If China is communist, explain then how such glaring wealth inequality exists in China and there are numerous publicly listed Chinese companies with capital invested in them that produce significant profits for their founders and investors. Note the word "capital" in the previous sentence.

The authors acknowledged the attention grabbing aspect of their headline when they stated "European natural gas rates have surged more than 1,000% from a record low in May 2020 due to the pandemic, while Asian LNG rates have jumped about six-fold in the last year." And, they don't view natural gas as a final green solution to the climate change problem ("Countries championed gas as a way to quickly reduce their carbon footprint.") What I took from the article is a suggestion that global natural gas prices may well remain firm and perhaps rise substantially in the mid-term until alternative energy sources that are globally affordable and greener become available -- depending on how global regulations and investor demands evolve as the energy transition continues.

A rather misleading click-baity headline. The natural gas ETF, which admittedly is not a perfect proxy, is up 0.03% today--https://morningstar.com/etfs/arcx/ung/quote Talking about prices off of 2020 pandemic lows when oil went briefly to zero is absurd. Also, natural gas, while better than coal, is really not clean energy, so this line--"With few other options, the world is expected to depend more on cleaner-burning gas as a replacement to coal to help achieve near-term green goals."--is irksome:
https://vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/5/30/18643819/climate-change-natural-gas-middle-ground
https://reuters.com/article/us-usa-gas-climatebox-explainer/explainer-cleaner-but-not-clean-why-scientists-say-natural-gas-wont-avert-climate-disaster-idUSKCN25E1DR

How 10 of the world’s smartest investors can help you build your perfect portfolio
Is there a Perfect Portfolio for investors?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/how-10-of-the-worlds-smartest-investors-can-help-you-build-your-perfect-portfolio-11628177690
We posed this question to 10 of the most respected pioneers in the investment community. Six have Nobel Prizes in Economics: Harry Markowitz, the founder of Modern Portfolio Theory, the basis of the modern investment portfolio; his protégé William Sharpe, creator of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) and the beta risk measure that changed how we think about risk and reward in the financial markets; Eugene Fama, who developed the Efficient Market Hypothesis; Myron Scholes and Robert Merton, two of the co-creators of the Black-Scholes/Merton option pricing model; and Robert Shiller, the behavioral economist whose work challenged the notion of market efficiency.
The other four are portfolio managers, investors and bestselling authors who have sold millions of investment books, including The Vanguard Group’s founder Jack Bogle; the “Bond Guru,” Marty Leibowitz; the “Wisest Man on Wall Street” and Greenwich Associates founder Charles Ellis; and the “Wizard of Wharton,” Jeremy Siegel.
Prob 90% spy 10% bnd
Hold and die
What is your perfect portfolio composition?

How to Be Proactive With Your Medicare Options:
planning-for-medicare

A very good piece that mentions many of the gotchas often omitted. For example, articles often note that HSA account money can be used to pay for Medicare premiums, but they don't clarify that one cannot use HSA money for Medigap premiums. This piece got it right.
This leads to a (weak) argument in favor of Medicare Advantage plans. MA plans can provide coverage (e.g. an out of pocket cap) similar to Medigap plans. And you can pay for their premiums with HSA money, unlike Medigap premiums.
There is a related gotcha that was omitted. You can only use money from your HSA to pay for Medicare premiums if you are over age 65. That may sound like a nobrainer, but you could have Medicare at an earlier age, or you might be paying your spouse's Medicare premiums while you yourself are still under age 65.
One detail that it got wrong is:

Unlike tax brackets, the [IRMAA] thresholds don’t automatically change with inflation.

