerpts from a current report in The Washington Post:
A few trillion-dollar companies are powering the market’s gains. Here’s what’s happening to most other businesses in the United States.

On its face, 2025 has been a good year for the stock market. The S&P 500 was dragged out of its tariff-induced springtime slump by a small subset of AI-forward power players whose spectacular gains defied an otherwise softening economy. Even now, despite a rocky November, the benchmark index is up more than 12 percent since the start of the year.
A group of trillion-dollar brands known as the “Magnificent Seven” — Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla — has been at the forefront of those gains, thanks in large part to corporate spending and intense interest in artificial intelligence. But economists and investors are raising concerns about the companies that aren’t part of the AI investment boom — in other words, most businesses in the United States.
An index that leaves out the seven high-flying tech firms — call it the S&P 493 — reveals a far weaker picture, as smaller and lower-tech companies report lackluster sales and declining investment.
“You have the headwind of de-globalization and tariffs, and the tailwind of AI … those forces are battling to a draw, and in that crosswind you get winners and losers,” said Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi. “Anything that is not connected to AI is throttled lower.”

                        Strip out the Magnificent 7 and the rally looks less impressive

Some experts are worried that the S&P 500, an index of large-company stocks that underpins the fortunes of millions of Americans with 401(k) and other retirement accounts, has become too reliant on the Magnificent Seven; they collectively account for about a third of its value, leaving the broader stock market heavily dependent on the continued success of “the AI trade,” says Torsten Slok, chief economist at the private equity firm Apollo Global Management.
“There is no diversification in the S&P 500 anymore in my view … it is all the AI story now,” Slok said.
Publicly traded small and midsize companies have taken a beating by comparison. The Russell 2000 lost 4.5 percent in the one-month period leading up to Friday, compared with a loss of around 2 percent for the S&P 500. A little more than a third of the companies in the Russell 2000 index either don’t make money or are losing money.
The market’s concentration in Big Tech has also given rise to concerns about what would be left if an AI bubble were to burst. Those fears have been amplified in recent weeks as Big Tech names suffered a modest sell-off, with some analysts raising concerns that the AI industry has overspent on infrastructure at a time when the technology’s actual profit-generating potential is still nascent.
Tech stocks have endured a series of rocky sell-offs since late October, with the tech-heavy Nasdaq index falling around 7 percent from its Oct. 29 peak. Markets rebounded Friday, with the index trimming some of its losses from earlier in the week.
Slok, the Apollo economist, says he is particularly worried about the recent AI losses because so much of the recent economic growth has been shored up by free-spending wealthy households. A deep correction in AI stocks, if it ever arrived, could threaten the “wealth effect” that is doing so much to prop up the economy, Slok warned.

”our guy says we are doing great "
That raises an interesting question. Assuming this is for someone in retirement, what would ”doing great” mean YTD?
Someone sitting 100% in cash would think 5% YTD is “great.”
Playing in longer dated CDs …. maybe 7%?
With 100% in a balanced fund 10% might appear “great.”
For an actively managed broadly diversified portfolio +15% might be “great “
With an hefty exposure to gold / precious metals, +30% YTD might represent “great”.
Disclosure: My performance has not been “great”, but is OK. I’ve managed to step on my own toes a few times this year.

I think most people would be even hard pressed to answer what they meant by "doing great". and that might be fine. it could be, we set up a plan and we are on track. but IMO its unfathomable to me to leave that to trusting a person who even though is maybe bound by some fiduciary "code", really can have whatever motives they want.
In most of my circles, most people think their advisor is staring at candlestick charts shouting "buy" "sell" into a phone all day long and had their finger on the pulse of the market and is beating the pants off the market. So when they say "great!" they usually think they are beating some benchmark because their guy is uniquely intelligent enough to position them in that way.

