"...Average Joe/Jane investors may be nervous about their financial well-being, college funds, retirement plans, etc, and he's totally oblivious to them -- just has to snark on his political opponents quitting the race. Because, it's all about him and being the authoritarian strongman bully."
Perfectly apt description. What is most appalling to me is that so many could not see this prospect during the campaign. They voted for this huckster with bad business sense. And now, with the absolute highest possible degree of sarcasm, I quote scripture: "...And a little child shall lead them."

I woke up this morning to see headlines that Tweety Amin expressed 'second thoughts' about increasing the China tarriffs. Then, 2 hours later, the WH says he meant to say he had 'second thoughts' about the percentage of the increase and that it should've been higher, and his talking heads are reinforcing that on the bobblehead shows here. If this was during market hours, we'd have seen more 500-point whipsaws in the Dow.
The pathetic thing is that Nobody. Can. Plan. Effectively. China fiasco aside, he's flailing more and more ... i.e., the economy is 'booming' and the 'best ever' but he needs the Fed to cut rates anyway. He announces, or hints of announcing, something and then needs others to clean up after him before he reverses/suspends his decision once it polls poorly. Yes, there's the usual marketplace uncertainty we all accept as investors, but we've got a whole new level of instability here -- and then factor in algos that trade off of headlines between themselves, and you have a recipe for disaster. Speaking of algos, gods help us if the idiot rambles about gun violence, war, and the markets in the same tweet.
He was actually tweeting jokes about the Dow's drop on Friday, too. Average Joe/Jane investors may be nervous about their financial well-being, college funds, retirement plans, etc, and he's totally oblivious to them -- just has to snark on his political opponents quitting the race. Because, it's all about him and being the authoritarian strongman bully.
I shudder to think what this regime would have done if they were in charge during the GFC. We'd probably still be in it, based on their current track record for effectiveness, planning, and competence. But it'd never be *his* fault, because in the world of delusion created by his liddle stable genius chosen-one mind, he can do no wrong, ever.
GRUMBLE.

@Bee, I have a large cash pile from account consolidations in recent years that for the most part has yet to be deployed into anything other than rolling-over t-bills. I've been using that dry powder to buy new / add to existing positions in recent weeks to my otherwise rather healthy longterm portfolios and am becoming more aggressive b/c I hate to have it just sitting there.
(I don't consider that cash as part of my investment 'holdings' per se, which is why I say that 90% of what I'm invested in are stocks and stock funds -- I don't own much FI or alts or commodities, etc.)

@rforno, if you are presently 90 % invested in equities and your equities tank, how will you by equities hand over fist? One needs cash or non-equity correlated assets to exchange into equities when they fall in price.
Over the last couple of years I have milk my equity cows when they have out performed. That milk represents growth above the long term average for that investment ( for example I use yearly growth above 10% as my trigger for Large Cap).
This "milk" is stored for future retirement income to pay for things) or, as you mentioned, to potentially buy things on sale.
So far I have enough stored "income milk" for 3 - 5 years. This should keep me from selling my equities when they temporarily tank.
My next goal is to store some dry powder from out sized gains if equities continue to out perform.

@rforno, if you are presently 90 % invested in equities and your equities tank, how will you buy equities "hand over fist"? One needs cash or non-equity correlated assets to exchange into equities when they fall in price.
Over the last couple of years I have milk my equity cows when they have out performed. That milk represents growth above the long term average for that investment (for example, I use yearly growth above 10% as my "milking trigger" for Large Cap).
This "milk" is stored for future retirement income (to pay for things) or, as you mentioned, to potentially buy things on sale.
So far I have enough stored "income milk" for 3 - 5 years. This should keep me from being forced to sell equities when they are temporarily under valued.
My next goal is to store some dry powder from out sized gains if equities continue to out perform. This could serve as a source of money to buy equities when they temporarily go on sale.
Your thoughts?

I'm ready... Been hoping a recession would come sooner than later. Trying to time my retirement around it.

Good luck. SMH

I'm ready... Been hoping a recession would come sooner than later. Trying to time my retirement around it.

Oooh, now you've done it ...
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/51886/m-when-vanguard-s-retirement-income-calculator-stopped-making-sense

When Vanguard's Retirement Income Calculator Stopped Making Sense
"Try Harder!
The president of the American Finance Association, Dr. David Hirshleifer, noticed something peculiar about Vanguard's Retirement Income Calculator. By its reckoning, a hypothetical 55-year-old investor who saved at the tool's highest possible rate, earning the highest possible return, holding the highest possible current retirement assets, and willing to settle for the lowest possible income-replacement rate … would fail. Her projected monthly income would fall short of the projected goal."
Click here for more

Thank you msf, a thoughtful analysis.
I am an uninformed bystander in the annuity world. But what I do know (or think) is that an investor should not use annuities for all their retirement investment but they should consider replacing a portion of their fixed income sleeve with one.

