patrick.net

AD says

So what is the status of your small company now ? How long did it take to return to 1997-level sales ?

They're still in business but I have no idea of numbers or if they ever got back to the sales figures we achieved back then. They have a diversified business selling into Plastic, medical, and rubber extrusion and hot and cold steel. Wire and Cable used to be 80% of revenue when I first started with the company but it was below 50% when I left.

Trump admin is pumping stock market and private equity bailouts. So next 3 years stocks will do very well.

They won’t let AI bubble explode.

Full S&P 500 (with Magnificent 7): Up about +15% YTD as of November 2025, driven largely by mega‑cap tech.

Excluding Magnificent 7: The remaining 493 companies are up only about +7–8% YTD, showing much weaker performance.

Nvidia’s explosive growth—62% YoY revenue increase in Q3 2025—is partly driven by circular investing, where its own capital fuels demand for its GPUs. Analysts estimate 10–20% of recent growth may be circular, but the exact share is uncertain. The practice raises questions about sustainability, though it also entrenches Nvidia’s dominance in AI infrastructure.

Just look at Lucent's stock price around 2000 as it made a lot of circular financing deals with smaller telecom companies to buy Lucent hardware. MishTalk has a recent article about this.

FortWayneHatesRealtors says

Trump admin is pumping stock market and private equity bailouts. So next 3 years stocks will do very well.

They won’t let AI bubble explode.

True as he has made the AI race or competition with China, etc. as a major agenda of his administration. And the White House recently hosted a dinner with the AI industry leaders like Tim Cook, Sergey Brin, Sam Altman, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg which highlighted this.

Mplx 8% dividend energy stock

This Energy Stock Pays an 8% Dividend (And It's Safe) | The Motley Fool https://share.google/x92iM191ARTuxIuwF

Worth investing? Given that snp is very high n market may go down

JPMorgan sees S&P 500 reaching 7,500 in 2026 — or surging past 8,000 if the Fed keeps cutting rates

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jpmorgan-sees-sp-500-reaching-7500-in-2026--or-surging-past-8000-if-the-fed-keeps-cutting-rates-142602366.html

https://rudy.substack.com/p/the-increasing-economic-fragility



Why is the rest of the world rushing into the US stock market?

KgK one says

Mplx 8% dividend energy stock

Similar to AMLP. Note of caution to anyone that starts investigating this. These are ETF's that own Energy MLP (Master LImited Partnerships). You may look at the MLP's these two ETF's own and think "why buy the ETF - the dividends of the underlying MLP's are much higher". You would be right in that but a word to the wise :

These MLP's get special tax treatment in order to pay these dividends. That means if you hold the individual MLP's you will get a K1 from each one that you will have to include on your taxes. If you buy these inside your tax deferred account (IRA, ROTH) you still have to pay these taxes - and it's an accounting hardship (people do it, but it's not straightforward).

Again, this isn't for the ETF's - AMLP and XMLP - they take care of the tax paperwork but they are charging you to do it - the dividends of what they hold are higher than what they pay you. I've owned AMLP in the past and it did a reverse split 1:5 so I dumped it as soon as I broke even on the principal - but I did receive the dividends the entire time.

OK semi-serious question for 12.6.25. Is it time to time the market?

I'm getting very concerned with the weight of MAG7+Nvidia in my favorite ETF's (IUSG, SCHB). I have a younger relative who codes LLM's for sub prime fintech's in the Bay area and he is adamant that AI is the biggest bubble he's seen in his life (granted he was not investing even as recently as the 2018 pullback).

I've started putting new money into (what I believe to be) a good alternative ETF called DGRO which is more focused on dividend growth (not yield) but still includes a small exposure to MAG7. I'm considering closing or at least severely downsizing my positions in IUSG and SCHB. I'm talking about a major repositioning of as much as 60% of our net worth so it's material to me.

I made this mistake in late 2007/ early 2008 and ended up regretting going conservative and lost out on big returns in 2009 - 2012.

I'm not California rich, but I am Appalachia rich and I want to stay that way. I'm interested in patnetters opinions because I believe the average street IQ on this board exceeds reddit and bogleheads (which is a board for retired public employees and financial Karens). Should I just stay the course (boglehead) or be proactive. I don't know If I will ever need this money because we live frugally and will both (wife and I) get nice SS at 70 and I have small pensions from a couple of too big to fail pharma companies - I say this so that no one advises putting everything into TIPS.

What does the collective wisdom of the board say? Are we nervous yet?

I'm not nervous, but on the other hand, I don't know how much exposure to AI stocks I have either.

I know I'm overweight AAPL because once upon a time I rolled the dice and bought some shares, and my funds also own AAPL usually.

However, what is really important to me is taxes; the tax on investments is what really costs money down the road.