”our guy says we are doing great "
That raises an interesting question. Assuming this is for someone in retirement, what would ”doing great” mean YTD?
Someone sitting 100% in cash would think 5% YTD is “great.”
Playing in longer dated CDs …. maybe 7%?
With 100% in a balanced fund 10% might appear “great.”
For an actively managed broadly diversified portfolio +15% might be “great “
With an hefty exposure to gold / precious metals, +30% YTD might represent “great”.
Disclosure: My performance has not been “great”, but is OK. I’ve managed to step on my own toes a few times this year.

IMO even bogleheads invest very different from each other surprisingly.
Most of my friends don't care or pay attention to anything around investing or retirement.
that said they know i pay attention and have asked me for information here or there. I have a few books that i recommend or lend out. most of the time even if they read them, it doesn't bring about much discussion. or we'll talk about it.
whats funny is that I know pretty well about half a dozen financial advisors and even they don't like talking shop. The one friend who is largely a insurance salesperson moreso an advisor and I have pretty great conversations because he is genuinely curious and feels like he's been led astray somewhat by the industry he's in.
The guys that taught me were older gentlemen. they loved talking this and its what got me to start paying attention.
people want conversations around 10X'ing on some stock, nobody wants to talk about what trowe price, vanguard, or capital group is doing in the world of mutual funds and ETF's.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/874964/000093041325003441/c114414_497.htm
497 1 c114414_497.htm
THE LAZARD FUNDS, INC.
Lazard Global Equity Select Portfolio
Supplement to Current Summary Prospectus and Prospectus
The Board of Directors of The Lazard Funds, Inc. (the “Fund”) has approved the liquidation of Lazard Global Equity Select Portfolio (the “Portfolio”).
No further investments are being accepted into the Portfolio, except for investments by certain brokers or other financial intermediaries or employee benefit or retirement plans (acting on behalf of their clients or participants) with pre-existing investments in the Portfolio pursuant to an agreement or other arrangement with the Fund, the Distributor or another agent of the Fund regarding Portfolio investments. Promptly upon completion of liquidation of the Portfolio’s investments, the Portfolio will redeem all its outstanding shares by distribution of its assets to shareholders in amounts equal to the net asset value of each shareholder’s Portfolio investment. It is anticipated that the Portfolio’s assets will be distributed to shareholders on or about December 30, 2025.
Prior to the liquidation of the Portfolio, depending on the arrangements of any broker or other financial intermediary associated with your account through which Portfolio shares are held, the Fund’s exchange privilege may allow you to exchange shares of the Portfolio for shares of the same Class of another series of the Fund in an identically registered account. Please see the section of the Prospectus entitled “Shareholder Information—Investor Services—Exchange Privilege” for more information.
Dated: November 13, 2025
Please retain this supplement for future reference.

To force typewriter-like WYSIWYG formatting, surround the text with <PRE> and </PRE>. Then whitespace won't collapse and tabs will be treated as tabs. The only trick needed is to get the right number of tabs (or whitespaces) in each spot so things space out correctly.
The <CODE> tag you tried doesn't respect whitespace, i.e. sequential whitespace is still collapsed into a single whitespace as in the default rendering of HTML. And your attempt to space the display, while it looks great in the editor, comes out differently with monospace ("typwriter") font.
In the end, the data is more important than the presentation. (Thank you for the numbers.) With basically just a fund name and a dollar amount on each line, the table was already readable.

