Portfolio risk late in retirement? It’s a personal matter, I think, based more on temperament than anything else. If you still don’t have “enough” to survive on for the rest of your life when you reach 75 - 85 may God help you

What is a "What The F--k" portfolio? All caution to the wind?

@yogibb said,
Well, tables were turned soon on Ramsey as many on Twitter showed that with Ramsey's advice, anyone who started in 01/2000 would have already run out of money by now, forget about 30-40 years. So, fool was Ramsey. He didn't offer a rebuttal.
Decumulation is very different and less forgiving than accumulation.

Finally, we continue to believe stocks are the drivers of long-term capital appreciation. Bonds certainly have a greater role to play in portfolios today, but we are also reminded that stocks have outperformed bonds 85% of the time on a rolling 10-year basis since 1950.

Carbon credits
If you live on some land, and it turns out there is oil under the land, then either you get to drill the oil and sell it and keep the money, or the government does, or someone else does. There are various legal regimes. Perhaps you get to lease the oil rights to an oil company and keep some of the money. Perhaps you get nothing; perhaps the government owns all the oil in your country and can cut its own deals with the oil companies without giving you anything. All sorts of possibilities. But in any case, either you get the money from the oil, or someone else does, or you split it somehow. Or, of course, the oil is not discovered, or not exploited, and nobody gets the money.
Similarly, if you live on some land, and it has trees, and you don’t cut down the trees, then the trees store carbon that might otherwise go into the atmosphere, and therefore they reduce global warming. And in the modern economy, those trees — or, rather, the fact of not cutting down the trees — can be turned into carbon credits; some big company will pay money for those credits to offset its own emissions. But who gets to sell the carbon credits and keep the money? Again, the possibilities include (1) you, as the person living on the land, (2) the government, or (3) someone else. Perhaps you can cut a deal with a carbon-credit company to preserve the trees, generate the credits and split the money. Perhaps the government owns all the not-cutting-down-trees in your country and can cut its own deals with global markets without giving you anything. All sorts of possibilities.
In a rigorous accounting regime, either you would get the money, or someone else would, or you’d split it, but unlike with oil, the laws of physics do not really dictate a rigorous accounting regime. If you sell oil to someone, you can’t sell it to someone else. If you sell not-cutting-down-trees to someone, nothing in nature prevents you (or someone else!) from also selling not-cutting-down those same trees to someone else, though well constructed carbon credit regimes do. This week the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission proposed some guidance on voluntary carbon credit regimes, emphasizing the importance of “no double counting,” that is, “that the [voluntary carbon credits] representing the credited emission reductions or removals are issued to only one registry and cannot be used after retirement or cancelation.”
Also, of course, nobody might get the money from the carbon credits — the carbon credits might not be produced and sold — but this is also a bit different from the case of oil. To drill up oil, you have to (1) know it is there (under the ground) and (2) spend money on drilling, storage, transportation, etc. Not cutting down trees is, as a matter of physical reality, much simpler than drilling up oil:
The trees are above ground (they are trees), so you can see them, so you know they are there.
Not cutting them down is easy and free: Cutting down trees takes intentional effort, so you can just not do that. [1]
That oversimplifies, though. For one thing, there is some opportunity cost of not cutting down the trees. (You can’t use them for firewood, building materials, etc.) For another thing, there is some cost of certifying and marketing the carbon credits. Also, though, a rigorous carbon credit regime doesn’t give you credit just for not cutting down any old trees; it gives you credit only for cutting down trees that otherwise would have been cut down. So if you live near a forest and enjoy the views and leave the trees alone, and then you try to sell carbon credits, the carbon credit buyers will say “no those trees are fine anyway.” The CFTC guidance also emphasizes the importance of “additionality,” that is, “whether the [voluntary carbon credits] are credited only for projects or activities that result in [greenhouse gas] emission reductions or removals that would not have been developed or implemented in the absence of the added monetary incentive created by the revenue from the sale of carbon credits.”
And so if you just live on some land, and it has some trees, and you leave those trees alone and have for generations, you might have a hard time making money from the carbon credit market. Whereas if you live on some land, and it has some trees, and you sometimes chop down those trees for firewood and building materials, and have for generations, the efficient carbon credit market approach might be for your government to bring in someone else — some outside carbon credit company — to manage the trees and protect them from you, generating carbon credits. And then the outside company and the government split the money. Maybe they give you some of it, to compensate you for your loss of use of the trees.
Here’s a Financial Times story about “ the looming land grab in Africa for carbon credits”:
One day in late October, leaders from more than a dozen towns across Liberia’s Gbi-Doru rainforest crammed into a whitewashed, tin-roofed church.
They had gathered to hear for the first time about a deal signed by their national government proposing to give Blue Carbon, a private investment vehicle based thousands of miles away in Dubai, exclusive rights to develop carbon credits on land they claim as theirs.
“None of them were aware of the Blue Carbon deal,” says Andrew Zeleman, who helps lead Liberia’s unions of foresters. ...
Blue Carbon, a private company whose founder and chair Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook al-Maktoum is a member of Dubai’s royal family, is in discussions to acquire management rights to millions of hectares of land in Africa. The scale is enormous: the negotiations involve potential deals for about a tenth of Liberia’s land mass, a fifth of Zimbabwe’s, and swaths of Kenya, Zambia and Tanzania.
Blue Carbon’s intention is to sell the emission reductions linked to forest conservation in these regions as carbon credits, under an unfinished international accounting framework for carbon markets being designed by the UN. In a market that is being designed for and by governments, it is among the most active private brokers. …
A copy of Blue Carbon’s memorandum of understanding with Liberia, dated July and seen by the Financial Times, proposed to give the Dubai-based company exclusive rights to generate and sell carbon credits on about 1mn hectares of Liberian land. It would receive 70 per cent of the value of the credits for the next three decades, and sell these tax-free for a decade. The government would receive the other 30 per cent, with some of this going to local communities.
The central conceptual oddity of carbon credits is:
You can get paid for not cutting down trees, and
If a tree is not cut down then everyone on Earth did not cut it down, but
Only one of them gets the carbon credit.
If a tree in Liberia is not cut down, then it is technically true that a Dubai company didn’t cut it down, but it is also true that I didn’t cut it down, and it is arguably even more true that the Liberian person who lives next to the tree did not cut it down. But the Dubai company has some advantages in terms of getting paid.

Professor Snowball wrote an article about PRCFX in the December MFO issue.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2023/12/launch-alert-t-rowe-price-capital-appreciation-income-fund/

The fund is currently closed to all purchases from new and existing shareholders. Even investors who already hold shares of the fund either directly with T. Rowe Price or through a retirement plan or financial intermediary may no longer purchase additional shares.

House are about 30% more expensive (https://www.atlantafed.org/center-for-housing-and-policy/data-and-tools/home-ownership-affordability-monitor)

As the largest expenditure in most older households’ budgets, housing costs figure heavily into financial security in older age. Incomes decline in older age, and not just at the point of retirement: while the 2017 median income of pre-retirement households ages 50 to 64 was $71,400, it was $46,500 for households ages 65 to 79 and just $29,000 for households ages 80 and older, according to analysis of data from the American Community Survey; and author tabulations. While these numbers show a pattern across all older households, individual households frequently see declines in incomes as they age [the opposite of what happens with first-time buyers]. As a result, affordability concerns can emerge as a new problem even for those in their 80s and older.