Next to nothing? Why stop there? For us, it's been nothing.
Not to beat a dead horse, but as a retired bean counter I've posted many times that tax planning is, or should be, a lifelong process.
When we started our professional careers in 1980 we adopted our "Avoid, Delay, Minimize" tax plan and have executed it with relentless precision. We prefer to pay our income taxes on our own schedule.
Result? We have not paid a dime in FIT/SIT since the year after our retirements in 2012, and will likely continue to choose to pay ZERO until RMDs are required at Age 73, a tax-free period of 16 years.
Some cool features of the strategy are ZERO taxes on otherwise taxable Cap Gains, SS and pensions, and (effectively) annual tax-free withdrawals from IRAs up to the taxable threshold. We choose to take the cash in lieu of Roth conversions to fund our smallish, annual income gap.
There are three phases to an investor's life: Accumulation, Maintenance and Disbursement. Our lifelong tax strategy and retirement investment strategy have allowed our portfolio to continue to grow significantly annually and we remain in the Accumulation phase.

I'm playing this game by bundling cap gains into some years and ordinary income into others.
A few techniques to bundle ordinary income
- Do Roth conversions in "ordinary income years".
- Buy short term (1 year or less) CDs/T-bills in "cap gains years" that mature in "ordinary income years"
- Invest in muni (MM, bond) funds in "cap gains years", and taxable (Treasury, corporate) funds in "ordinary income years"
A couple of techniques to bundle cap gains
- Accelerate recognition of gains (sell and repurchase if desired) in "cap gains years"
- Sell "around" annual distributions - avoid distributions of ordinary income (if any) and repurchase after record date (recognizes additional cap gains)
Depending on how much space you have in your 0% cap gains bracket, creating more cap gains may or may not work out for you. In any case, the added cap gains are state-taxable, so that should be kept in mind as well.
On the flip side, Roth conversions may be partially or fully state tax-exempt, depending on the state. That's motivation to convert some money even if it eats into the 0% cap gains bracket.
Note that the numbers presented in the graph are incorrect.
Cap gains: $47,025 (top of 0% bracket) + $14,600 (std ded.) = $61,625, not $63,475
Ordinary inc: $47,150 (top of 12% bracket) + $14,600 (std ded.) = $61,750, not $63,475
Note also that the cap gains bracket does not line up exactly with the ordinary income bracket (as given by the IRS). Close, but different.
It looks like the author may have been adding in the 2023 extra deduction ($1,850) for being over age 65 (or blind). That would make the cap gains figure come out to $63,475.

Thanks @msf, I am still digesting what you wrote. Wondering if RMDs could be worked into this "Capital Gains Year" strategy where by:
RMDs are taking as early as possible to potentially provide a LT capital gain (from the RMD WD date + 1 year) AKA "Capital Gains Years". Conversely, In years where these RMDs suffered a loss, one would sell (by Dec 31st of that year) to harvest a tax loss which would help offset future gains in "Capital Gains Years".

Giruox’s PRWCX has a large long term capital gain distribution in 2024; much more than recent years. In light of what he stated in Barron’s round table discussion, the market is very expensive. Not just the Mag 7, but the rest of S&P 500 are above the historical PE, he has a net seller.
Similarly, Buffet sold much of Apple stock and other in mid 2024. Questions is why at the particular timeframe?

Firms have different screens for RMDs and regular withdrawals. There are more options available for regular withdrawals.
So, I just subscribe to firms' RMD calculation services, if available, but don't rely on them for any distributions. I just use them to double check my calculations.
I calculate my own RMDs - using previous yearend balances and the IRS factor.
I take the amounts as regular withdrawals. This works because the first withdrawals from RMD-eligible accounts are considered RMDs.
Last year, I had no problem specifying the % tax withheld. I don't know about this year - I now take RMDs mid/late year. I used to take them on Jan 2 or 3, but after the fiasco in 2020 (that probably would never repeat), I do it differently now.
This has also allowed me at times to follow the RMD consolidation rules for T-IRAs, and separately for 403b (but those aren't not applicable for 401k).