For decades I have not made changes to my investments; I never "rebalanced" them as I got older.

The only change I made recently is exchange my International Stock funds for USA stock funds, and I'm selling the one in my taxable account bit by bit; it's my "piggy bank' these days.

Trump is pumping stocks, don’t expect crash anytime soon

stfu says

I'm getting very concerned with the weight of MAG7+Nvidia in my favorite ETF's (IUSG, SCHB). I have a younger relative who codes LLM's for sub prime fintech's in the Bay area and he is adamant that AI is the biggest bubble he's seen in his life (granted he was not investing even as recently as the 2018 pullback).

I've started putting new money into (what I believe to be) a good alternative ETF called DGRO which is more focused on dividend growth (not yield) but still includes a small exposure to MAG7. I'm considering closing or at least severely downsizing my positions in IUSG and SCHB. I'm talking about a major repositioning of as much as 60% of our net worth so it's material to me.
I made this mistake in late 2007/ early 2008 and ended up regretting going conservative and lost out on big returns in 2009 - 2012.

Same boat here - dodged the 2008 clusterfuck but stayed too conservative during the 2011-2013 runup.

I've been following Finster's (from iTulip) blog Financology ever since iTulip's hibernation. He's been talking about the same thing - diversifying stock positions away from the Mag-7 while maintaining one's overall allocation to equities:

https://financology.net/2025/11/26/how-to-survive-a-bubble/

He has several ETF-based model portfolios covering various investment strategies (growth, income, capital preservation, permanent portfolio) for various portfolio sizes:

https://financology.net/model-portfolios/

stfu says

What does the collective wisdom of the board say? Are we nervous yet?

My IRAs (rollover/traditional and Roth) are in a balanced fund arrangement, 50% investment grade bonds and 50% index funds, and I plan on keeping it the same for next 4 years as it has been for the last 5 years.

Generally the conservative rule is X% of savings in stocks whereas X is 105 minus your age.

CNBC’s article (Dec 8, 2025) outlines how financial professionals would invest $1 million depending on risk tolerance, balancing fixed income, dividend stocks, and equities.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/08/where-to-invest-1-million-according-pros-risk-profile-fixed-income-dividends-equities.html

📌 Key Takeaways
• Risk Profile Matters Most
Advisors stress that the right allocation depends on whether the investor is conservative, moderate, or aggressive.
• Conservative Approach (Capital Preservation)
• Heavy emphasis on fixed income (Treasuries, municipal bonds, investment-grade corporate debt).
• Goal: steady income and principal protection.
• Example: 60–70% bonds, 20–30% dividend stocks, minimal growth equities.
• Moderate Approach (Balanced Growth & Income)
• Mix of dividend-paying equities and fixed income.
• Dividend stocks provide cash flow while equities offer growth.
• Example: 40–50% equities, 30–40% bonds, remainder in alternatives (REITs, infrastructure).
• Aggressive Approach (Growth-Oriented)
• Larger allocation to equities, especially growth sectors like tech and healthcare.
• Smaller slice in fixed income for stability.
• Example: 70–80% equities, 10–20% bonds, rest in alternatives or private markets.
• Dividend Stocks as a Core Theme
Across all profiles, dividend-paying companies are highlighted as a way to generate reliable cash flow while still participating in equity growth.
• Alternatives & Diversification
Some advisors recommend real estate, private equity, or infrastructure funds to hedge against inflation and diversify beyond traditional stocks and bonds.

AD says

• Heavy emphasis on fixed income (Treasuries, municipal bonds, investment-grade corporate debt).

Seems that if this is the plan, one would be better off with shopping for high rate insured CDs.

Private equity is bullshit; the essence of investing is mutual funds.

The simple answer seems wrong to those who think "advisers" know some "secrets."

Ask yourself; why are these advisers still working?

"If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"

Young men aren’t investing in a 401(k) for retirement — they’re banking on bitcoin

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/young-men-arent-investing-in-a-401-k-for-retirement-theyre-banking-on-bitcoin-ead9d58c

summary:

• Shift in retirement planning: A growing number of young men are opting out of 401(k) plans, preferring to invest in Bitcoin as their primary retirement vehicle.
• Distrust of traditional finance: They see 401(k)s and the stock market as outdated or unreliable, believing cryptocurrency offers higher potential returns.
• Generational divide: Older workers tend to stick with employer-sponsored retirement accounts, while younger men are more likely to embrace riskier digital assets.
• Volatility concerns: Experts warn that Bitcoin’s extreme price swings make it a dangerous substitute for stable retirement savings.
• Financial literacy gap: The trend underscores a lack of trust in institutions and a need for better education on balancing risk with long-term financial security.

