MFOHome About Commentary Discussions Funds The Best Resources Support Us!

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
  • Overweight Tech or Financial Services?
    @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.
    Sven in Fund Discussions
  • Market timing is just gambling:
    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.
    FD1000 in Fund Discussions
  • Common concerns in shopping for funds and for health insurance
    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.
    FD1000 in Other Investing
  • Common concerns in shopping for funds and for health insurance
    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).
    msf in Other Investing
  • November Issue is live
    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.”
    chip chip in Fund Discussions
  • QCDs from TIRAs
    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.
    msf in Other Investing
  • QCDs from TIRAs
    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).
    yogibearbull yogibearbull in Other Investing
  • Dalio again
    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
    Crash Crash in Other Investing
  • Schwab: Shake Off Emotions and Control your Portfolio
    That was the exact point of my original posting. It was meant to help others to see other views so to have meaningful discussion. Merely posting performance data without putting them in proper content contributes little to this board.
    @DrVenture, those who have lots want more and more. So we have this bifurcation of two economy. For us we try to focus on our financial goals such as college education, retirement, and long term healthcare. A modest gain is often good enough as long the risk is minimized.
    Sven in Other Investing
  • The REAL Economy: 'Empty shelves, higher prices’- Americans tell cost of Trump’s tariffs
    .... This is a very interesting read from 2015. Mass deportations will absolutely accelerate the problems with population decline.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2015/02/17/population-decline-and-the-great-economic-reversal/

    What I am fixing to say doesn't change my current concern about the unwinnable situation we are creating for our young people. This is just a random off the cuff incoherent set of thoughts I had after reading the Forbes article and more about the far range future, if there is one.
    Yes, we all might have written a similar article ourselves with variations in both imagination and vision. The population issues are monovariant in a polyvariant world projection. The author brings up some of the other variables (e.g. AI) but, without a precedence on which to train, the interactions of the missing variables is subject to speculation. For example, in my childhood I would have had no way to even speculate how I filled my time in retirement since I would have, with my limited vision, not seen the iPhone and computer that fill my retirement days.
    Probably because of my own background, my version of the Forbes article would have embedded more AI/robotics in the vision of the direction of a future of declining birth rates. But bi, tri, etc. variations still can never incorporate the future unknowns, e.g. my own transistor world that died with digital evolution and information age.
    The author of the Forbes article seems to be wringing his hands over demographic worldwide shifts. I am more optimistic, or have been until recently. (I cannot predict outcomes if time moves backward along with decreased fertility rates. I suppose birth control would need to be outlawed completely to keep wages at poverty levels.) Assuming a more forward projected future, I just see positive change for the human experience. Who says the measure of life is a job? Maybe, with refusal to morph the cast system into something more fun and satisfying, meaningless exchanges of work for subsidence might be unchangeable. I want to believe we just have limited vision about the result of our more powerful, sometimes pessimistic and frightening, imagination.
    Coincidentally, this came out in the W.Post today:
    Anna Anna in Other Investing
  • Why buy the S&P 500?
    they key is pinpointing these funds ahead of time and capturing the upside. these funds exist in batches of other funds with similar performance/metrics for a specific period of time.
    A financial advisor about 5 years ago published a list of mutual funds with a longtime track record of 12% or more returns and that had a very positive previous 10 years. He was very much like see Dave Ramsey was right this is easy! someone looked at those funds 5 years later and did a memorandum. only 12% of those funds (most sector and large growth) beat the sp500. And it was a very popular post in Dave Ramsey circles which tells me tons of people likely built their portfolios around them.
    lots of people have caught lightning in a bottle and captured the upside of funds like AIVSX/DODGX as a result of their proliferation in retirement plans.
