I am curious about your use of the adjective “ambitious.” The dude isn’t a young guy right out of B school. What is the implication here?

LOL -

"Ambition should be made of sterner stuff."
Hope it's OK to mention the current Barron's article here re a huge exodus of top engineers & executives from Apple along with speculation Cook is nearing retirement. There's a slight connection to BRK. Buffett unloaded a lot of Apple stock, a top holding, over the past year.
Added note: BRK -2.5% as of noon time.

I am curious about your use of the adjective “ambitious.” The dude isn’t a young guy right out of B school. What is the implication here?

" It is refreshing to have an established bond analyst to discuss the process of exploring various sectors of bonds and their inefficiencies."
But I don't see why we need an "established bond analyst" when we already have FD1000.

Well, if your toilet ain’t working, do you want a

general therapist who claims to know a lot about everything from gutter repair to toasters? Or do you want a dedicated plumber with all the right tools?

[snip]
If your goal is to earn more with lower volatility, which is where I am since retirement,
then a few principles stand out:
Consider funds from small to medium-sized shops; they often have more flexibility
and can uncover opportunities larger firms can’t.
Newer funds can sometimes perform even better because they’re more nimble.
Don’t obsess over expense ratios; what ultimately matters is performance after fees.
The bond market is unique; certain segments can outperform for only a few months (sometimes longer),
so active trading and tactical skill really matter.
Timing is also critical, especially avoiding major drawdowns like in 2020, 2022, and 2024.
[snip]

On its face, 2025 has been a good year for the stock market. The S&P 500 was dragged out of its tariff-induced springtime slump by a small subset of AI-forward power players whose spectacular gains defied an otherwise softening economy. Even now, despite a rocky November, the benchmark index is up more than 12 percent since the start of the year.
A group of trillion-dollar brands known as the “Magnificent Seven” — Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla — has been at the forefront of those gains, thanks in large part to corporate spending and intense interest in artificial intelligence. But economists and investors are raising concerns about the companies that aren’t part of the AI investment boom — in other words, most businesses in the United States.
An index that leaves out the seven high-flying tech firms — call it the S&P 493 — reveals a far weaker picture, as smaller and lower-tech companies report lackluster sales and declining investment.
“You have the headwind of de-globalization and tariffs, and the tailwind of AI … those forces are battling to a draw, and in that crosswind you get winners and losers,” said Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi. “Anything that is not connected to AI is throttled lower.”

Some experts are worried that the S&P 500, an index of large-company stocks that underpins the fortunes of millions of Americans with 401(k) and other retirement accounts, has become too reliant on the Magnificent Seven; they collectively account for about a third of its value, leaving the broader stock market heavily dependent on the continued success of “the AI trade,” says Torsten Slok, chief economist at the private equity firm Apollo Global Management.
“There is no diversification in the S&P 500 anymore in my view … it is all the AI story now,” Slok said.
Publicly traded small and midsize companies have taken a beating by comparison. The Russell 2000 lost 4.5 percent in the one-month period leading up to Friday, compared with a loss of around 2 percent for the S&P 500. A little more than a third of the companies in the Russell 2000 index either don’t make money or are losing money.
The market’s concentration in Big Tech has also given rise to concerns about what would be left if an AI bubble were to burst. Those fears have been amplified in recent weeks as Big Tech names suffered a modest sell-off, with some analysts raising concerns that the AI industry has overspent on infrastructure at a time when the technology’s actual profit-generating potential is still nascent.
Tech stocks have endured a series of rocky sell-offs since late October, with the tech-heavy Nasdaq index falling around 7 percent from its Oct. 29 peak. Markets rebounded Friday, with the index trimming some of its losses from earlier in the week.
Slok, the Apollo economist, says he is particularly worried about the recent AI losses because so much of the recent economic growth has been shored up by free-spending wealthy households. A deep correction in AI stocks, if it ever arrived, could threaten the “wealth effect” that is doing so much to prop up the economy, Slok warned.

”our guy says we are doing great "
That raises an interesting question. Assuming this is for someone in retirement, what would ”doing great” mean YTD?
Someone sitting 100% in cash would think 5% YTD is “great.”
Playing in longer dated CDs …. maybe 7%?
With 100% in a balanced fund 10% might appear “great.”
For an actively managed broadly diversified portfolio +15% might be “great “
With an hefty exposure to gold / precious metals, +30% YTD might represent “great”.
Disclosure: My performance has not been “great”, but is OK. I’ve managed to step on my own toes a few times this year.