		Fund			   Value
Vanguard Institutional Index		$221,250,199
Vanguard Developed Markets Index Instl	 $83,722,284
Vanguard Total Bond Market Index	 $71,995,591
Vanguard Small Cap Index Instl 		 $70,044,449
Personal Choice Retirement 		 $67,962,323
Harbor Capital Appreciation 		 $44,636,465
Primecap Odyssey Aggr Growth		 $36,342,335
Vanguard FTSE Social Index		 $32,061,017
Vanguard Emrg Mkts Index Adm 		 $30,301,024
Vanguard Selected Value			 $28,262,985
Washington Mutual Fund R6		 $27,567,856
American Funds New World R6 		 $26,086,153
Dodge & Cox International Stock		 $25,466,788
Pimco Total Return Fund Cl A 		 $24,645,158
Oakmark Select Investor			 $21,042,844
Vanguard Intl Growth Admiral		 $20,605,184
PIMCO Real Return Fund Instl		 $20,450,560
Vanguard Target Retiremnt 2040		 $18,932,495
T. Rowe Price Stable Value Com Trust A	 $18,533,530
Vanguard Real Estate Inx Instl		 $17,500,289
Dodge & Cox Global Bond Fund 		 $17,214,377
Royce Special Equity Svc		 $13,314,096
PIMCO Commodity Real Ret Instl		 $11,423,605
Vanguard Target Retiremnt 2050		 $11,124,375
Vanguard Fed Money Market Fund		  $9,010,788
T Rowe Price High Yield 		  $7,981,306
Vanguard Target Retiremnt 2060		  $7,417,153
Loomis Sayles Bond Fund			  $7,338,851
Wasatch Small Cap Growth Fund		  $6,467,915
Vanguard Target Retiremnt 2030		  $5,930,256
Invesco Developing Markets R5		  $4,460,437
DFA International Small Company 	  $4,349,683
Vanguard Target Retiremnt 2045		  $1,642,105
Vanguard Target Retmt Income 		  $1,235,913
Personal Choice Retirement 2 	          $1,169,885
Vanguard Target Retiremnt 2035		    $806,421
Vanguard Target Retiremnt 2020		    $610,899
Vanguard Target Retiremnt 2055		    $169,980
Vanguard Target Retiremnt 2070		     $47,081
Vanguard Target Retiremnt 2065 		     $29,131
Vanguard Target Retiremnt 2025 		     $15,360
* Cash Cash				      $3,235

in case you were wondering how the 401k was currently allocated:
Fund Value
Vanguard Institutional Index $221,250,199
Vanguard Developed Markets Index Instl $83,722,284
Vanguard Total Bond Market Index $71,995,591
Vanguard Small Cap Index Instl $70,044,449
Personal Choice Retirement $67,962,323
Harbor Capital Appreciation $44,636,465
Primecap Odyssey Aggr Growth $36,342,335
Vanguard FTSE Social Index $32,061,017
Vanguard Emrg Mkts Index Adm $30,301,024
Vanguard Selected Value $28,262,985
Washington Mutual Fund R6 $27,567,856
American Funds New World R6 $26,086,153
Dodge & Cox International Stock $25,466,788
Pimco Total Return Fund Cl A $24,645,158
Oakmark Select Investor $21,042,844
Vanguard Intl Growth Admiral $20,605,184
PIMCO Real Return Fund Instl $20,450,560
Vanguard Target Retiremnt 2040 $18,932,495
T. Rowe Price Stable Value Com Trust A $18,533,530
Vanguard Real Estate Inx Instl $17,500,289
Dodge & Cox Global Bond Fund $17,214,377
Royce Special Equity Svc $13,314,096
PIMCO Commodity Real Ret Instl $11,423,605
Vanguard Target Retiremnt 2050 $11,124,375
Vanguard Fed Money Market Fund $9,010,788
T Rowe Price High Yield $7,981,306
Vanguard Target Retiremnt 2060 $7,417,153
Loomis Sayles Bond Fund $7,338,851
Wasatch Small Cap Growth Fund $6,467,915
Vanguard Target Retiremnt 2030 $5,930,256
Invesco Developing Markets R5 $4,460,437
DFA International Small Company $4,349,683
Vanguard Target Retiremnt 2045 $1,642,105
Vanguard Target Retmt Income $1,235,913
Personal Choice Retirement 2 $1,169,885
Vanguard Target Retiremnt 2035 $806,421
Vanguard Target Retiremnt 2020 $610,899
Vanguard Target Retiremnt 2055 $169,980
Vanguard Target Retiremnt 2070 $47,081
Vanguard Target Retiremnt 2065 $29,131
Vanguard Target Retiremnt 2025 $15,360
* Cash Cash $3,235