But they do automatically change:

Starting on January 1, 2020, the threshold amounts will resume adjustment for inflation

20 CFR § 418.1105(c)
That comes from the ACA (which also suspended inflation adjustments for several years before 2020).

https://www.schwab.com/resource-center/insights/content/is-chinas-bear-market-opportunity?cmp=em-RBK
Is China a bear market opportunity?
Key Points
China’s stock market pullback this year has been in line with the average annual drawdown; historically, this volatility has tended to produce double-digit annualized gains.
The recent drop seems to be driven by a regulatory crackdown, not an economic slowdown, with the market not responding to the economic outlook, but to the policy uncertainty.
Regulatory reform may continue, but the market’s reaction may be overdone.
We have been adding to China funds and EEM past few wks

Mergers seem to be part of the fabric of investing and is not always a positive sign for the company, nor their investors.
- Pepsi is selling Tropicana ($3.3 B will go private)...I wondered will this benefit Pepsi shareholders. Maybe.
/pepsico-sell-majority-stake-juice-business
- USAA Brokerage merged (sold) all of the assets to Schwab (for $1.8 Billion)... I asked the question to USAA...do USAA members receive any of the proceeds of this sale? Answer: no. So I moved my USAA brokerage assets to TD Ameritrade and received a $1K transfer bonus. Oops...come to find out, TD Ameritrade will soon also be Schwab (sold for $22B) .
Well at least I received something ($1K transfer bonus) for the disruption.
- Insurance companies merge...my life insurer "demutualized" and merged with Met Life. I received METLife stock as part of the merger...wished we had merged with Apple. As a result of this merger (demutualization) I will pay taxes on the capital appreciation of the stock shares I received when I sell them.

New England Mutual expects its credit rating to be raised to Met Life’s level, which could potentially attract more wealthy clients. Affluent policy buyers are particularly sensitive to low ratings of insurance companies.
The higher credit rating is also expected to make it easier for New England Mutual to dispose of troubled real estate assets that have dragged down its rating in recent years.

- Mutual funds merge into mutual funds:
When Funds Collide: What Happens When Funds Merge?

When Funds Collide, Survivors Often Suffer: Article (linked below) examines how business reasons that prompt fund mergers don't necessarily dovetail with the interests of the funds' shareholders. A fund company may simply be trying to bury a poor track record. More importantly, surviving funds tend to under perform after a merger

thestreet.com/investing/funds/mutual-funds/when-funds-collide

MERFX collapse was due to the collapse of the Aon/Willis Towers Watson merger agreement. DOJ had argued merger would reduce competition and raise prices in the insurance industry, so merger was called off due to regulatory concerns. This was a $30 billion deal, and the Merger Fund has 4+ billion in assets, so they figured this was an easy way to soak up some assets. Other event-driven funds with smaller asset bases stayed away from the deal, like VARAX . To me, it seems like Westchester Capital didn't perform due diligence with this deal, as apparently other fund houses sensed the deal's uncertainty. For me, I'm in the process of selling out of my entire position, and redeploying some of the assets into VARAX ntf at Schwab and Vanguard. ARBFX and BALPX were also hurt to a smaller degree by the collapse. I've invested in MERFX off and on for about 20 years, and this was a disappointing result that didn't have to happen !

Thanks for the info! Looking at PV it seems Merger has performed better than Vivaldi with limited exception, including this year. I hope Merger's misstep is not the start of a trend. I thought about the Nexpoint MA fund but I've had my fill of Dondero. I guess we'll see.

MERFX collapse was due to the collapse of the Aon/Willis Towers Watson merger agreement. DOJ had argued merger would reduce competition and raise prices in the insurance industry, so merger was called off due to regulatory concerns. This was a $30 billion deal, and the Merger Fund has 4+ billion in assets, so they figured this was an easy way to soak up some assets. Other event-driven funds with smaller asset bases stayed away from the deal, like VARAX . To me, it seems like Westchester Capital didn't perform due diligence with this deal, as apparently other fund houses sensed the deal's uncertainty. For me, I'm in the process of selling out of my entire position, and redeploying some of the assets into VARAX ntf at Schwab and Vanguard. ARBFX and BALPX were also hurt to a smaller degree by the collapse. I've invested in MERFX off and on for about 20 years, and this was a disappointing result that didn't have to happen !