    But timing is everything and I think morningstar stated that most equity mutual funds show Investor return to be less than NAV return over 3-15 yr periods because people buy funds when they've already captured much of the upside over those periods.
    mskursh in Fund Discussions
  • The REAL Economy: 'Empty shelves, higher prices’- Americans tell cost of Trump’s tariffs
    @msf I hear you. But I tend to keep thinking about young people starting out and forming a family while facing job disruptions and high housing costs. Also, from what I can see the direction of the country safety net is headed, they will need to have wages that cover private pay, unsubsidized, of things like healthcare, food and retirement. This means wages that grow from jobs that are secure. What counts is prospering over time. Stagnation won't get them there.
    The unemployment rate for youth graduates (20-24) has averaged 8.1% over the last three months, its highest in four years.
    And you rightfully point out that employers are eliminating pensions and passing on higher health care costs. The government wants them to be popping out kids to help with labor shortages. The employment/economic conditions do not support this.
    This is a very interesting read from 2015. Mass deportations will absolutely accelerate the problems with population decline.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2015/02/17/population-decline-and-the-great-economic-reversal/
    DrVenture in Other Investing
  • Stable-Value (SV) Rates, 11/1/25
    Stable-Value (SV) Rates, 11/1/25
    TIAA Traditional Annuity (Accumulation) Rates
    25 bps cuts
    Restricted RC 4.75%, RA 4.50%
    Flexible RCP 4.00%, SRA 3.75%, IRA-101110+ 3.75%
    (TIAA Declaration Year 3/1 - 2/28)
    TSP G Fund pending (previous 4.250%).
    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/2281/thread
    yogibearbull yogibearbull in Fund Discussions
  • How at risk is this portfolio?
    A conservative rule of thumb is to keep anything you expect to need in cash or something very close to cash, between 5 and 10 years in substantially IG bonds, and longer term in equity or near equity (e.g. HY bonds). A more modern rule of thumb is to use timeframes of 0-3 years, 3-7 years, and 7+ years.
    However you slice it, 20% in equity is more like a low risk portfolio for the beginning of retirement (age 65) than one half-way through that phase. It's not high risk but adding the equity changes things significantly. Here's Portfolio Visualizer's simulation, I substituted WSHFX for CGDV because CGDV latter has too short a life to work with PV. WSHFX hasn't returned as much as CGDV, but it has a lower std dev and is the best quick hack I could come up with.
    This portfolio will almost surely return positive inflation adjusted returns as opposed to an all bond portfolio that gradually loses value over time. The question here is whether that matters since you're looking to fund your wife's expenses after your death, not grow a portfolio. The tradeoff is double the volatility (probably even a bit more with CGDV instead of WSHFX).
    Looking at worst case, drawdowns between 3/29/22 and 4/30/22 9/30/22 were (from M* charts):
    CGDV: -21.81%
    SCHD: -15.43%
    ICMUX: -4.76%
    RSIIX: -4.26%
    RCTIX: -3.51%
    DHEAX: -1.89%
    CBLDX: -1.12%
    SWVXX: +0.10% (my guesstimate)
    RPHIX: +1.07%
    Equally weighted portfolio: -5.73%
    I helped nudge an 80 year old I knew into an 80/20 portfolio, so I'm not knocking 80/20. But that portfolio had more than 20% in cash and near cash.
    It really depends on how you view risk, both pragmatically (will the portfolio last long enough) and psychologically (can you sleep at night). If you're trying to replace a pension one thought is a (possibly deferred) annuity. An annuity is just a stream of payments like a pension, which is why I bring it up.
    An annuity would provide lifetime income to your wife, much as your pension is providing lifetime income to you. If you defer the income (either with a deferred annuity or a deferred income annuity), then there are no income payments until later. Since you're thinking about this portfolio as a replacement for your pension, it doesn't sound like you need the income stream until your pension vanishes.
    A deferred fixed annuity can also guarantee that you won't lose money. As always, TANSTAAFL. The safer the investment, the lower the return. But since you expressed concern about bond funds possibly losing money it seemed worth mentioning this feature (drawback?) of some annuities.
    msf in Fund Discussions
  • Anyone adding to US Equity Funds at this time?