While I agree that VAs are widely oversold, you'll notice that the second and third paragraphs above are comparing VA deferred annuities with fixed income immediate annuities. Not especially meaningful, but it makes for a great sound bite.
Do you care what the average VA costs, any more you care what the average fund costs? Or do you care what your annuity or your fund costs? Vanguard offers a VA that costs 0.48% (average across the funds offered in the annuity). And unlike the "usual" VAs that charge "stiff penalties", low cost annuities like Vanguard's charge no penalties.
https://investor.vanguard.com/annuity/variable
Likewise, do you care what the average SPIA pays, or what you can get by shopping around? BlueprintIncome.com says that the best current payout rate on a $100K joint life annuity for a 60 year old couple (i.e. younger than the example in the article) is 5.586%. That's quite a bit more than the 4.38% average rate cited in the article. (Admittedly, I'm ignoring the quality of insurer, but then so is the article.)
The article says that according to Vanguard's Monte Carlo Nest Egg Calculator, using the 4% rule with a retirement investment portfolio (with what asset mix, it doesn't say), you've got a 9% chance of having no money left over for heirs. That's a euphemistic way of saying that you have a 9% chance of running out of money while you still need it.
The point of insurance is to protect against worst case events. What happens if the worst happens and you live longer than 30 years? :-) Your odds of being left destitute increase.
The articles presents a particular perspective, and in doing so shades wording, frames numbers, and speaks in generalities that advance this perspective. That's not to say there isn't validity in the picture it draws. Just that it's drawing only part of the picture.

FYI: Plenty of people shudder when they hear the word, “annuity.” Many financial advisors sell them as if they’re life preservers. But they’re usually filled with holes.
Variable annuities, for example, are widely oversold. An advisor might croon, “These products guarantee that you won’t lose money. They’re also linked to the stock market. So when stocks rise, the value of the annuity rises too.” In 2005, columnist Scott Burns published, Seven Reasons To Avoid Variable Annuities. Today, his logic hasn’t lost its sting. Investors pay stratospheric charges, averaging 2.24 percent per year. That hurts investment returns. Variable annuities can also attract unnecessary taxes. And if investors withdraw early, they usually pay stiff exit penalties.
Fixed-income annuities, however, look more attractive to retirees. Here’s how most of them work: You pay an insurance company a lump sum. In exchange, they provide a regular income stream for life. It’s much like buying a defined benefit pension. But in most cases, there’s no upward adjustment to cover inflation. *
Regards,
Ted
https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/should-you-buy-a-fixed-income-annuity-for-retirement

Sold out of most mama's fidelity equities positions at openings . Will Add more Fbnd and fidelity2015 TDF

The fund companies finally realized that one size does not fit all, so they've got multiple series of TDFs.
Would your Fidelity 2015 fund be:
FFVFX (Freedom® 2015), that "Seeks high total return until its target retirement date. Thereafter, the fund's objective will be to seek high current income and, as a secondary objective, capital appreciation"?
Or FLIFX (Freedom® Index 2015), that "Seeks high total return until its target retirement date. Thereafter, the fund's objective will be to seek high current income and, as a secondary objective, capital appreciation"?
Or FIRUX (Simplicity RMD 2015), that "seeks total return until its horizon date through a combination of current income and capital growth. Thereafter, the fund's objective will be to seek high current income and, as a secondary objective, capital appreciation"?

M*'s write, IMHO; is full of fluff and touchy/feely words.
While RMD requirements would change (for the good), basically; the tax revenue raised by reducing the stretch period will subsidize the other programs.
So, taking from much of the middle class, NO; I'll change that to "working class" who have tried their best to save for retirement, and if the spouse(s) pass before using all of their tax sheltered account monies..............well, the children or whomever will get the tax whack. I'm not writing about the ultra wealthy, but the regular folks.
I questioned (shortly after the passing of the house version) our U.S. rep. about the nature of this transfer of wealth for the working class; but have not had a reply yet, and they are still on break.
Better overview of SECURE ACT.