I ran these two funds (I changed VOO to VFINX) to allow PV (portfoliovisualizer) to go back to 2002. I included VWINX and PRWCX to further compare a withdrawal strategy over the last 19 years. I used a 6% withdrawal rate (pretty aggressive) for each of the 19 years to compare the income generation each fund would provide and their suitability as a long term investment for capital preservation and income.
Interesting results (click on Comparison between):
Comparison between VFINX, VTI, PRWCX, and VWINX
My observations:
Comparing these four funds from 2002-2021 provides insight into why allocation funds are so beneficial for both income and capital preservation. Both VWINX and PRWCX navigated the Tech Bubble and the Great Recession preserving capital while at the same time providing greater yearly withdrawal amounts than either of the etfs.
It took 14 years for both (VOO) VFINX and VTI to overtake VWINX. From 2002 - 2016 VWINX outperformed VTI and VOO (VFINX) on a rolling return basis. PRWCX accomplished this feat every year (2002-2021) providing both more income per year as well as higher yearly portfolio balances.
Future Consideration:
From the perspective of both income and capital preservation, would an investor be less harmed (opportunity cost risk verses sequence of return risk) owning VWINX verses an Total Equity Market Index?
At the start of retirement or the start of one's investment career, I would consider owning an allocation fund such as VWINX or PRWCX and consider reallocationg into VOO or VTI when markets periodically sell off.

By Jim Sloan, SA contributor.
Summary
° VOO is based on the S&P 500 and VTI on the Total Stock Market, adding the 22% of stocks not included in the 500; long term they have performed similarly.
° Both are market cap weighted and heavily tilted toward the 10 largest stocks which are 28.5% of VOO and 23.4% of VTI.
° Jack Bogle preferred VTI because it contained "everything." Warren Buffett put the S&P 500 in his will for his wife, perhaps because it is tilted toward large cap growth.
° Longer term charts show similar returns while a one year chart clearly shows the outperformance of smaller caps, thus VTI, starting September 2020 with recognition of economic growth.
° There are several quirks in the way these index ETFs are put together, plus some interesting differences in statistical metrics and industry composition; VOO is more tax efficient.
ARTICLE

As the saying goes, economists have predicted five of the last three recessions:
https://advisorperspectives.com/articles/2021/05/06/david-rosenberg-the-consensus-is-wrong-about-stocks-bonds-and-inflation

The consensus is that U.S. equities will deliver strong performance as the economy recovers, and that higher inflation will drive rising interest rates. All of that is wrong, according to David Rosenberg.
The Toronto-based Rosenberg started his own economic consulting firm in January 2020, Rosenberg Research & Associates, after working a decade as chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Sheff & Associates. He was the opening speaker at this year’s Strategic Investment Conference, hosted by John Mauldin.
Before you place too much weight on Rosenberg’s analysis, recall that he delivered the opening keynote at this conference last year, when he proclaimed that U.S. equity market bulls were in “fantasyland.” He was wrong. The return for the S&P 500 for the last year was 56.25%.
The “fiscal juice” from stimulus checks and the re-opening of the economy are outstripping supply, creating temporary inflation. Supply will catch up when demand subsides as the effect from the stimulus wanes, according to Rosenberg. That will happen before the end of the year.
When the effect of stimulus checks expired last year, GDP declined by 2.5%. We will see a repeat of that this year, according to Rosenberg.

I lost a lot of money on QSPIX and sold it after a long time. I lost a little money on TMSRX and sold it after a short time. Both losses do not include gains that I would have realized had I invested in a 60/40 fund instead of QSPIX and TMSRX.
I learned my lesson on "black box" funds.

Wow. Thank you Shadow.
That's a big deal.
Wonder if it's because this biz cycle, since Jan 2020, it's only done OK versus peers, likely impacting AUM (but I have not checked that)?

This is of interest to me, but I am suspect of Vanguard's investing approach. They are a traditional "passive" investing firm, dependent on very low management fees, which is not a glowing basis for more active management of multisector and core plus. You can certainly offer a fund that meets categorical definitions, but if this is just another passive management fund, using indexes and existing funds, that does not excite me as a potential investment.