@msf
"Color me skeptical. Money managers like Vanguard and Fidelity tried to do this and failed."
No doubt. But your Barron's article suggests why my portfolio is perhaps different than that of those 2 firms..." One hurdle: Managed payout funds have long had trouble hitting their income targets without dipping into capital—simply giving investors part of their money back."
You see, I'm not smart enough to engineer a dedicated income stream, so I don't try. So for my income sleeve I buy things which already generate a distribution. When bought at opportune pricing and from solid companies or firms which have a history of maintaining/growing their distributions, the income takes care of itself.
And it's no wonder the managed payout funds closed up...in 2020, during the pandemic. But 2020 was a perfect time to buy stocks/funds for an income portfolio. JP Morgan, Prudential, AbbVie all selling at fire sale pricing with big dividends. I even bought Broadcom for <$30 yielding ~5%.
After 2 straight years of 20%+ growth in the S&P, this coiled spring is going to unwind sometime in the next year or two, and things will go on sale once again.

An annuity-like distribution is certainly possible. I'm using a combination of funds such as SCHD, DIVO, NEAR, JPIE and a handful of dividend paying stocks and CEFs ...
Color me skeptical. Money managers like Vanguard and Fidelity tried to do this and failed.

Payout funds got their start during the 2007-2008 financial crisis when Vanguard and Fidelity both launched the products. The idea was appealing: Convert a retirement savings pool into a reliable income stream and offer investors peace of mind that they’d get a monthly paycheck, regardless of the market’s ups and downs.
...
Vanguard initially had three payout funds but merged them into one fund in January 2014. Fidelity developed a series of Income Replacement funds, paired with an optional monthly payout feature, but Fidelity rebranded the funds in 2017 as “Managed Retirement Income” with more of a high-income focus rather than managed payouts.
One hurdle: Managed payout funds have long had trouble hitting their income targets without dipping into capital—simply giving investors part of their money back. Annuities work similarly, though they have an insurance component that can keep the income flowing if the portfolio runs out of money.

Barron's, Vanguard Throws in the Towel on Its Managed Payout Fund, Feb 28, 2020
The insurance component is what is missing in DIY (or professionally managed) alternatives. In order to guarantee (self insure) that you won't run out of money in your lifetime, you have to overfund. That may be okay if you're planning on leaving a legacy and are willing to dip heavily into that legacy if things don't work out. But it reduces the income stream that you could otherwise have.
A similar point about underspending is made in the originally cited paper:

[U]sing a relatively simple model we estimate consumption could increase by approximately 80% for retirees if assets were converted to lifetime income streams, where the improvement rates are significantly higher for joint households

What annuities do is pool risk. Some people die early, others later. Instead of each individual self insuring (collectively overinsuring), individuals pool their risk through an insurance company. This provides larger income streams safely.
The risk is in outliving your money. A traditional immediate annuity is not the only way to protect against this tail risk. A longevity annuity (a form of immediate annuity where payouts are deferred) will also do the job.
T. Rowe Price recognized this and recently came out with a product for employer-sponsored plans (401(k)s, etc.). Its Managed Lifetime Income product provides a managed payout investment for 15 years followed by a QLAC (qualified lifetime annuity contract).
I don't see any reason why one cannot do this oneself, self-managing a portfolio (as @PRESSmUP described) and adding a longevity annuity (either QLAC or nonqualified).
Alternatively, one can annuitize a variable annuity.

Variable payout annuities provide protection against longevity risk and allow for some participation in the higher (but more volatile) returns of corporate equities and other real assets. They also avoid the annuitization risk because their benefit payments vary with investment performance and are not fully determined by the prevailing conditions at the time of retirement. But VPAs are exposed to investment and inflation risks ...

The Mechanics and Regulation of Variable Payout Annuities (50 pages. TL;DR)

I'm playing this game by bundling cap gains into some years and ordinary income into others.
A few techniques to bundle ordinary income
- Do Roth conversions in "ordinary income years".
- Buy short term (1 year or less) CDs/T-bills in "cap gains years" that mature in "ordinary income years"
- Invest in muni (MM, bond) funds in "cap gains years", and taxable (Treasury, corporate) funds in "ordinary income years"
A couple of techniques to bundle cap gains
- Accelerate recognition of gains (sell and repurchase if desired) in "cap gains years"
- Sell "around" annual distributions - avoid distributions of ordinary income (if any) and repurchase after record date (recognizes additional cap gains)
Depending on how much space you have in your 0% cap gains bracket, creating more cap gains may or may not work out for you. In any case, the added cap gains are state-taxable, so that should be kept in mind as well.
On the flip side, Roth conversions may be partially or fully state tax-exempt, depending on the state. That's motivation to convert some money even if it eats into the 0% cap gains bracket.
Note that the numbers presented in the graph are incorrect.
Cap gains: $47,025 (top of 0% bracket) + $14,600 (std ded.) = $61,625, not $63,475
Ordinary inc: $47,150 (top of 12% bracket) + $14,600 (std ded.) = $61,750, not $63,475
Note also that the cap gains bracket does not line up exactly with the ordinary income bracket (as given by the IRS). Close, but different.
It looks like the author may have been adding in the 2023 extra deduction ($1,850) for being over age 65 (or blind). That would make the cap gains figure come out to $63,475.

