To provide some nuance, I will add the folowing excerpt:

If all of this makes you consider throwing in the towel on active management, you’re not alone. Investors continue to shift money into indexed exchange-traded funds and away from mutual funds. In the Large Growth category, some $16.2 billion has flowed into ETFs in 2022, $8.6 billion of that during the first two months of the third quarter. In the Large Growth mutual fund category, $54.8 billion has fled this year, and $14.5 billion in July and August.
The big ETF winners, flow-wise, in Large Growth this past quarter have been Vanguard Growth (VUG), with $2.1 billion of inflows, followed by SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Growth (SPYG), with $2 billion. The biggest mutual fund Large Growth outflow losers were T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth (TRBCX), down $3.1 billion, and Harbor Capital Appreciation (HCAIX), down $2.1 billion.
Some 70 Morningstar mutual fund categories suffered outflows this past quarter, while most ETF categories experienced inflows or only small outflows. While September’s full-month flow numbers aren’t available yet, the mutual fund outflows are part of a longer-term trend that some have dubbed “flowmageddon,” which could have harmful tax effects.

Hi, guys.
Following requests from several board members affected by the TBO Capital scam, we've created a locked TBO private board. The locked board will provide a space where affected members might share information that they're not comfortable making available to the world in general.
We assumed that the Vanilla software would allow people to see the board without opening its posts. After half an hour of fiddling, Chip concluded that we were wrong about that. (Ummm, freeware.) Here's her workaround: the board is live, active and visible only to its members. If you have been affected by the scam and would like access, post that request here. The mods and I will be vigilant about monitoring and quickly moving folks in.
Sorry that it can't be more elegant.
As ever,
David

Hi all, ok, I just emailed David Snowball to see if we could start a private group for those that have been scammed by TBO Capital / HMC Trading. Although...I don't know how that will work since we can't vet who gets in....how do they know who was scammed and who was not? Maybe we should just keep this public so all can see? Maybe even people who have not been scammed can see this and help us? And if we need to share private info, we can just private message each other? That way we can exchange private information that way and keep in touch in case this site goes down?
Anyway, Monday (tomorrow) starts a new week....I have been waiting for Monday to get here so I can start making more calls. I honestly don't know where to start. I just know I will do anything in my power to get our money back and help us all to reach that same goal!!!!
Does anyone have hacker friends? Friends at the FBI? Friends in law enforcement? Anyone that can help us or knows what direction to point us? Friends of friends? Let's keep brainstorming.......
How about calling the banks where they cashed the checks and where we sent the wires? Is there no insurance for wire and check fraud? Mine was Wells Fargo and Fifth Third Bank. I have calls into both of them!

Sources please. The cut and paste section came from:
https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/michigan-inheritance-laws

Its inheritance and estate taxes were created in 1899, but the state repealed them in 2019.
Its estate tax technically remains on the books

I know my post above wasn't my best writing, but I don't think I wrote anything inconsistent, like saying that a law was both repealed (in 2019) and still on the books.
It appears the law remains on the books, but that because of the way it is linked to federal estate taxation, the maximum amount of the estate tax is $0. Something like the ACA mandate still being on the books, but the amount of the penalty being set to $0.
Quoting from a late (Oct) 2019 bill that would have repealed the Michigan state tax but died in the legislature:

Repeal the law authorizing a Michigan estate tax. For a number of years this tax has not been collected because language in the law links it to a discontinued state estate tax credit in federal law. Should this federal law change the Michigan estate tax could go back into effect.

https://www.michiganvotes.org/2019-HB-4922
That's why it matters whether the estate tax was repealed (no longer off the books) or merely dormant. (Think of another old law in Michigan, this one from 1931, that was nearly resurrected when Federal law changed this summer.)
The more interesting piece IMHO concerns the Lady Bird deed. This piece came from the Rochester Law Center, and as such the errors and omissions on that page are somewhat disappointing.
https://rochesterlawcenter.com/services/michigan-lady-bird-deed/
A Lady Bird deed is not a type of quitclam deed (though depending on how it is written, it could be used as one). The salient feature of quitclaim deeds is that they enable the person transferring property to do so while disclaiming any title. That is, "I give all my interest in BlackAcre to A, whatever that interest is, which may be nothing at all. Lots of luck."