"Interesting though, in that while some financial advisors insist that no one
should have more than a small number of funds, the M* 401k has quite a few."
Morningstar's 401(k) lineup includes Vanguard's entire Target Retirement suite.
Mr. Kinnel mentioned that the following funds are also available:
American Funds Washington Mutual
Dodge & Cox International Stock
Harbor Capital Appreciation
Oakmark Select
Vanguard Developed Markets Index
Vanguard FTSE Social Index
Vanguard Institutional Index
Vanguard International Growth
DFA International Small Company
Primecap Odyssey Aggressive Growth
Royce Small-Cap Special Equity
Vanguard Selected Value
Vanguard Small-Cap Index
Wasatch Small Cap Growth
American Funds New World
Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index
Invesco Developing Markets
Vanguard Short-Term Inflation-Protected Securities Index
Pimco Commodity Real Return Strategy
Vanguard Real Estate Index
Dodge & Cox Global Bond
Pimco Total Return
T. Rowe Price High Yield
Loomis Sayles Bond
Vanguard Total Bond Market Index
It does seem that some funds could be removed to streamline the lineup without adverse affects.
Here are a few quick examples off the top of my head.
Remove either Vanguard FTSE Social Index or Vanguard Institutional Index since both funds are similar.
American Funds New World is not a pure-play EM fund — some of its developed market holdings
will also be found in the three large-cap international funds available. Remove it.
REITs have provided scant diversification for U.S. equities since the turn of the century.
Vanguard Real Estate Index is therefore of limited use and can be removed.

@larryB, have you run those 2 candidates through MFO Premium for their drawdown? The other question you have to ask yourself is will I have enough time to recover in severe drawdown.
Our MFO contributor, Lynn Bolin, has written extensively on conservative portfolio in retirement. Highly recommended.

One more post that timing the market is just gambling:
I reduced my equity holdings from 45% to 30% over the summer thinking things were too overvalued and told myself I will not buy until October which is normally not a good month. FOMO was hard as everything was going higher and higher just about EVERY day but I wasn't going to budge! I apologize for not alerting the board that I was going back to 45% November 3rd. The last 2 days are just a slap in the face which as we all know happens to all of us. Down days after a big purchase. I will follow my asset allocation plan, I will follow my asset allocation plan. I will continue to type that 100 times as punishment for bad behavior. UGH

You’re obviously not great at timing — so why bother doing it at all?
Timing is like swimming: you can’t become a good swimmer by just reading about it. You have to spend countless hours in the water — and even then, not everyone becomes great at it.
Conclusion: If practice doesn’t make you great, maybe it’s time to stop doing it.
Good timing isn't about selling at the top and buying at the bottom; that's impossible. It's about missing most of the decline and making most of the upside.
At retirement it's a much better choice for investors who have enough.
Timing goes hand in hand with identifying sectors that do better and using special funds.
There are so many myths that must be debunked.
Diversification doesn't guarantee better performance. Concetrating in the right sectors does.
This is why Buffett said: "Diversification is protection against ignorance. It makes very little sense for anyone that knows what they are doing". This is true for a very small % of investors. For the rest, Buffett recommends investing in the SP500, again concentrating, not in 10 sectors.