bee: "Question: How many have turned to annuities or "annuity - like" strategies to increase your income spending?
When I retired 13 years ago, I attempted to project my future spending needs. Over these years I have meet my spending needs with a combination of pension income (with a COLA), an Annuity Income (Savings that I converted to an Annuity), and some part time work. Since retirement, I have continue to contribute to my HSA and my IRA with contributions from part time work income. Recently I began managing one of my properties as a seasonal rental for additional income. I will work part time spending some of that work income and saving some into an IRA until age 73. My RMDs will then become a forced taxable event that may turn into an income source if needed or taxable savings if not needed.
What type of a portfolio would you design as an "Annuity - like" strategy for yourself? Maybe a combinations of Balanced mutual funds/EFTs that distribute periodically? Am I deribing the 4% rule?
Shifting from a mindset of saving for retirement to a mindset of confidently spending in retirement is a huge challenge we all face."
For me, I accumulated a significant amount "defined contribution" assets through my employer, along with some estate inheritance assets inherited by my wife. Those all reside in our property, in our Schwab Brokerage, and in local banks and credit unions. As part of our retirement, my wife and I depend on income from Social Security, a small government pension, which pays enough income for about half of our normal living expenses. We produce additional income through a changing array of asset holdings at our brokerage and our bank and credit unions. The closest thing to an "Annuity-like" strategy, that we use are fixed income instruments such as Money Market accounts, CDs, high yield Savings Accounts, and treasuries, to supplement SS and the small pension of my wife. The fixed income instruments are comfortably producing a 4 to 6% stream of income, so I am able to maintain principal and just live off the income that my "principal assets" throw off annually. I have in previous years used bond oefs, that were very low volatility, low "risk" funds, such as RPHIX and DHEAX, but when the Market went through a severe correction in 2020, I sold all the bond oef funds, put all the sales proceeds into MMs, and then moved money out of MMs into other low risk fixed income instruments, many of which are covered by FDIC and NCUA government insurance protection. That is where I am now, but I always have to maintain enough investing flexibility to make investment decisions necessary to throw off enough income, with the least amount of risk, to meet my 4 to 6% annual earnings.

From The article:

For 2024, individuals with taxable income below $47,025 ($94,050 for married couples) pay 0% tax for long-term capital gains (LTCG). In years when you’re under the threshold you could effectively lock in tax-free long-term gains. The idea would be to realize just enough LTCG to stay within the 0% tax bracket. You also have to tack on the standard deduction which is $15,000 for individuals or $30,000 for a married couple. That means don’t have to pay federal income taxes on your long-term capital gains until your income exceeds a little more than $63,000 (single) or $126,000 (married couple). So you could realize more than $63,000 ($126,000) in capital gains and dividends without paying any federal income tax.

Link to Article:
https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2025/01/how-to-pay-nothing-in-taxes-during-retirement/

I believe one can claim $300 on standard form. I"m probably wrong as I haven't done my Taxes in the last 7 or 8 years. I realize $300 isn't going to help much, but to some people every little bit saved is a plus.