Quitclaim deeds offer no warranties of title, and title companies may offer very limited coverage or none at all if asked to issue a title policy based on one. A ladybird deed may transfer title with warranties in the deed whereby the grantor warrants that he has full ownership of the property at the time of the conveyance

https://legalbeagle.com/8083490-comparing-deeds-lady-bird-deeds.html
Most of the advantages stated for the Lady Bird deed (i.e. the ones apart from being able to change beneficiaries) are the same as for the simpler (once and done) non-enhanced life estate deed. IOW, had the Law Center said, rather than a Lady Bird Deed being a type of quitclaim deed that it was a type of life estate deed, it would have been essentially correct. But see below (notable Medicaid difference).
All life estate deeds, enhanced or not, keep the property out of probate. In this respect, there's nothing extra special about the enhanced (Lady Bird) deed in avoiding Medicaid recovery.
What differentiates an Enhanced Life Estate Deed from a (nonenhanced) Life Estate Deed is that the grantor retains control over naming beneficiaries in the former. That is sufficient to make the gift (deeding the property to the life tenant and the remainderman) "incomplete".
Rochester Law Center writes: "a Lady Bird Deed allows for you to qualify for Medicaid benefits while preventing the government from going after your home. " That's misleading. In looking at assets to determine Medicaid eligibility, Michigan doesn't count your home if your equity interest in it is under $636K.
https://www.medicaidplanningassistance.org/medicaid-eligibility-michigan
However, and this is where the Lady Bird deed can come into play, any asset that is transferred, including a home, within five years of applying for Medicaid, does count.
https://www.michiganlawcenter.com/blog/2020/august/transferring-assets-to-qualify-for-medicaid/
But since the Lady Bird deed is an "incomplete" gift, even though the home is transferred it isn't counted as an asset for Medicaid eligibility purposes.
Finally, though this has focused on Michigan, it's worth noting that Michigan is one of only five states that allow Lady Bird deeds. There are 30 states (Michigan isn't one of them) that allow TOD deeds.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/lady-bird-deeds.html
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/avoid-probate-book/chapter5-1.html

Hey Guys, ask the owner of this site, David Snowball or whoever maintains the site to help create email group for TBO Capital victims on this site so far. This way we don't have to place our private email addresses on this site or group for public to see. If we have to create our own email group, then I guess we have to share our emails here but create a different email address than your main one, like a special email address on yahoo or gmail just to be used for TBO Capital/HMC trading scam victims;

Also I want to say WE SHOULD CREATE EMAIL GROUP BUT HOW TO SHARE EMAIL ADDRESSES HERE? CAN WE ASK OWNER OF THIS SITE TO SEND EMAILS OF EVERYONE FOR TBO CAPITAL DISCUSSION?

Brokered CDs cost if you want/need your money sooner than maturity. Also reported gains/losses are on statements.

J. Zweig is smart. Thanks for that. Yes, I do believe that Buy & Hold is dead, if by that we mean "auto-pilot forever. i threw a slug into financials in 2022. I've been way too early. But why bail now? My decision is to wait for the inevitable dividends to arrive----- if not capital gains. Then I shall reassess.

...and Consuelo Mack introduced me to the fact that our favorite Fund Manager wrote a book:
https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Allocation-Principles-Strategies-Shareholder/dp/1264270062
He will be the guest again, next week. Looking forward.

Oct 8 Episode

It’s been a rough year for the markets and Capital Appreciation, although it’s down less than the market and its category. In this weekend’s episode, Giroux will give us his view of the state of the market, its risks, and potential rewards.

