podcast...also stated 90%+ of those under 45 years old who have a 401k account, auto invest into index funds... can that be true?? If so, that could drive markets higher, no?
As a side note, I thought this was relevant in today's world, Mr Green was asked about Gold, the value of it, his answer Gold = 1/n where n is the confidence in central banks globally...and the topper...."I want something that I can throw at the Zombies when they come after me..."

Despite its faults, I'm so familiar with the layout at M* that I still use it consistently----- though not by itself to make any final decisions about whether to buy or sell anything. So, I've become accustomed to their use of the "weighted harmonic" beast. Surely, they are not the only ones doing it. I see stocks listed in the neighborhood of 13-14, and more richly valued ones at 23 or so. That's "the page I'm on" with it.
And my ENTIRE portfolio, which I maintain at M*, tells me the whole thing holds a P/E of 14.14. And it tells me it's a 25% lower value than the average for the full SP500. THANK you all for answering my question.

Aside from various ways of handling outliers as Yogi described, there are a couple of different ways of calculating the average P/E. One is by taking a simple (weighted) arithmetic average of the P/Es. Another way, IMHO more meaningful, is to take the (weighted) harmonic average of the P/Es.

Effective November 30, 2005, we [Morningstar] will ... use a harmonic weighted average, rather than an arithmetic weighted average. The harmonic method prevents outliers from skewing the result...

https://awgmain.morningstar.com/webhelp/glossary_definitions/mutual_fund/mfglossary_Price_Earnings_Ratio.html
Computing the harmonic weighted average is equivalent to adding up all the earnings of each holding weighted by the size of the holding (E), then dividing it into the total value of the portfolio (P) to get P/E.
For example, suppose a fund holds shares of two companies: $10 of company A with a P/E of 20, and $15 of company B with a P/E of 15. Company A gets weighted 0.4, company B gets weighted 0.6.
The total earnings from the first holding are $10 x earnings/dollar = $10 x1/20 = $0.50
Total earnings from the second holding are: $15 x 1/15 = $1.
Total earnings of portfolio = $1.50
Total value of portfolio = $25
P/E = $25/$1.50 = 16.67
Weighted harmonic average = 1 / (0.4 x 1/20 + 0.6 x 1/15) = 1 / (.02 + .04) = 1/.06 = 16.67
OTOH, weighted simple average = 0.4 x 20 + 0.6 x 15 = 8 + 9 = 17.
Yahoo Finance is clueless. It reports VFIAX's P/E as 0.05, while reporting the P/E of a different share class VOO of the same fund as 22.19.

Hold individual TIPS to maturity to keep up with inflation. Try 5-yr TIPS.
[snip]

I recently purchased individual TIPS for the first time.
Bought a sizable amount (for me) of the 5-year TIPS at the latest auction.
Plan to hold these TIPS (1.832% real yield) to maturity for inflation protection.

That’s a dour viewpoint @Baseball_Fan. A favorite old expression of mine begins, “Well, I don’t know … that may be so ….”
The trouble is that the markets, by and large, have kept moving higher during most of my 75+ year lifetime. Optimists have done much better than pessimists over that time. Sure, there have been setbacks along the way. 2007-09 was miserable. And had you been 100% invested in Japan in the 90s you’d probably be poorer today. (Most of us weren’t 100% invested in Japan.)
There’s just too many unknowns to predict how various markets will perform year to year or decades out. So the target-date (structured / programmed inflows) are a part of the picture. But they’re not the entire story. I’ve always felt that given enough time all paper curriencies depreciate in value. Makes me want to invest in good businesses, real estate, metals, infrastructure - just about anything other than paper.
Allocation to large-cap / S&P stocks should be / would be expected to be higher if investors’ time horizons are longer. Heck, with a 50 year time horizon that type concentration may be desirable. As retirement draws nearer the target date funds I’m familiar with reign in that risk. Checked TRP’s 2025 retirement fund (TRRHX) and find it just a tad over 30% invested in U.S. large cap stocks. Last time I looked at the average 401K / retirement fund balances for U.S. workers, those averages were pathetically low. We are to believe these same savers have propelled U.S. equity markets into the stratosphere?
What drives equity markets over the shorter run - day to day, month to month? In other words, what causes some stocks to move up or down unpredictably? Don’t know. Not strictly fundamentals because they rarely change so rapidly. I’d guess computer driven programmed buying and selling is one actor. Also, hedge fund managers trying to get a leg up on the next one (or a leg down if selling something short). Also reaction to bits and pieces of macro news as they emerge. (This week it may be the FOMC minutes which get published.) The sheer size of some funds like PRWCX (and now its cousin TCAF) may be partially responsible. Even very small (as a % of holdings) buys / sells of their enormous holdings may be large enough to send vibrations through equity markets for weeks on end as, it’s likely they try to stagger these buy / sell orders over time to try and minimize the impact. And what do you think happens when Buffet sells off a holding or adds a new one?