FYI: Some of Vanguard’s funds appeared to lose as much as half their value on Monday—but the company says those losses were just pricing glitches that were quickly rectified.
The $56 billion Vanguard Wellesley Income fund (ticker: VWINX), which invests in large cap value stocks and investment-grade bonds, appeared to lose 56%, according to Vanguard’s website.
The $105 billion Vanguard Wellington fund (VWELX), which Vanguard says is its oldest mutual fund and the nation’s oldest balanced fund, appeared to lose 32%, the company’s website showed.
The $17 billion Vanguard Target Retirement Income fund (VTINX)—a product designed for people already in retirement—appeared to lose 45.6%, according to its website.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/vanguard-pricing-glitch-causes-funds-to-appear-to-lose-half-their-value-51565663400?refsec=funds

FYI: As part of a set of retirement provisions in the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019, or SECURE Act, Congress would make it harder for heirs who inherit a tax-deferred retirement account (like a 401(k) or an IRA) to shelter the money from Uncle Sam. The set of provisions enjoys wide, bipartisan support, so it’s likely to pass sooner rather than later. These rule changes may at first seem like a big change, but taking a wider view, they probably won't have much of an impact.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/942416/the-end-of-favorable-tax-treatment-for-inherited-iras

It takes Krugman 529 words to say that none of us understands wtf is going on with interest rates?
Edit: Kinda busy today. Some chopped up observations ... I don’t think Krugman’s wrong. He just tosses out a number of possibilities - already widely understood.
What I suspect may be the unmentioned elephant in the room is (broadly defined) global demographics. Many nations are experiencing declines in working age populations and increases in the elderly. And, the elderly are living longer. A lot of the change relates to the devastation / loss of life stemming from WWII. Babies born shortly after the war ended are now 70-75 years old.
That demographic shift puts enormous pressure on income producing instruments because the elderly have shorter anticipated time horizons over which to invest and lower risk tolerance in general. Bonds, including those held via various insurance products, become an investment of choice for a growing sector of the populations in the more advanced (wealthier) global economies. This drives rates downward.
So, what accounts for the seemingly unstoppable gains in equities? That’s more complicated. But I suspect a few factors: (1) the loss of defined benefit retirement plans has driven many inexperienced investors into the equity markets leading to more exaggerated boom & bust cycles; (2) money has been driven into equities the low and lower interest rates, (3) global productivity has increased due to the technology revolution. (4) To some extent, the advent of “instant feedback” brought about by the web has prompted more risk taking by market participants than when we relied mainly on time-lagged print sources for news and information. (Think of the “casino effect” on human behavior.)

A classic example showing how legislators can be "influenced" by campaign contributions, to the detriment of their constituents.
Some years ago, I realized how much I was paying in M&E fees to my 403b provider, so I switched to Fidelity. Some restrictions on the Fidelity funds I could purchase, but no fees, except those built into the funds I selected.
At retirement, I rolled it over to a Fidelity IRA.
David

FYI: (This is a follow-up article.)
Teachers in Pennsylvania and Texas are waking up screaming from a midsummer night’s 403(b) nightmare.
Traditionally, large insurers enjoy blasting teacher’s retirement accounts with high fees and unnecessary products. Two states are willing accomplices to mass financial exploitation.
Pennsylvania and Texas passed some of the most blatant anti-consumer 403(b) legislation in modern history.
Deciding it was a crime against humanity having a single low-cost vendor servicing teachers retirement accounts, Pennsylvania took action.
Regards,
Ted
https://tonyisola.com/2019/08/two-steaming-piles-of-403b-s/

My humble proposal –
Each citizen age 18 or over receives a $1,000 credit per month to be applied to health insurance of choice, whether private or public. Any minors must be covered before moving to the next option. (Yeah, I would favor DNA testing to identify deadbeat fathers.)
If the citizen and/or spouse has employer health coverage and the full amount is not needed for primary health coverage, the balance could be applied to dental coverage, vision coverage, or an HSA.
Or, it could be applied to an iron-clad retirement program, public or private. By “iron-clad,” I mean no borrowing, or sketchy exemptions like first home purchase. Retirement, and retirement only. Buy Social Security credits, if you want.

FYI: Yields on cash and money-market funds have fallen lately as the Federal Reserve cut interest rates. But Fidelity appears to be bucking the trend, at least temporarily.
Fidelity caused a stir on Wednesday with an announcement that the firm “has challenged conventional industry practices” by automatically defaulting brokerage customers into a government money-market fund yielding 1.9%.
Fidelity didn’t actually reveal anything new with the announcement (triggering some angry responses from advisors on Twitter). The firm has defaulted nonretirement accounts into Fidelity Government Money-Market fund (ticker: SPAXX) since the third quarter of 2015. New retail retirement accounts made the switch in May, 2019. Advisors who custody with Fidelity are still defaulted into F-Cash, rather than the money-market fund.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/fidelity-sweep-accounts-cash-rates-federal-reserve-schwab-merrill-lynch-vanguard-etrade-51565291732?refsec=funds