Also FWIW, and it may be worth plenty to anyone considering or actually BUYing FDRV...
FDRV is a brand new relatively, lightly traded ETF. It is (mysteriously?) UP 4.92% pre-market on a coupla hundred shares traded.
Just a WAG here, but looks like a single BUYer may have entered a Market order and got taken to the cleaners/woodshed. As an owner of FDRV, hoping it's something other than that, but...
Moral: HIGHLY suggest using ONLY Limit orders on FDRV given its daily trading volume.
EDIT_1: FDRV opened UP ~1%. Looks like some poor (pun intended) got burned on their pre-mrkt BUY.
EDIT_2: Article on EVs:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/26/americans-are-buying-teslas-not-evs-heres-why-thats-about-to-change.html
EDIT_3: Yeah, RE E_1...looks like FDRV BUYers are getting burned/today with their market orders, as it whiphaws between UP ~0.50% to ~3.0% during markets hours. Having owned it from near its inception date earlier this month, have not seen anything like this on any previous trading day so far. Noted that volume is heavy on it today, 38K shares traded by 11:30 AM with avg daily volume 40K.
Be careful out there!

We've seen this before:

There was once a king in India who was a big chess enthusiast and had the habit of challenging wise visitors to a game of chess. One day a traveling sage was challenged by the king. The sage having played this game all his life all the time with people all over the world gladly accepted the Kings challenge. To motivate his opponent the king offered any reward that the sage could name. The sage modestly asked just for a few grains of rice in the following manner: the king was to put a single grain of rice on the first chess square and double it on every consequent one. The king accepted the sage’s request.

https://purposefocuscommitment.medium.com/the-rice-and-the-chess-board-story-the-power-of-exponential-growth-b1f7bd70aaca
Reduce the number of squares on the chess board from 64 to 25 to represent the 25 years.
Reduce the multiplier from 2x to the inflation rate (e.g. 1.025 for 2.5%)
Instead of starting with 1 grain of rice, start with $40K scrip
Standard mathematical technique for solving problems - transform them to something already solved.
Even if inflation averages 2.5%/year, there's always sequence of "return" risk. You might have all the inflation in year one, in which case you'd need 25 years x $40K per year x (1.025)^25, or all the inflation could be just as Joe reaches the end of his estimated lifetime. Which brings us to longevity risk.

Simple calc for many of you, I am sure.
Panicked by high equity valuations and weak bond prospects, Joe decides to put his $1M retirement egg under the mattress, for keeps. He has 25y to live, he figures. He needs to take out $40k a year to live happily. (No heirs or charities, spend to zero.)
So he reckons he's all set if there were no inflation. But he knows that's not gonna happen.
So ... how much extra does he need to put under the mattress and leave there in order to draw $40k annually if inflation is 2.5% a year for 25y? How about if 3% ?

https://fortune.com/2021/10/25/tesla-stock-hertz-100000-electric-vehicles/
Maybe too late to buy fir cheap after the uptrends
Tesla may reach >1k next yr

“Stock investors may be feeling a tad jealous of their crypto cousins. Bitcoin, the largest crypto-currency, blew past its record high this past week, reaching new heights around $67,000, up 50% since Sept. 30. Bulls now see a path to $100,000.”
“After years of false starts, a Bitcoin-futures-based ETF, the ProShares Bitcoin Strategy (ticker: BITO), debuted on Tuesday on the New York Stock Exchange. It racked up a record $1.1 billion in assets in two days, but it already has company. Another futures ETF, the Valkyrie Bitcoin Strategy (BTF), launched on the Nasdaq on Friday. Other futures ETFs that could win approval soon include funds from VanEck, AdvisorShares, and ARK 21Shares. The flurry of futures ETFs may be a turning point.”
Barron’s October 25, 2021

From the NY Times "Your Money" section:
How the Supply Chain Broke, and Why It Won’t Be Fixed Anytime Soon