We have to use my wife's Medicare Advantage choices to get $2100 per year each.
Humana's HMO plan H4141-017-003 isn't an option.
Every HMO has a rating of 3.5/5. Every PPO is 4.5/5. The PFFS is better than all, IMO.
All the HMOs don't have all our doctors. That's a no-go.
What happens if we vacation in CA and I get a heart attack? No HMO covers me in-network.
The last surgery I had, the doctor and the facility were not in-network. I pay the same as in-network.
Case closed. My MOOP is $6700. So far I have saved + investing about $20K.
Add my wife and in 10 years, it would be over $150K. I will take the chance.
BTW, the Original Medicare Medigap went from $145 to $206 in the last 3 years. That's over a 40% increase.
Income investing doesn't exist and never did. There are only 2 parameters. Total performance and risk/SD. When I was younger, I cared about performance. At retirement I cared a lot more about risk-adjusted performance. Although I invest mostly in bonds, I don't care about income.
I think I will keep what I have done since 2018, investing at least 95% in bond OEFs with extremly low losses . See
https://ibb.co/zT6QGzSs
Investing has so many more choices.

If you have the same plan as Mona's, it's a PFFS plan. That Humana plan costs more in 2026 than 15 other Humana plans.
If you are flexible and willing to go to whatever providers are in an HMO network, you can save even more money to invest. Compare the PFFS plan to Humana's HMO plan H4141-017-003.
It cost $27/mo more ($324) in premiums. That's a sure cost vs. the additional $250 in glasses/contact coverage that one might or might not use. A slight to modest advantage for the HMO.
The HMO also gives $200/yr in OTC credits. And while the PFFS plan covers for dental work up to $4K instead of $2.5K, the tradeoff is an out-of-pocket cap that's $1.2K worse ($6.7K vs. $5.5K). (Since that dental insurance excludes implants, the $2.5K limit ought to be more than enough.)
So to maximize savings for additional investing, the HMO plan looks better. Not much better, but better. If you're willing to stay flexible and live with the providers the HMO offers. That's the main "cost" of the HMO.
There's a similar tradeoff between investing for total return and for income. The former maximizes return (wider pool of investments from which to choose¹). But it comes at a cost of a more variable and likely smaller cash flow (income stream).

¹ The key reason that academics and other firms like our firm at Morningstar tend to like the total return approach is that you’re assembling the portfolio without regard to income characteristics. So you’re not artificially constraining the set of securities that you would use to populate that portfolio.

https://www.morningstar.com/retirement/best-ways-generate-income-retirement
Both HMO vs. PFFS and total return vs, income investing are balancing potentially higher rewards against greater certainty (in provider availability and cash flow, respectively).

Our Publisher’s Letter takes on Bill Gates, the Great Depression, shifts in Snowball’s portfolio, and wooden-headedness.
Lynn Bolin refines his conservative retirement strategy in two complementary essays that blend rigorous quantitative analysis with practical portfolio construction. In "Refining My Conservative Retirement Target Portfolio," he uses Excel Solver optimization across 36 carefully selected funds to create "Conservative" and "Moderate" portfolios designed for the challenging conditions ahead—frequent bear markets, modest inflation, and elevated valuations.
His companion piece examines sector performance through "Risk Off" and "Yield" lenses, spotlighting utility and infrastructure funds like Virtus Reaves Utilities ETF (UTES) and Lazard Global Listed Infrastructure Portfolio (GLFOX) as potential conservative portfolio complements. Both essays reflect Lynn's measured response to current uncertainties, unprecedented tariffs, high deficits, and stretched valuations, as he methodically builds a conservative subset portfolio while maintaining his traditional 60/40 allocation with financial advisors for the majority of his assets.
Following up on a short note, we review the logic (and research) behind T. Rowe Price’s surprising or not-so-surprising decision to file a Multi Crypto ETF prospectus with the (currently shuttered) SEC.
GMO has launched a vehicle for contrarians who think that Nvidia & co. will not be the unbeatable story forever. GMO Dynamic Allocation ETF just launched and is an actively managed, low-cost, global multi-asset ETF. Using the same discipline embodied in the 30-year-old GMO Global Asset Allocation Fund, the ETF has access to assets across the globe and will lean into those whose valuations are most compelling. It’s profiled in this month’s Launch Alert.
The Shadow, as ever, catches us up on the industry’s various machinations, including an ongoing rush of launches and fund-to-ETF conversions, in “Briefly Noted.”