Vanguard is often overlooked as an "active" investing firm.
They managed over $1.6 trillion in active assets as of December 31, 2020.
Vanguard was the third-largest manager of actively managed assets as of September 30, 2019.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318342/000139834421014946/fp0067545_497.htm
WCM International Small Cap Growth Fund
(Institutional Class Shares - Ticker Symbol: WCMSX)
A series of Investment Managers Series Trust
Supplement dated July 28, 2021 to the
Prospectus, Statement of Additional Information and
Summary Prospectus, each dated September 1, 2020, as amended.
As previously communicated in a Supplement dated May 20, 2021, effective as of the close of business on June 18, 2021, the Fund is publicly offered on a limited basis to only certain investors. Effective as of the close of business on September 1, 2021, existing registered investment advisors, bank trust firms and broker dealers or other financial intermediaries that have an investment allocation to the Fund in a fee-based, wrap or advisory account will no longer be permitted to invest in the Fund on behalf of new clients. Accordingly, effective as of the close of business on September 1, 2021, this Supplement will replace the Supplement dated May 20, 2021 to the Fund’s Prospectus, Statement of Additional Information and Summary Prospectus.
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING PURCHASE OF FUND SHARES
Effective as of the close of business on June 18, 2021 (the “Closing Date”), the WCM International Small Cap Growth Fund (the “Fund”) is publicly offered on a limited basis.
Only certain investors are eligible to purchase shares of the Fund, as described below (the “closure policy”). In addition, the Fund may from time to time, in its sole discretion based on the Fund’s net asset levels and other factors, limit the types of investors permitted to open new accounts, limit new purchases into the Fund or otherwise modify the closure policy on a case-by-case basis.
The following groups are permitted to continue to purchase Fund shares:
1.Shareholders of record of the Fund as of the Closing Date may continue to purchase additional shares in their existing Fund accounts either directly from the Fund or through a financial intermediary, and they may continue to reinvest dividends or capital gains distributions from Fund shares.
2.New shareholders may open Fund accounts and purchase shares directly from the Fund (i.e., not through a financial intermediary).
3.Group employer benefit plans, including 401(k), 403(b), 457 plans, and health savings account programs (and their successor, related and affiliated plans) (collectively, “Employer Benefit Plans”), which made the Fund available to participants on or before the Closing Date, may continue to open accounts for new participants with the Fund and purchase additional shares in existing participant accounts. New Employer Benefit Plans may also establish new accounts with the Fund, provided the new Employer Benefit Plan approved and selected the Fund as an investment option by the Closing Date and the Employer Benefit Plan was accepted for investment by the Fund by the Closing Date.
4.Members of the Fund’s Board of Trustees, persons affiliated with WCM Investment Management, LLC, the Fund’s advisor, and their immediate families may continue to purchase shares of the Fund and establish new accounts.
In general, the Fund will rely on a financial intermediary to prevent a new account from being opened within an omnibus account established at that financial intermediary if the account would not otherwise satisfy the conditions outlined above. The Fund’s ability to monitor new accounts that are opened through omnibus accounts or other nominee accounts is limited, and the ability to limit a new account to those that meet the above criteria with respect to financial intermediaries may vary, depending upon the capabilities of those financial intermediaries. Investors may be asked to verify that they meet one of the exceptions above prior to opening a new account with the Fund. The Fund may permit you to open a new account if the Fund reasonably believes that you are eligible. The Fund also may decline to permit you to open a new account if the Fund believes that doing so would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders, even if you would be eligible to open a new account under these exceptions. If all shares of the Fund in an existing account are redeemed, the shareholder’s account will be closed. Such former shareholders will not be able to buy additional shares of the Fund or reopen their account.
Please file this Supplement with your records.