+1 hank PRIHX only has 73 million AUM. Fidelity could take this fund and probably run 500 million or a billion in assets. Still don't know why Fido doesn't have its own high-yield muni fund. HYD is an etf in this space that I've invested in for some time .

welcome; I wish doing so helped my understanding more, although for me it does always prove useful to research and write things down, while rereading smarties here.
I have trouble ripping off Barron's, but last spring Forsyth seemed not a fan of rent equivalencies, although I find him hard to follow in general sometimes and pin down (probably my bad); from 6mos ago:
https://www.barrons.com/articles/why-inflation-is-running-hotter-than-it-looks-51620855700
and he does get to tap his drum by invoking Carlson.
(One commenter says Barron's is a liberal cover or something. Maybe I should pay up.)
We have not even mentioned / argued about regional CPIs. I know the 'experience' qualification is important; Old Joe would concur. I sense that elders Yellen and Powell are savvy about that, but obvs they have to deal in the world of macro policy.
You yourself have got to do a blog or draft paper on education and inflation calc.
I am fascinated at your PT calc report. You probably even know what cadastral means:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax

I keep getting money building up in my bank account.

That’s quite common. The experts say we’re still flush with cash. A lot of spending was curtailed during the worst of Covid. Folks travelled little. And with less travel - plus working from home - new wardrobes weren’t necessary. Fuel was cheap.(Crude went below 0). People drove much less. I put off some interior maintenance for almost a year - not wanting workers in the house before being vaccinated.
That cash is beginning to flood back into the economy. I’d like to say I invested mine like @Anna did - but, instead, it went into some important home upgrades this summer (an investment of sorts I guess). While the costs were high, I suspect they were much lower than they will be in 3, 5 or 10 years time.

It’s a real quandary today. No advice. Cash allows you breathing room to see what develops.
For my really “safe” money I’ve moved to GNMA funds. Expect to lose a bit, but it’s a comfort having a degree of federal backing for GNMA paper. A good manager might be able to grab off an extra percent or two above cash or TIPs over longer periods. (Both of mine are 1-2% underwater YTD.) Checking duration at Yahoo (under “holdings”) one fund is less than 3 years out and the other between 4 and 5 years. I wouldn’t go over 5 years on duration.
Balanced funds in general? I’ve stuck with mine. Worst case: managers will go very short term with the bond portion - costing some return potential, but also mitigating the fund’s volatility - a big reason for owning balanced funds.
The only muni I have is PRIHX. Price calls it “intermediate”, but it behaves more like a short-term bond fund. That might be why it doesn’t score well at M* and the rest. FYI - a bet on munis - especially longer term - is a bet on the economy. Under recessionary pressures, including high unemployment, state and local (tax) revenue declines while expenses may actually increase due to unemployment benefits. This can lead to downgrades of the bonds they’ve issued.

Interesting Forbes Commentary Article:

The supply lines of February 2020 were impossibly complicated structures that no politician could ever hope to design. Think billions of individuals around the world pursuing their narrow work specialization on the way to enormous global plenty. Put another way, the shelves in economically free countries were heaving with all manner of products based on economic cooperation that was staggering in scope. Brilliant as some experts claim to be, and brilliant as some politicians think they are as they look in the mirror, they could never construct the web of trillions of economic relationships that prevailed before the lockdowns. But they could destroy the web. And they did; that, or they severely impaired it.

theres-no-supply-chain-shortage-or-inflation-theres-just-central-planning

I’ve been looking at this issue myself and there’s one important wrinkle to keep in mind. While you can take your total RMDs from any or all of your affected accounts, the accounts must all be of the same type. For example, if you have both IRAs and 401ks, you can’t take the IRA RMD from the 401k and vice versa.