Unfortunately, that "above the line" deduction was temporary, it was only allowed in 2020 and 2021. There is a movement to restore it and make it permanent.
https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/news/hundreds-of-nonprofits-push-for-passage-of-charitable-act/
Above the line deductions
Though your post did remind me of another way to make this work. People over 70½ (sic) can take qualified charitable deductions (QCD). Instead of taking distributions from a traditional IRA (and thus increasing income), those distributions can be sent directly to charities. This way your AGI isn't increased because of the distributions and the charities still get your contributions.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1480207/000089418925000127/dblmatliquidationsupplemen.htm
497 1 dblmatliquidationsupplemen.htm 497
DoubleLine Funds Trust (the “Trust”)
DoubleLine Multi-Asst Trend Fund (the “Fund”)
Supplement dated January 10, 2025 to the Fund’s Summary Prospectus (the “Summary
Prospectus”), Prospectus (the “Prospectus”) and Statement of Additional Information (the
“SAI”), each dated July 23, 2024
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Summary
Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI and should be read in conjunction with the Summary
Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI.
The Board of Trustees of DoubleLine Funds Trust has approved a plan of liquidation for the Fund. The liquidation of the Fund is expected to take place on or about February 28, 2025 (the “Liquidation Date”). Effective after the close of business on January 24, 2025, the Fund’s shares will no longer be available for purchase by new investors or existing investors (other than qualified plans). Dividend reinvestments (where applicable) will continue until the Liquidation Date.
The proceeds per share to be distributed to each shareholder of record on the Liquidation Date will be the net asset value per share of the relevant class of shares of the Fund less any required tax withholdings, after all expenses and liabilities of the Fund have been paid or otherwise provided for. For U.S. federal income tax purposes, the receipt of liquidation proceeds will generally be treated as a taxable event and may result in a gain or loss. At any time prior to the Liquidation Date,
shareholders of the Fund may redeem or, subject to investment minimums and other applicable restrictions on exchanges, exchange their shares of the Fund for shares of the appropriate class of another DoubleLine fund (if available) pursuant to the procedures set forth under “Other Account Policies—Exchange Privilege” in the Prospectus.
In anticipation of the liquidation of the Fund, DoubleLine Alternatives LP, the Fund’s investment adviser, may manage the Fund in a manner intended to facilitate its orderly liquidation and the Fund’s portfolio may be reduced to cash, cash equivalents or other short-term investments on or prior to the Liquidation Date. As a result, during this time, all or a portion of the Fund may not be invested in a manner consistent with the Fund’s stated investment strategies, which may prevent the Fund from achieving its investment objective.
The sale of portfolio holdings will result in the Fund realizing gains or losses, and the proceeds payable to shareholders will generally be subject to federal (and state or local, if applicable) income taxes if the redeemed shares are held in a taxable account and the proceeds exceed your adjusted basis in the shares redeemed. The Fund may also make a distribution of undistributed net income or capital gains prior to the Liquidation Date.
If the redeemed shares are held in a qualified retirement account, your account may not be subject to tax withholdings if you take certain actions. For example, if you hold your shares in an individual retirement account (an “IRA”), you have 60 days from the date you receive your proceeds to reinvest or “roll over” your proceeds into another IRA to maintain their tax-

Good points by @msf.
ITRAX / ITRIX looks like a clone - T Rowe Price is listed as a subadvisor. Giroux keeps holdings almost same as PRWCX, but there may be tiny variations. It's part of "Voya Investor Trust" that has several externally subadvised funds.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/837276/000110465917025956/a17-8811_1485bpos.htm#923ed035-a286-4a4a-8c52-16131f487efb_1
"VY® T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Portfolio
Class/Ticker: ADV/ ITRAX; I/ ITRIX; S/ ITCSX; S2/ ITCTX"
If it was a feeder fund, then its holdings would be just 100% of one of the classes of PRWCX.
Anyway, these devices are so that Voya can have a different ERs from the original funds.
A newer way is to simply have a plan level ER/fee and offer the original funds and tickers. Interestingly, these top level ERs may be charges or credits based on plan terms.

If you have large gains in a highflying stock & want to sell it to buy a related etf for diversification, there is one obstacle.
The IRS will want its cut from your large capital gains.
Except when you do a 351-exchange from SMA or advisory portfolio into a 351-exchange etf without any tax consequences. But there are rules & restrictions.
Diversification test for contributed portfolio - single stock holdings < 25%; top 5 holdings < 50%
Accreditation requirements depend on brokerages
80% Control post-launch by the launch-investors
Tax-free Seeding happens only at inception; no continuing in-kind tax-free contributions
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/762/351-exchange-etfs