Below is largely esoterica. That's where the fun is :-)
QCDs can be made only from TIRA
QCDs can also be made from Roth IRAs if the distribution would have been taxable. For example, if you only opened your first Roth less than five years ago. Almost always an inferior choice to making the QCD from a TIRA.
It's that time again
An exception to the rule of thumb that one take distributions later in the year (since markets go up more years than not) is when doing Roth conversions. For those, earlier in the year may be better since the same number of dollars represents a higher percentage of the TIRA than later in the year. Again under the assumption that markets go up.
If you're using QCDs to satisfy your RMD, you have to do that before you can do a Roth conversion. So these two rules of thumb (early for conversions, late for QCDs) are in conflict. Whether it is better to do both early in the year or both late varies case by case and depends on the size of each.
The annual limit is inflation-adjusted ($108K in 2025; 2x for couples).
Each spouse is still restricted to the individual limit of $108K. This differs from something like the estate tax, where, if one spouse does not use up their entire exemption, the other spouse gets to use it. With QCDs, if one spouse doesn't contribute the full $108K, the other spouse can't increase their limit by the unused amount.

It's that time again - to make QCDs from TIRAs early. It's from a community paper in which I publish weekly personal finance features.
https://indoustribune.com/business/finance/qcds-from-tiras-retirement-charitable-contributions/
QCDs from TIRAs
There are several ways to make charitable contributions – direct from taxable accounts, from DAFs & as QCDs (Qualified Charitable Distributions) from Traditional IRAs (TIRAs).
QCDs can be made only from TIRA, not from workplace 401k/403b (but those can be rolled-over/ direct-transferred to TIRA).
QCDs can be made after 70.5 & that is 2.5 years before RMDs start now. The annual limit is inflation-adjusted ($108K in 2025; 2x for couples).
After Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) start at 73, the QCDs count as RMDs up to the QCD limit. QCD can also be more than RMD, but the excess cannot be applied to next year’s RMD. QCDs reduce future RMDs & may avoid Medicare Part B IRMAA (Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount) triggers.
QCDs don’t flow through 1040 income & don’t require itemized Schedule A for deduction. They can be made by both itemizers & non-itemizers. So, they are clearly better than charitable contributions from taxable accounts or from withdrawals taken from TIRAs.
QCDs must go directly from the IRA sponsor to charities although IRA checkbook may be used (technically, money doesn’t flow through your hands). Make QCD well ahead of the yearend so that the donation is completed by the yearend (sent by sponsor, received by charity & acknowledged).
QCDs cannot go into DAFs (Donor-Advised Funds).

I'm reading Ray Dalio's "How Countries Go Broke." He is well into retirement now. He's a rare breed, studying lengthy macro-trends in the economic world at a deep, thorough, granular level. He founded Bridgewater Associates and made BILLIONS (with a B) of dollars for himself and his clients. He's just in a different Class altogether, compared with the "experts" that are out there, whom you might see more of. But Dalio has been making the rounds recently. He's everywhere, being interviewed. 
In his most recent book which I mentioned above, he references this amazingly extensive international gauge, comparing 35 countries' growth/productivity prospects. There are numerical charts that will make your eyes glaze over, but the text is worth reading, if you just want to ignore all of the statistics. This is absolutely an amazingly deep and valuable resource. 
I've just started putting a tiny bit of money into an Exchange Traded Fund concentrated in Singapore, and so I was interested to see what he had to say, there. (Ticker symbol EWS.) ... The document will be regularly updated, but this latest edition is dated from September, 2024--- so it does not yet reflect the very sudden and drastic changes introduced by U.S. President Trump since he took office again, in January of 2025.
THE LINK:
https://economicprinciples.org/downloads/DalioRay_Power_Index_Appendix.pdf
The most recent book, published in June, 2025: 
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/210084984-how-countries-go-broke