all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base.
If we use GDP as a proxy for the tax base (I'm open to better suggestions), then the US is not growing its debt more slowly than its tax base. Quite the opposite. Debt has outstripped tax base (GDP), growing from 40% of GDP in 1966, and from a post-war low of 30.6% in Q3 1981 to 129% in Q4 2020 and 127.5% in Q1 2021 (most recent data). That's significantly higher than even the WW2 peak of 112.7%.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/the-long-story-of-us-debt-from-1790-to-2011-in-1-little-chart/265185/
If you want to ensure that debt grows more slowly than the tax base, you have to either reduce the rate of growth of debt (slow or reverse increases in spending), make the GDP grow faster (either expand the economy faster or inflate your way out since we're looking at nominal dollars), or expand the tax base, i.e. broaden what is subject to taxes. Hence the wealth tax that Lewis mentioned.
Here's the most current Fed chart for household net worth. The dip at the end of Lewis' chart is Q1 2020, when the figure was $111K. Since then it has soared, as seen in the tail of the current chart. In Q1 2021, household net worth is $137K, as he noted.
A rise of over 23% in a year, "despite the devastating economic effects of the coronavirus ... driven in large part by surging stock and home prices after interest rates were lowered to combat the financial fallout of the pandemic."
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/542791-us-household-wealth-hits-record-130-trillion-despite-pandemic

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TNWBSHNO

@rforno,
From your chart the "Lower 490" look as though they have not even made it back to Jan 2020 levels. Also, I believe historically the "Top Ten" stocks have regularly out weighed and - in good times - out performed the "Lower 490". Isn't that how market cap weight indexes work?
Market Cap-Weight verses Factor-Weight Indexes:

Longtime market watcher and Wharton School professor Jeremy Siegel has argued for decades that investors should consider alternatives to popular market cap-weighted funds, particularly ETFs that weigh their holdings based on fundamental factors such as earnings growth, dividends or momentum.
Now, that tide is slowly turning. Though market cap-weighted funds are still the most widely held in the $5 trillion ETF market, issuers are growing increasingly comfortable offering factor-weighted and other niche products.

market-cap-vs-fundamentals-etf-weighting-and-the-average-investor

Take them out of the S&P and see what the rest of the 'market' (er, index) has returned....or not.
https://www.thestreet.com/trends/news/heres-what-the-s-p-500-looks-like-in-2020-without-big-tech

by Andrew Bary, Barron's article:
The biggest keep getting bigger and more dominant.
The five technology giants that dominate the S&P 500 index -- Apple ( AAPL ) , Microsoft ( MSFT ) , Alphabet (GOOG), Amazon.com ( AMZN) , and Facebook ( FB ) -- accounted for a combined 22.9% of the index Friday, an apparent record. The data are from S&P Dow Jones Indices.
Three of the tech leaders -- Microsoft ( MSFT ), Alphabet, and Facebook ( FB ) -- hit new highs Friday as the S&P 500 reached a record.
Rarely has the S&P 500 been so concentrated at the top. The Big Five were a combined 21.7% at the end of 2020.
At year-end 2019, the five largest stocks in the index totaled 17.2% of the index. At that time, Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.B) was No. 5., not Facebook ( FB ), which now ranks fifth. At year-end 2018, the top five were 15.4% of the S&P 500 index (Berkshire again was fifth).
It is notable that at the end of 1999, right before the peak in tech stocks, the top five companies were 16.8% of the S&P 500. Those five stocks in order of size were Microsoft ( MSFT ), General Electric (GE), Cisco Systems (CSCO), Walmart (WMT), and Exxon Mobil (XOM). GE, Cisco, and Exxon are now nowhere near the top.
So far this year, Microsoft ( MSFT ) (up 30.2% through Friday), Alphabet (up 57.3% based on the nonvoting shares, GOOG) and Facebook ( FB ) (up 35.4%) are powering the leaders. Apple ( AAPL ) and Amazon ( AMZN ) were up about 12% year-to-date through Friday, behind the S&P 500's 17.5% gain.