    At present we have enough exposure to US and international stocks to generate growth. Our focus is on bonds and how they meet our retirement goals.
    Sven in Fund Discussions
  • Case for a ‘Good Enough’ Portfolio
    Neither. There’s a huge gap between the two.
    When I retired, I already had enough — all I needed was a 6% annual return, indefinitely. I could have gone with a simple 50/50 portfolio, but why? That approach would have allowed my portfolio to drop 20–30% from peak to trough.
    Instead, I set clear goals:
    -Earn at least 6% annually.
    -Make money every single year.
    -Never lose more than 3% from any recent high.
    -Outperform a traditional 50/50 portfolio.
    -Achieve the best possible risk-adjusted returns.
    I’ve met and exceeded all of those goals.
    =============
    During the accumulation phase from 1995 to retirement on 2018, my stock portion beat the SP500, and my bond portion did too...and with better risk/adjusted performance.
    FD1000 in Other Investing
  • Case for a ‘Good Enough’ Portfolio
    Christine Benz pondered contradictory feedback after a recent, successful Bogleheads conference.
    She came to the conclusion that the conference is attempting to serve two completely different audiences —
    portfolio maximizers (or optimizers) and "satisficers."
    Maximizers conduct deep research on how to best create a financial plan and manage their portfolios.
    They'll often enjoy debating the finer points regarding their financial analysis/decisions.
    Satisficers, on the other hand, are seeking acceptable options rather than optimal ones.
    They're less interested in the nitty-gritty details and gravitate towards big-picture topics
    like finding enough, retirement lifestyle considerations, and leaving a legacy, for example.
    Throughout my investment career, I've tended to be a maximizer.
    As I've entered the … umm, second half of my life, I'll strive to spend less time and energy managing my investments.
    Are you seeking the optimal portfolio and very best investing solutions or will good enough do?
    https://www.morningstar.com/personal-finance/case-good-enough-portfolio
    Observant1 in Other Investing
  • Blackstone and Apollo Court Small-Time Investors They Used to Snub
    To me, this screams "run fast, run far (away)!" and/or suggests the need to make sure your investment's watertight doors are working and the lifeboats are at least uncovered and stocked with provisions......
    Per BBG:
    Blackstone Inc. and other private equity firms are launching a campaign to sell their investments to everyday Americans, with ads, emails, and sports sponsorships.
    The firms are trying to tap into the $13 trillion market for US defined-contribution retirement plans, after regulators opened it up to private equity and other alternative assets.
    Despite concerns about the timing and potential returns, alternative asset managers are aggressively courting small-time investors, with some wealth advisers reporting being inundated with emails, calls, and other solicitations.
    Full article @ https://archive.ph/vbmnF
    rforno in Other Investing
  • The REAL Economy: 'Empty shelves, higher prices’- Americans tell cost of Trump’s tariffs
    @msf I hear you. But I tend to keep thinking about young people starting out and forming a family while facing job disruptions and high housing costs. Also, from what I can see the direction of the country safety net is headed, they will need to have wages that cover private pay, unsubsidized, of things like healthcare, food and retirement. This means wages that grow from jobs that are secure. What counts is prospering over time. Stagnation won't get them there.
    Anna Anna in Other Investing
  • I guess he didn’t learn from liberation day!
    @FD100 - Why hasn’t some big mutual fund company snatched you up yet to run some of their funds? I’d imagine you could make David Giroux look like a rank amateur. Quite amazing TRP hasn’t lured you in with a big singing bonus …
    I retired with enough money to cover our expenses for 25 years, not including SS.
    Then I doubled our portfolio.
    I don't need a job. We have enough for all the good stuff.
    Retirement is the best job I have ever had.
    Many investors still haven't learned the lesson, stop investing based on politics and complaining about it.
    FD1000 in Fund Discussions