Has anyone here ever given these charts a serious look & use? https://stockcharts.com/public
I tried to be an Elliott waver back in the 1980s. I wasted a lot of time drawing lines on Dow charts and never took action based on my lines. I assume I would do the same with these - but you, are you reaping, harvesting gains based on these charts?
Just a Friday evening discussion starter.

Hi Guys, I am Lucy and I was also a victim of fraud from TBO Capital Group; I invested with them in May and on 9/30/22 I couldn't access the website, phone nor emails. I reported to my bank right away, did police report, FTC.com, SEC.com and CA State Attorney; Also another government place to report it is IC3.
Bravo Louise for finding out who the fraudster is behind HMC Trading;
Dale, thanks so much for informing us that SEC got back to u in 2 weeks. Please keep us informed on this site. HOPE EVERYONE GETS THEIR MONEY BACK. Next time I see anyone offering more than 10 to 20%, do my homework and check them out on finra.com and sec.gov and brokercheck.com

[also posted at Bogleheads.org, and maybe a few more to come, but I've gotten good value here at MFO and wanted to post it to give back.]
Here at the end of the 3rd quarter, the statement has become true, period, with no qualifier other than “as regards investment grade bond markets in the US and Britain.”
The statement can be evaluated over four time frames, in all cases treating the first nine months of 2022 as if these were 12 month returns. Tickers used to determine 2022 returns are in parentheses. All are nominal total returns and year-to-date as of 9/30/2022.
1. Since December 1972 (total bond, BND)
2. Since December 1925 (intermediate Treasuries, VGIT, and long Treasuries, VGLT)
3. From January 1793 to January 1926 (long investment grade bonds, mostly governments, BLV)
4. August 1753 to December 1918 (British Consols, EDV as the comparison)
Charts and brief discussion follow,. Red dashed line shows 2022 return, bars show historical returns over rolling twelve-month periods.
 
[b]Total Bond[/b]

This one is a staple of 3-fund portfolios and Vanguard Target Date funds. It’s probably the most shocking outcome within the Boglehead universe. As of 9/30, BND was down 14.50%. The worst previous 12 month return on the Bloomberg-Barclays Aggregate was the 12-month roll through March 1980 at minus 9.20%.
I think it fair to say that few 3-funders had any conception that BND could decline by double-digits in the space of a year.
But then again, a fifty-year record is not a lot to support a claim like “ever.”
 
[b]Intermediate Treasuries[/b]

This is where investors go if they find BND holds too much risk for comfort, whether duration risk or credit risk. VCIT is down 11.46% in 2022. That’s head and shoulders below the worst previous 12-month return of minus 5.55% ending in October 1994. So much for “safe.”
And 96 years maybe does qualify for “ever.”
 
[b]Long Treasuries[/b]

VGLT really took it on the chin in 2022, down 28.51% thus far. It’s a reminder of why long bonds have a bad reputation in the eyes of some. Maximum duration, maximum price decline in an adverse environment. Turns out, the bad times in the 1960s and 1970s don’t really hold a candle to 2022. The worst previous 12-month return on the SBBI long bond was minus 17.10% for the period ending March 1980. That’s in nominal terms, as are all these comparisons. I’ll look at real returns at the end of the year, since most of the older inflation data (pre-1913) are only available on an annual basis.
Again, 2022 produced the worst return on long Treasuries seen over any 12-month period in the past 96 years. By far.
 
[b]Long bonds[/b]

This is a spliced series:
1. My index of long corporates from 1925 back to 1897; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3805927
2. My aggregate of corporate, municipal and Treasuries to 1842;
3. Municipals to 1835; Treasuries and municipals to 1825; Treasuries to 1793.
You have to go back over 150 years, to the 1840s, when states defaulted on their debts, to get a result that even comes close to the 2022 results for BLV (which pegs toward the midpoint of VGLT and VCLT). BLV saw a decline of 28.41% in 2022; the worst previous decline was the minus 22.88% decline for the period ending in January 1842. In April, 2022 was only a contender for worst ever in this bond category; it took bad returns in June and again in September to push 2022 returns below even those seen in 1842.
I’d say 228 years is a good approximation of “ever.”
 