Hold individual TIPS to maturity to keep up with inflation. Try 5-yr TIPS.
With TIPS funds, duration causes complications.

More buyers than sellers always drive prices higher. Other reasons are not always true.
Over the years many analysts were wrong in trying to predict FUTURE performance based on earnings, valuation, fundamentals, the economy, inverted yield, inflation, etc.
As a trader, I always kept it simple. I started with 5 funds in 2000 and now just 2-3 funds. I invest in leading wide-range funds based on the markets. If both stocks+bonds don't make sense and especially when I can't find good options I like I stay in MM.
It doesn't matter how many experts predicted that 2023 would be a great year for Value, Energy, Healthcare....and Tech is overvalued. YTD, QQQ made over 30%.
Just several years ago many claimed that Apple is another blue chip company. A 3 chart proved it's not. Apple made more than twice than SPY https://schrts.co/VgvjgSqg

TIPS should perform well during periods where inflation is higher than expected.
Breakeven rates can be used to compare TIPS to nominal Treasuries of the same term.
There was a 5-year TIPS auction on 06/22/2023.
From David Enna on Tipswatch.com:
"At the auction’s close at 1 p.m. EDT, a 5-year Treasury note was trading with a nominal yield of 4.03%,
creating an inflation breakeven rate of 2.2% for this TIPS.
That is the lowest auctioned breakeven rate for this term since an auction in December 2020.
Although 2.2% is a relatively 'highish' breakeven rate by historical standards,
it seems quite reasonable at a time when U.S. inflation is running at 4.0%.
In indicates that this TIPS is cheaply priced versus the nominal Treasury of the same term."

@yogibearbull,
I signed into twitter and was able to see all your posts, which is what I needed (just read). Then I made the mistake of clicking on the "Follow" button and your posts are no longer visible. Same problem with all 15 posters I tried to Follow. I get this message, "Something went wrong. Try reloading." Tried and did not work. Is Twitter down?

@Sven.
@yogibearbull.
@Junkster.
Finally had chance to review the "longest bear market since the 1940s" statement in NYT and Barron's. Had several of us questioning.
I believe this declaration works if what's being measured is the time between the minimum level of bear market (trough ... greatest drawdown from previous peak) to time it takes to grow 20% from that minimum.
Using month ending (not daily) returns, it took 9 months ... from October 2022 to June 2023 to accomplish. With the Tech Bubble, it took slightly less at 8 months. With Post WWII cycle in 1940's, it took 23 months.
So, interesting, but not really indicative of pain we all feel during a bear market. For example, in 1930's it only took 2 months for S&P to gain 20% over its abyss of -83% in May 1932 ... but the bear market, measured from last peak to tough took 33 months ... and then another 151 months or 12.5 years to get back above water.
Certainly not how we measure length of bear market, which is time from previous peak to trough.
Perhaps a better definition would be time enters bear territory (down 20% from previous peak) to time in climbs 20% above trough.
In any case, the bull and bear cycle declarations are only known in retrospect, ex post.
I also think they become more credible historical markers if each cycle results in a new all-time high. We need another June-like gain for that to happen with the current cycle ... The Great Normalization.
Fingers-crossed!
Plan to include updated cycles' table in David's July Commentary.

Barron's this week has a positive Cover story and a positive Q&A on real estate. Suggestion is to start bottom fishing cautiously. Sure, there are concerns and lots of bad news, but when everything is hunky-dory, prices would have moved up already.

SLG stock is up >50% from its low last year! Presumably, each property of a commercial real estate company has its own non-recourse loan and the owner of properties can limit contagion effect if well diversified. Has anybody looked into the publicly traded recourse loans of commercial real estate companies?

One possibility, I'm not sure how feasible, is to convert office space to manufacturing space. I've been reading there is a manufacturing building boom going on so it may not be as bad as perceived if in fact that can be accomplished. It'll also bring people who work there back to the city/wherever to help local businesses.