RMDs from each 401K must be taken separately. They cannot be aggregated even though they are of the same type. Aggregation is possible with 403(b)s.
https://www.irahelp.com/system/files/ira-focus/25060/june-elite-analysis-rmd-aggregation-rules.pdf
RMDs for inherited IRAs must generally be taken separately from each IRA. An exception is if they IRAs are of the same type and they are inherited from the same person.

since they started 'adjusting' them in the 80s.
CPI figures have been adjusted since day one (1919). In 1921 the government cobbled together a national figure from an unweighted average of 32 city figures.
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/additional-resources/historical-changes.htm
Would it be preferable to keep counting buggy whips, or whatever was in those 1919 averages rather than 'adjust' the inflation components over time?
Ever hear of Hedonic adjustments? That's when a product is 'new and improved' they can charge more and the increase is no included.
Sure, I've heard of hedonic quality adjustments. They can go up or down, based on the product change and the value of that change.
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/quality-adjustment/questions-and-answers.htm
Certainly $300 buys more computer today (Best Buy's sub-$300 computers) than it did with the Commodore VIC-20 in 1981. Should we 'adjust' the CPI for this increase in value (i.e. recognize that computers are cheaper today)? Or do we stand firm and insist on making no adjustments based on product quality?
We could actually continue to include the Commodore and its ilk in the CPI. It looks like they're still available at around 2/3 the original selling price.

@msf said,
"- Inherited Roth IRAs have RMDs."
There is no Require Minimum Distribution for Inheirted IRAs, but instead, a Required Full Withdrawal following the 5 or 10 year rule. One could wait 10 years before making that one full required withdrawal providing an additional 10 years of tax free growth from the date of inheritance.
This article does a good job of explaining Inherited (Roth) IRAs:
https://fool.com/retirement/plans/inherited-iras/
1. A spouse (as a beneficiary) can rollover an Inherited Roth IRA (from a deceased spouse) and continue to enjoy no RMDs.
2. Withdraw the funds as a lump sum. You may withdraw all of the money from the original owner's IRA as a single lump sum. Doing so gives you a lot of money now, but also results in a high tax bill for the current year, unless you're withdrawing the funds from a Roth IRA that the original owner held for at least five years. In that case, you won’t owe any taxes on these withdrawals. However, if the owner didn’t have the account for at least five years, then you could owe income taxes on the Roth IRA earnings.
3. Use the five- or 10-year withdrawal method. The five- or 10-year withdrawal method enables you to withdraw money as often as you'd like and in whatever increments you choose, as long as the money is completely withdrawn within five or 10 years. If you fail to withdraw all the funds in time, then you'll pay a 50% penalty on whatever remains in the account.
You have five years to withdraw all the money from an inherited IRA if the account owner died in 2019 or earlier, and 10 years if they died in 2020 or later.
For all of us, this can be very confusing. If you have a specific scenario (question). I would suggest reader's ask their questions on the Ed Slott (Discussion Forum). It is a great IRA resource.
https://irahelp.com/phpBB

Howdy folks,
The government statistics on inflation are rubbish and have been since they started 'adjusting' them in the 80s. Too many COLAs and other ties to the CPI. feh. It's called screwing the public and hiding the facts about the dollar.
@Hank you mentioned that housing was eliminated in the early 1980s. Other things also. Here is Shadow Stats showing CPI like they calculated it in the 80s' and later the 90's. Ever hear of Hedonic adjustments? That's when a product is 'new and improved' they can charge more and the increase is no included. That's fine if you can still buy the old and unimproved item. Right.
Notice that he has the earlier version of inflation running about 12-13%
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts
They're still dealing with the Unfunded Liabilities overhang that we've talked about for years now. What some $100 T. Their choices were to break as many promises as politically possible and deflate the currency by about 50%. Please note that it's down 96% since '13 so it only has to go to 2%. Easy. And let's not talk about the strong US dollar. Er, it's the cleanest pair of dirty socks in the hamper.
and so it goes,
peace and wear the damn mask,
rono

@crash - it's not for everyone but
IOFIX - 1yr.: +18.29% although after last year there really wasn't much place to go but up.
YTD: +13.7%
Yield: 3.98%

IOFIX generated excellent category returns from inception (05/28/2015) through 2019.
IIRC correctly, volatility was low and the Sharpe ratio was high during this period.
The fund then delivered an unpleasant surprise when it returned -36.18% during Q1 2020.
IOFIX seemed like a safe fund for years...