[b]Really long bonds: British Consols[/b]

These were perpetuities, so the proper comparison would appear to be the Extended Duration Treasury fund. EDV got slaughtered in 2022, down 37.40%. That would be a mighty bear market even in stocks, much less safe government bonds.
Nothing in the British Consol record comes close, not even the worst months of the Napoleonic Wars. The chart shows 12-month rolls from 1753 to 1823. An earlier examination December on December annual returns had shown all the worst returns to fall within in this stretch. Later years, in the heyday of the British empire, were mostly fine. WW I returns, nominal, in particular did not plumb the depths of Napoleonic returns.
Consols down 20% plus? Happened more than once in the Napoleonic Wars (and before, in the American Revolution, and almost, in the Seven Years War). The worst case was minus 23.17% for the period ending July 1803. A Consol total return worse than minus 25%? Never happened. Return worse than 30%? Never approached, not even close.
2022 EDV returns stand alone at the bottom of a chasm.
And if 269 years isn’t a good proxy for “ever,” I don’t know what qualifies.
[b]Summary[/b]

Unprecedented, across the board.
[b]Why has 2022 been so bad?[/b]
One word: duration, my boy, duration!
Technically, modified duration, or the price sensitivity of a bond to a change in interest rates.
Duration is a function of maturity (as everyone knows) and of coupon/yield (which most people forgot or never knew).
1. Long bonds fall more when rates go up.
2. Low coupon bonds fall more when rates go up.
3. Low coupon, long bonds plunge when rates go up.
[b]What that means in practice[/b]
The last big bond bear market occurred at the dim horizon of memory for most investors active today, i.e., in the late 1970s. Rates on the 20-year Treasury rose from about 6% in 1972 to over 14% at one point in 1981.
The 2022 bear market (so far) has seen a much smaller rise in rates, a little more than 200 bp since the beginning of the year. Why then has 2022 clocked in as historically awful?
First, note the pacing: it took nine years for rates to rise 800 bp in that hazily remembered bear market, an average rise of less than 100 bp per year. 2022 saw more than twice that rise in just nine months.
And the real kicker: in that long ago bear market, rates were already higher at the start than almost any observer expects to see in the current cycle. High rate equals more coupon income to defray price drops, and a more favorable total return, since duration is also less at high coupons.
Back to 2022: an achingly low rate to start, less than 2.0%, and a rapid price drop, combine to produce a potent, toxic brew for bond total return.
Next, the last time long Treasury rates were as low as in 2020-2021 falls outside the lived memory of most investors. It was just under 2.0% in early 1946. And it took 12 years of drip-drip declines before that yield rose as high as the current 4.0%.
Now you have some sense of why 2022 has been so much worse for bonds than ever before.

Seems like in retirement one should not (1) generate (SS income, RMD, + investment income, cap gains, etc.) more income than one needs and (2) take investment risks that could result in generating more than (1). Also, is it reasonable to say that take equity risk (e.g., equity ETFs) in taxable accounts and put fixed income (e.g., Treasuries) in the IRAs, relatively speaking?
The above does not apply to Roth accounts. Seems like having almost all your assets in Roth accounts could be the most ideal, provided you meet the penalty free withdrawal requirements so you can access the money but have least obligation to the government. (BTW, I have insignificant amounts in Roth accounts.)
SS income is included for IRMMA calc. So, if a surviving spouse claims SS based on higher benefits earned by deceased spouse, that could increase Part B premiums. Moving from a higher State income tax to a no to low State income tax State in retirement is another good way to keep more of what you worked so hard for during your working life.
Finally, seems like one should try to keep built in gain (net of transaction costs) in their primary residence within the exemption amounts to avoid income tax and additional Part B premiums. So, sell your primary residence (i.e, move) more often than you otherwise would without this exemption amount.
Congratulations to those who plan their lives well.