Re: 03 Jan, '25:
Expecting elevated volatility, uncertainty. The 2-10 year spread is at highest in over 2 years. Due to fiscal concerns. Davis (BMO) likes relatively attractive current yields on both Treasuries AND corporates. He's adding duration.
Ed Al-Hussainy (Columbia Threadneedle) is concerned about policy uncertainty, most. Political and fiscal policy. "Underneath," there is also the Fed's interest rate adjustment stance.
Leslie Falconio (UBS Global Wealth Management) sees the monetary side has been totally recalibrated. Her firm expects only two interest rate cuts in '25. (June and Sept.)
Al-Hussainy: watch to see what happens with tariffs.
Falconio: Fed will most likely wind-down QT in 1st or 2nd Q.
Duration, Leslie? Yes, more duration now, but only out to the belly, around 5 years. When UST reach 4.75 at 10-years, they'll add further out the curve.
Al-Hussainy: duration is becoming a good hedge vs. risk assets, yes. Long end, out to the end of the year, is still quite "scary."
***********
DELUGE of I.G. bond issuance expected.
Already, $15B of issuance from Credit Agricole, GM and Ford.
-A poll shows $200B of junk issuance in '25 is expected. (Expected to exceed last year's record.)
JoAnne Bianco (Bondbloxx:) Still see opportunity in credit, especially junk.
Akila Grewal (Apollo Global) Private Credit will benefit in the impending higher-for-longer rate environment.
Sinjin Bowron (Beach Point Capital) Currently deploying money across the quality spectrum--- including "distressed opportunities." Distressed HY in '24 was a big driver of returns. But FR outperformed fixed income. Going forward, more bets into FR makes a lotta sense.
(Akila: ugh! Her manner of delivery is off-putting. Sounds just rushed and canned.)
Anyhow: Apollo is still focused on higher quality, First Lien stuff.
Bowron: Coming into '25 there are both solid credit fundamentals and very tight valuations. And wider spreads should not come as a surprise, simply given political uncertainty into '25. Nevertheless, credit quality remains robust.

GLIFX/GLFOX is old-timey infrastructure that I would put in the category with widow and orphan investments. It's pretty much The Electric Company, Waterworks, and the Pennsylvania, Short Line, B&O, and Reading railroads.
I still own a chunk of GLFOX in my taxable that I bought on 3/18/2020. I become attached to such purchases. I sold a more recent position in GLIFX from the IRA in order to simplify it. I don't feel that need with the taxable. The proceeds from that sale went into IYK and FSUTX.
I think any discussion of new opportunistic infrastructure funds is incomplete without mentioning water funds. Start with PHO or FIW if you are H2O curious.
There are global water funds, but they have faced rougher sledding over the past three years. You could start with PIO and TBLU. I'm not smart enough to imagine how they might perform in the tariff regime promised by our new president.

If workable, legally sell the house to a relative or trusted friend & live on mortgage payments. Terms could be mutually beneficial.
Except for the mortgage payment part, this sounds like the deal Harlan Crow made to buy Clarance Thomas' mother's house (formerly owned by Clarance, his mother, and his deceased brother's family). Gives a whole new meaning to "trusted friend".
Thomas' mother got to stay in the house rent free by retaining a life estate. That's where she still owned (had exclusive right to use/occupy) the house until she died. Using a life estate as partial payment for the purchase introduces a couple of tricky items:
- The holder of the life estate (being owner of the moment of the house) is still responsible for property taxes. Crow's company paid the taxes.
- Since the buyer paid not only the dollar amount agreed upon but gave the seller(s) a life estate, ISTM the sale price is the dollar amount plus the value of that life estate (based on life expectancy). The Thomas sale was supposedly structured where the life estate was part of the deal. Alternatively, if the life estate is not part of the purchase price, then it is a gift from buyer to seller, triggering gift tax filings.
Instead of using a life estate, the seller could simply pay rent. That often happens short term in real estate sales. The old owner needs a few extra days to move out, so they pay rent to the buyer starting on the closing date.
Regarding capital gains on any seller financed sale, the IRS provides a nice loophole. (I learned about this just a couple of years ago when a relative looked into selling some property and financing the sale.)
You and I might think of a seller financed sale as a completed sale (complete with recognized cap gains) plus a mortgage held by the seller. But the IRS looks at this as no different from an installment sale. As such, the seller recognizes cap gains in parts over the lifetime of the mortgage.
https://www.sellerfinancedream.com/resource-center/seller-financing-tax-benefits-and-seller-financing-tax-implications
This can help tremendously if the seller would have a large taxable gain (in excess of the $250K/$500K home sale exclusion).