Following up on my recent posts (and thanks for all that had some input). I sold all of my IUSG today which was a little over 10% of my stonks. I kind of freaked out last week when I checked it's main holdings and it's at 13% for Nvidia.

Even Stalwarts SCHB and VTI are around 7% Nvidia. These two constitute over 50% of my stonks so I still have plenty of exposure to AI.

Waiting for funds to settle and I'll put it in DGRO. No single stock is more than 3.5% of the total and it has big tech but also big pharma and consumer staples.

I may do a large cap energy ETF because I do believe the future is oil, gas, coal, and nuclear. Nobody can convince me that Solar or Wind will ever produce more energy than it costs.

Any idiot can diversify a portfolio.
Diversification is for the know-nothing investor.

-- Charlie Munger

Eric Holder says

Diversification is for the know-nothing investor.

The only person who is not a "no nothing investor" is an insider trader. The rest of us are making out best guesses.

Eric Holder says

Any idiot can diversify a portfolio.
Diversification is for the know-nothing investor.
-- Charlie Munger

So be it as far as being labeled an investing idiot but still earn on average about 9% to 10% annually after inflation on your retirement savings accounts for 25 to 35 years.

AD says

Eric Holder says

Any idiot can diversify a portfolio.
Diversification is for the know-nothing investor.
-- Charlie Munger

So be it as far as being labeled an investing idiot but still earn on average about 9% to 10% annually after inflation on your retirement savings accounts for 25 to 35 years.

Charlie would not have been impressed.

Vanguard is singing a new tune for investors in 2026.

It goes like this: Out with the standard portfolio mix of 60% equity and 40% fixed income. In with the opposite — a 40% equity share (20% US stocks and 20% international stocks) and 60% fixed income.

“This is a significant shift,” Roger Aliaga-Diaz, Vanguard’s global head of portfolio construction and chief economist for the Americas, told me. “It's almost like a tectonic shift.”

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/vanguard-flips-the-script-on-6040-investment-strategy-110026190.html

I'm pretty close to 100% stock all the time.

As far as my above post, the bellweather of investment grade bond securities is the Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF.

Its up about 7.25% year to date, and it dropped about 25% in price around 2021 to 2023 when inflation and interest rates started to increase.

Seems like it has somewhat recovered from that 25% drop

It has returned about 3.2% annually since its inception in April 2007 versus annual inflation averaging around 2.7% since April 2007

AD says

It has returned about 3.2% annually since its inception in April 2007 versus annual inflation averaging around 2.7% since April 2007

And that's my problem with bonds. Taking your numbers that's a real return of .5% vs. S&P real return of over 8% over last 20 years.

Further, at a yield of 3.2% and a typical cash flow requirement of $100k per year for a retired couple (feel free to disagree with that but to me that's just basic living ex-CA) that would mean you need a nest egg of $3,125,000 in order to live off the interest. I'm guessing that less than 4% of retirees have that much of a nest egg.

To illustrate - If I put that same nest egg money into something like SPYD or SCHD I'll get that $100,000 (or more) in dividends and still have a decent chance at another $200,000 in capital gains. I might also have a capital loss of $200,000 but as long as I don't realize those losses my dividends shouldn't change by that much. Over time the odds are with me.

In my investing lifetime (last 35 years) bonds have never made sense. They are considered "low risk" because they have low volatility. This is straight out of the MBA curriculum where they define risk as volatility when they are calculating their debt to equity ratios. That's not my definition of risk. Risk should be defined as not keeping ahead of the cost of living.

The previous post is correct.
Over time, bonds pay interest; periods of capital appreciation are followed by periods of depreciation. The long term result is the interest.

I'm retired and have a 90% stock allocation. In time, I'll convert some funds within IRAs, or similar to more dividend paying stocks, unless I'm lazy and keep doing almost nothing.

stfu says

In my investing lifetime (last 35 years) bonds have never made sense. They are considered "low risk" because they have low volatility. This is straight out of the MBA curriculum where they define risk as volatility when they are calculating their debt to equity ratios. That's not my definition of risk. Risk should be defined as not keeping ahead of the cost of living.

Yep.

The risk premium for an investment is the return an investor expects to receive above the return of a "risk-free" asset (like U.S. Treasury bonds) as compensation for taking on additional risk. It's a theoretical concept that constantly changes.

One analysis in March 2025 noted that VYM's risk premium was still near a 10-year peak relative to Treasury rates, suggesting an attractive potential return for the inherent risk at that time.

The fund's current SEC yield is approximately 2.42%. The difference between this yield and the current yield of a risk-free asset (e.g., a 10-year Treasury note) can provide a rough, current-market estimate of the yield premium, but this is not the total risk premium (which also includes capital appreciation expectations.)