There are various factors that affect net Part B premiums. IRMAA is just one of them. It is almost impossible for IRMAA alone to cause the premium to triple when filing status changes from MFJ to single.

Part B Premium	2022 Coverage (2020 Income)		2023 Coverage (2021 Income)
Standard	Single: <= $91,000			Single: <= $97,000
Married Filing Jointly: <= $182,000	Married Filing Jointly: <= $194,000
Married Filing Separately <= $91,000	Married Filing Separately <= $97,000
Standard * 1.4	Single: <= $114,000			Single: <= $123,000
Married Filing Jointly: <= $228,000	Married Filing Jointly: <= $246,000
Standard * 2.0	Single: <= $142,000			Single: <= $153,000
Married Filing Jointly: <= $284,000	Married Filing Jointly: <= $306,000
Standard * 2.6	Single: <= $170,000			Single: <= $183,000
Married Filing Jointly: <= $340,000	Married Filing Jointly: <= $366,000
Standard * 3.2	Single: < $500,000			Single: < $500,000
Married Filing Jointly: < $750,000	Married Filing Jointly: < $750,000
Married Filing Separately < $409,000	Married Filing Separately < $403,000
Standard * 3.4	Single: >= $500,000			Single: >= $500,000
Married Filing Jointly: >= $750,000	Married Filing Jointly: >= $750,000
Married Filing Separately >= $409,000	Married Filing Separately >= $403,000

https://thefinancebuff.com/medicare-irmaa-income-brackets.html
If one is in the first bracket (paying just the standard premium), then the premium can triple by moving the one of the top two brackets (3.2 or 3.4 times as much). But if one is in the second or higher bracket, it is impossible for the premium to triple.
So the initial MAGI (MFJ) must be no more than $182K. Filing as a single next year, the MAGI would have to be greater than $183K to jump into one of the top two brackets.
That is, even with the change in filing status from married to single, MAGI would have to go up in order for the Part B premium to triple. It would not triple if MAGI remained the same or went down.
Repeating, there are adjustments aside from IRMAA that affect net Part B premiums. So it is easily conceivable that net Part B premiums could triple with a change in filing status. But not because of IRMAA alone.

I feel it’s educational to follow a portfolio. By so doing one comes to understand and appreciate the interplay among many different types of investments. However, to a degree, it’s also counterproductive. Suspect a lot of us could post better returns if we stopped looking for at least 5 years.
A scatterbrained article citing a half dozen or so knowledgeable investors. But there seems to be a few pertinent take-aways. One relates to the mental stress of checking too often. Another suggests that we are prone to sell too early after a quick gain - diminishing the potential for far greater gains.
Another Good Link - Study shows nearly half of all investors check their performance at least once a day.

Following are excerpts from a current WSJ article, severely edited for brevity:

World trade in goods is set to slow sharply next year, possibly easing high inflation but raising the risk of a global recession, a new forecast shows. The World Trade Organization said surging energy costs and rising interest rates are weakening household demand across the globe, a dynamic that could cause exports and imports to increase by just 1% in 2023, down from a previous forecast of 3.4%. It also means there is an increased risk that the global economy will contract.
The WTO also lowered its forecast for global economic growth in 2023 to 2.3% from 3.3% and warned of an even sharper slowdown should central banks raise interest rates too sharply. Several long-term trends are weighing on international trade, including increased tariffs and other barriers, as well as a slowdown in globalization that threatens to intensify as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and other geopolitical tensions.
New export orders fell in September at the fastest pace since June 2020, when the pandemic had closed large parts of the global economy, according to a survey of purchasing managers at factories around the world released by S&P Global on Monday. A measure of supply-chain pressures compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has fallen each month from April to August, and freight costs have declined rapidly over recent months.
Signs of a slowdown in global trade are especially visible in Asia. Data from bellwether exporters such as South Korea show a pullback in overseas sales, as Western consumers, especially in Europe, feel the squeeze from high inflation and rising interest rates. South Korea’s exports grew by an annual 2.8% in September, the weakest performance since October 2020.
In China, the world’s second-largest economy, an export boom that propelled its economy through the pandemic is petering out. Export growth slowed sharply in August and a subindex of the country’s official purchasing managers index that tracks new export orders fell deeper into contraction territory in September. Chinese demand for imports is also weak, starving Asian economies of a key destination for finished goods, components and raw materials. Imports grew 0.3% in August compared with a year earlier.