Question: How many have turned to annuities or "annuity - like" strategies to increase your income spending?
When I retired 13 years ago, I attempted to project my future spending needs. Over these years I have meet my spending needs with a combination of pension income (with a COLA), an Annuity Income (Savings that I converted to an Annuity), and some part time work. Since retirement, I have continue to contribute to my HSA and my IRA with contributions from part time work income. Recently I began managing one of my properties as a seasonal rental for additional income. I will work part time spending some of that work income and saving some into an IRA until age 73. My RMDs will then become a forced taxable event that may turn into an income source if needed or taxable savings if not needed.
What type of a portfolio would you design as an "Annuity - like" strategy for yourself? Maybe a combinations of Balanced mutual funds/EFTs that distribute periodically? Am I describing the 4% rule?
Shifting from a mindset of saving for retirement to a mindset of confidently spending in retirement is a huge challenge we all face.
Sourced through Ron Berger's Weekly email Newsletter:
https://robberger.com/newsletter/
Working Paper:
Retirre's Spend Lifetime Income, Not Savings

Abstract: The shift to defined contribution savings plans means that more retirees must fund spending
from savings. Prior studies find that there appears to be a behavioral resistance to spending down
savings after retirement in a manner that is consistent with life cycle models. We explore how lifetime
income, wage income, capital income, qualified savings, and nonqualified savings are used to fund
retirement spending. We find that retirees spend far more from lifetime income than other categories of
wealth. Approximately 80% of lifetime income is consumed, on average, versus only approximately half or
other available savings and income sources. Overall, the analysis suggests that converting savings into
lifetime income could increase retirement consumption significantly, especially for married households.

@Art
Only for OEF's with transaction fees including RPHIX. Dividends and some capital gains earned during the year get distributed to my household account at the end of the year unless a significant portfolio decline causes me to retain some of them in the investment account for the following year.

Edit: Re-reading @Old-Joe post, I now realize that I only restated what he succinctly stated.
I would rather the women in this forum rebut / agree with some of the assumptions (assertions?, even through surveys) made about women.
Have you guys noticed that just in our life time alone the difference between men and women behaviors, roles, skills, etc. has progressively become narrower and narrower? Closing the gap is continuing.
(Specific family and social backgrounds / dynamics being contributing factors is a different thing.)
For every skill (or the lack thereof) I was inclined to attribute to women, I could find so many exceptions that I just could not bring myself to posting those.
Women CFOs and CEOs have to continually grapple with allocation of capital and maximizing ROI. I personally do not think wealth management is a distinctly separate aptitude from Finance. If one has the aptitude and interest, skill can be learned / taught and practiced. There are a lot of men and women that have an aptitude but do not show an interest to gain skills related to (or that emanate from) the aptitude because they choose to allocate their time and energy else where. It is a choice they make - does not mean they do not have the aptitude.
In all the investment forums I have been to, I came across only one poster who ran a concentrated portfolio of individual stocks (and no fixed income and no funds), and it was a retired woman and she did not work in Finance. She posted all her portfolio B/S/Ws. Very disciplined. I forgot what her husband did but she posted so little about anything other than her portfolio. You could ask her to elaborate on her Whys and she was happy to oblige.
20 years ago I used to work at a company and an immigrant lady colleague also had a stock portfolio and she did better than any person in the Finance department. Her husband worked as a handyman. In fact, every person in our Finance department was more aggressive with the company finances than with their own portfolio but she was the opposite.

@ Art
My portfolio holdings were generally unchanged in 2024 except for a little tweaking within sectors (mostly during pullbacks to limit taxable gains). The Info Tech and Financial stock sectors contributed the most to my 2024 total portfolio returns. The lower level of Info Tech dividends paid by its holdings during 2024 contributed to the year-end increase in the stock % held in that sector. The higher level of dividends paid by my REIT and Financial sector holdings during the year contributed to their year-end stock sector % declines.
% of Stocks .... % of Stocks
12/31/24 ........ 01/01/24
20% .. Real Estate .. 24%
20% .. Info. Tech. .. 14%
12% .. Utilities .. .. 11%
17% .. Financials .. .. 18%
13% .. Energy .. .. 13%
82% .. Total .. .. 80%