Or, another alternative: convert to HOUSING units. AFFORDABLE housing units. There's a gigantic shortage here. Instead of addressing the significant psych and drug problems by which a big chunk of the homeless are afflicted, politicians want to "paper it over" with talk of "affordable housing."
That will not solve the homeless problem. The psych and druggies need to be taken off the street, hopefully to get and respond to the help they need. At any rate, providing AFFORDABLE housing is still very much needed, for those whom life has screwed, and need a leg-up.

see if you can read this thread
https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1675075725122994176
... the misery index — unemployment plus inflation — is all the way back to where it was when Biden took office ....

Barron's this week has a positive Cover story and a positive Q&A on real estate. Suggestion is to start bottom fishing cautiously. Sure, there are concerns and lots of bad news, but when everything is hunky-dory, prices would have moved up already.

+1. Could not agree more. As Barron’s pointed out, ex office buildings the commercial real estate market is in good shape. One of the few open end bond plays in CRE is RCRIX which I have previously mentioned. It is on track for a double digit year up 5.49% YTD. It holds nothing in office buildings. The manager makes a compelling case for double digit returns both this year and next. I have a few issues with this fund however.
Another bond fund which I am intimately acquainted with has 13% in commercial real estate and it is up around 7% YTD. It has been a sneaky good year for some areas in Bondland. Many still seem to be underinvested in bonds. Either scarred by last year’s bond bear market or fearful of continuing tightening by the Fed. The 5% yield of many money market funds is another reason investors have no urge to venture into the riskier areas of Bondland.

Some have mentioned Dodge and Cox. I’m a fan, having owned both DODLX and DODIX in the past. Both carry moderate fees (.41% & .45% respectively). However, neither is without risk if short term volatility bothers you. DODLX has had two years since inception a decade ago where it lost more than 6%. And DODIX lost nearly 11% last year. That was a one-time exception to an otherwise stellar record. However, that longer term record was due in part to the decades long bond bull market. Most bond funds enjoyed a strong tail-wind during those years. There’s no assurance it will do as well in a period of rising rates.
So much about bonds / bond funds relates to the macro winds. Get some heavy inflation and sharply rising rates over a multi-year span and they’ll stagnate or tank. To the contrary, in the event of a deep recession - or depression - they should excel as interest rates plummet. (“Ya pays your money and ya takes your chances.”)
Yogi’s above mention of Oppenheimer funds is a good reminder of what can happen to a “high returning” bond fund (reaching for yield) when managers over-reach and make bad macro calls as well. That’s why simply comparing performance for 1, 3, 5 years isn’t enough. How did they achieve those numbers? What risks were undertaken?

BenWP, while M* and Harris are within walking distance (and Nuveen too), M* once suspended its rating for OAKBX when Harris refused to provide some data required by M*. I also don't see many favors for Nuveen.
But M* home bias for IL is genuine. It's mostly OK with IL and Chicago bonds. M* also didn't lift a finger a few years ago when IL 529 was being mismanaged by OppenheimerFunds. I actually asked several M* authors to comment on that fiasco, but not a word out of M* on that. I suspect that M* Founder and Exec Chairman Joe Mansueto is well connected locally and likes his good local billionaire reputation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Mansueto

@Crash, not a bad time to go short-term, or money market, until you figure out where you want to go with investments, or brokerages.
A 5K minimum is a lot for those of us that throw nickles around like man-hole covers. :)

Yes, you're Right!

@Crash, not a bad time to go short-term, or money market, until you figure out where you want to go with investments, or brokerages.
A 5K minimum is a lot for those of us that throw nickles around like man-hole covers. :)

I don't want to talk myself into buying OAKCX. And I'm really glad and grateful for the input from all of you.
I don't really want to buy the same things in the taxable portfolio that I already own in the tax-sheltered portfolio; that's why I was looking at OAKCX. It would have been a new fund for me, entirely.
I'm with TRP brokerage. They don't want to deal with other fund families' funds unless you throw a minimum of $5k into it, to start. That's double the usual threshold. Stinky poopy.
I already own some TRP junk: TUHYX and PRCPX. The former is much bigger than the latter. About double. And both are doing surprisingly well in my opinion, of late. TUHYX has an ETF version, but the numbers are not so good as the other two OEFs. Perhaps I'll choose one of those two, and grow it as a separate sleeve, in the taxable account.
I went looking at one of my old standby funds, on my long-term watch-list: DODIX, suggested above. Can't even get past the "Kaptcha" stupidity. Something is blocking the words which tell me which stoopid pictures to click on. I could call. But when these outfits make it so damn difficult to get hold of basic information, they can just go screw. There's no security involved, protecting anyone's account. It's just a request for info. Jayzuz.