“Warren Buffett doesn't have a computer on his desk ...”
“Nicholas Taleb, in his profound book, 'Fooled by Randomness', talks about the difference between noise and meaning. He uses the example of the happily retired dentist who builds himself a nice trading desk in his attic, aiming to spend every business day watching the market while sipping decaffeinated coffee. He watches his inventory of stocks via a spreadsheet with live price updates.”
Chart shows that near-term “gains” or “losses” are relatively insignificant when compared to a portfolio’s longer term probability of success. (Cannot vouch for the accuracy of the statistics - but they appear reasonable.)

Read full story here

For the most part I agree and have been incremental Roth conversions for years. But there are also reasons to retain some traditional pre-tax funds. Two charitable issues come to mind:
- It is much more tax efficient to leave T-IRAs to charities than to leave other assets to charities. Compare bequeathing $100 in a T-IRA with converting that $100 to a Roth (leaving, say, $88) and bequeathing that to charity. The direct T-IRA donation does better even than donating appreciated assets. Sure you avoid the cap gains tax on appreciated assets, but you still purchased those assets with post-tax dollars. So those assets cost you more than what you paid for assets in a T-IRA.
- If you're older than 70½ you can donate up to $100K/year to charities from a T-IRA without having to pay any income tax on the withdrawals. If you are already itemizing it is close to a wash, because then you can add the contribution to your deductions and that balances out the extra income generated by withdrawing the T-IRA money. But most people can't itemize, and even if you are itemizing, that two step process (withdraw and then contribute) increases your AGI which can impact other things (e.g. increasing income subject to 3.8% Medicare surtax, increasing IRMAA, etc.).

With an annuity, one gives up capital and potential capital appreciation in exchange for a steady (usually fixed) income stream for life. A SWR provides an alternative.
@Old_Joe, my understanding of "SWR as a percentage" is that it's not based on a fixed dollar amount (plus inflation). It's a percentage based on the yearly value of the portfolio balance. @MikeM, it is not a "set it and forget it approach". When your capital takes a hit, so does your SWR calculation (for that year's withdrawal).
The challenge is to simultaneously withdraw capital at a rate that is equal to or lower than your capital appreciates. Here's an example using FBALX and Portfolio Visualizer. A retiree starts withdrawals from a $100,000 portfolio in FBALX. The retire takes 4% SWR. In year one she withdraws 4% of her year end balance or $4,359. In 2008, the portfolio sustains a loss of 31.31% and as a result 2008's year end balance falls to $68,994. So, this year's 4% SWR is $2,875.

Over time, things improve. This is the challenge newly minted retirees are facing today. Some will choose a 5% fix annuity (set it and forget it). But inflation will eat away each year at their $5,000 fixed income payments.
In my 2007 - 2021 FBALX SWR scenario (see above), the retiree started with a SWR of $4,359 in their 1st year of withdrawals. By 2021, 4% SWR was $8,138. More importantly, the initial investment of $100,000 in 2007 is now worth $152.053 (even after yearly 4% SWR withdrawals). That would equate to $103,604 (adjusting for inflation). Capital preservation along with income seems as good or better than an annuity.
In 2022, FBALX will be down for the year (-22% right now) so the retiree should be prepared to receive 22% less than last year's $8,138 or $6,347. Still better than the fixed annuity payment of $5,000. That is the nature of SWR, it adjusts (it's dynamic) yearly...both up and down.
References:
Using Fidelity Balanced Fund for SWR