Two petty technical points:
- You're supposed to calculate the RMD for each IRA and then add them together. Usually that comes out the same as adding the values together and then dividing, since:
$A / N years + $B / N years = $(A+B) / N years.
But in rare cases you could have a different N for two IRAs.
If on one IRA the sole beneficiary is your spouse, who is more than 10 years your junior, you use Table II (Joint Life and Last Survivor Expectancy) for the divisor. If the situation is different on another IRA (e.g. beneficiary is sibling), then you use the customary Table III (Uniform Lifetime) to find the divisor.
- Inherited Roth IRAs have RMDs.

@msf
Grateful for all that info. It's an eye-opener. And yet, "what's a mother to do?" Short-term funds, to me, are "return-free risk." Not like STOCKS, of course. Or rather, the risk is in not getting much of anything back on your investment. IG-rated stuff might offer you (me, that is) a monthly dividend which MIGHT cover the cost of an Uber ride somewhere.
PTIAX was paying a 14 cent div. during the mortgage boom. Now it varies, but still better, per share, than my other two. And nowhere near 14 cents anymore. They are all actively managed, and I like that.
We don't normally talk in terms of hard-dollar figures here, about the size of our portfolios. I'm still below a quarter million. 56% in bonds, trying to grow the bond-stake and reduce the proportion in stocks. Last week was a good week for stocks. I'll take it.

The Barron's quote of Carson which elicited your comment was about how including home costs in the CPI-U would make that number much higher. It concerned the CPI-U, or what Carson calls "the official price report".
You posited (in)frequency of transactions as a rationale for excluding home prices from the CPI-U. Not from some sort of core CPI, not from some "embedded" inflation calculation, but from the CPI-U. I simply pointed out that if that were the rationale, then vehicle prices would also be excluded.
ISTM that given this exclusion rationale there are three alternatives:

1. vehicle prices should not be included in the CPI-U. They are purchased at about the same frequency as homes and can be just as volatile: used vehicles up 24% Y/Y, homes up 19.5%.
2. there is some other continuum (what?), aside periodicity or potential volatility, that distinguishes the housing component from the used vehicle component
3. the periodicity rationale given is at best incomplete (kindly complete)

The bottom line is simple: CPI-U is a measure of inflation as seen by the "average" consumer. The average consumer sees wildly fluctuating prices, including gasoline (up 42% Y/Y) and medical supplies (down 1.6%). Welcome to the real world.
Whether one should worry about this or how one should smooth out the volatility is a different question, and not the point of the Barron's piece.

Age is one substantial factor in my sense of risk tolerance. Current expenses are another. I'm not getting younger, and my expenses are actually rising. Safety, rather than growth is my primary concern by now. Yes, bonds are paying next to nothing, and the safest of bonds barely pay anything at all. Looking at the big picture, I'll take the step into riskier bonds, which after all are not so VERY risky--- in order to produce SOME kind of measurable profit. PRSNX is barely holding its own. Weaker dollar. I suppose it's due to the expected reaction to the Demublicans' (sic) big spending plans? The stock market at these current price-levels is prohibitive. The monthly divs I'm still re-investing from my bond funds will be a lifesaver, if I ever DO need them to pay monthly bills. Inflation will NOT be so very "transitory." (Yellen, Powell.)

@Crash. I have quite a bit in bond funds myself. It’s definitely not a comfortable feeling. :) My model is about 35% growth, 30+% income and 30+% alternatives. I use DODLX and DODIX quite heavily on the income end. Also PRIHX which has been a steady-Eddy. Who knows? You need to allocate somewhere and equities don’t strike me as a bargain right now, nor a place where a 75 year old should be tying up all his money.