no_free_lunch

It lacks tech is my main concern. What if there is some huge boom and you miss out. I would need to keep at least something, over half, maybe two thirds in index funds. I'm just chicken I guess, there is nothing wrong with this strategy. Berkshire is huge and very diversified, good chance it outperforms the market because it's not quite as overpriced. Have to admit, BRK is down a touch since I sold, I am wavering and may put some funds back in.

This is solid advice. The only thing I can add is, I might split 50/50 between these products and ishares equivalent for diversity.

Oh boy. I just sold BRK from all accounts, except taxable ones. Perhaps I need to reconsider that decision. Would you all really be comfortable holding BRK without buffet?

Hello, I have a real world situation where I need to step way back from investing. I know the recommended strategy is to use index funds. However, even with that I have some concerns as to which index fund, there are many options. I can pick some good ones for today but I am concerned what will happen in 10 years. I am trying to setup my investments so they can run without me, just based on very simple instructions. I am actually even thinking about assigning the funds to a wealth manager (sigh). What would people do in this situation, what is the easy button if you want to make the minimal number of decisions but not lose your funds to fees (and possibly fraud?). I am not thinking about return here, just hoping to match inflation or a touch more. The main thing is it has to be an extremely simple investment solution and one that can stand for (ideally) decades.

The t-bill idea is a good one. Thanks. In my case I have to figure out if I am allowed to buy it but great for Americans for sure. The yield you listed is actually higher than some corporate bonds.

Right, thanks for the update. I don't follow the i-bond myself, just tried to repurpose the thread. One more general portfolio question, for anyone who might be reading. I am moving to a 60/40 stock/bond mix and live in Canada. I am thinking of investing the 40% fixed income in Canada (easier and don't have to worry about currency), and investing the 60% stocks into US equities. There are still risks but this seems a decent balance. I am just hoping someone will tell me if this seems like a really bad idea.

Are there any similar suggestions for those of us in canada? I can get 4.7% from a 1 year GIC but it's a ways off from this I bond deal.

Thanks for this.

I am planning an extended trading break. Rather than start yet another thread thought I'd ask here. Where would you guys park your money? I'm Canadian with assets split into us and canada. I suspect the answer I vanguard etfs but doesn't hurt to ask.

This summarizes it nicely spek. I have followed it since 06. During the depths of the gfc, as I recall they were not telling people to invest. I think near the absolute troughs they may have changed tune a bit but I didn't see any buy and hold calls. The sp500 is up like 5 fold since then. The opportunity cost was insane. As we know , a broken clock is correct eventually...

I don't even know where to start. They post what suits them. It comes off as just questioning the official narrative but as you said ZH just pushes a different narrative.

It is the right direction. People are scared and for legitimate reasons.

Not just Ukraine. A similar situation in Chechnya, Georgia, Kazakhstan. Anyone who thinks Russia has a better alternative should go live there. They won't of course, it's all talk. They want the safety and power of the west.

It's powerful but still seems more just a task augmentation. You still need to review what it does and give it directions. Very cool stuff but most human tasks are very diverse and require near perfection.

China is a good example of why we shouldn't forgive forget without regime change. Look at the contrast between Germany and Japan vs China. All we have done is strengthened our enemy and yes we benefitted along the way but at what cost. If it leads to a cold war both parties in the US will be doing some soul searching to make sure that NEVER happens again. Castanza, I can't really find much to disagree with. The only point is around nuclear use. I feel they would have been used by now if it was truly on the table. It just doesn't make sense, this is not a mortal threat to Russia. Their nuclear use doctrine does require some legitimate threat to the country and a fight in Ukraine just doesn't hit that bar. Also note that mainstream western agencies were correct in calling for the invasion. We like to downplay them because of Iraq but they were bang on here. When they start sounding the nuclear alarm I will take it seriously. Until then imo, we can't be cowered, or we become slaves.

Can you give us the summary castanza?

Well you literally just said you hoped Russian stocks trade again. I mean that is part of free speech so I defend your right to say that. Just know that if you talk against Russia in Russia you are fucked. Probably literally.

Over 100k deaths and we are worried about some gas pipeline. A pipeline to a country threatening nuclear annihilation on anyone who opposes it. It's worth following for an intellectual exercise but really what does it matter who did it. Russia, Ukraine, Poland, USA, it's one of those but it doesn't matter. We cant pretend we support Ukraine but pump up the economy of Russia. To me the most meaningful item is whether this represents some type of narrative shift against Ukraine. Is the west starting to lose resolve and looking to cut. 1990s gulf war shiite uprising comes to mind. Hopefully not. At any rate that's what some Russia sources are saying. It's worth being aware of.

Im no expert but it appears to be a big problem xerxes. Nothing new either as the article suggests. I know in the Korean War they had a lot of issues as there was no investment in conventional weapons. Everyone assumed any future war would be nuclear, it wasn't. Up until last year the west assumed it will be only limited conflicts with smaller countries. I would really like to see a comparison of US defense spending relative to China or Russia that factors in relative cost. I have to think these countries, China in particular get a lot more bang for the buck. Higher wages in the US affect everything, the cost of personnel to production wages. This issue is really hitting the social media space the last day or so. Hopefully it triggers people. I'm trying to trigger people. Complacency will lead to loss. If we , the west, go around assuming that we are just the best we will be defeated. Guaranteed.

Wages are higher for engineers in China than the US? I doubt it. Maybe higher in China relative to other wages in China. I don't think it's just diversity, it's relative to other career paths, say being a unionized almost anything you make the same or more than an engineer or PhD scientist. Not just talking smack either, seen it. North America is broken. Part of the problem is we don't want to admit it.

In china, most of the senior government leaders have science or engineering backgrounds, so I have read. In the US it's a bunch of lawyers, actors and less.

It's widely reported, even by Ukrainian sources. The ones I follow on telegram. However here is one link, not sure of the source, just a Google result. https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-03-01/ukraine-outgunned-10-to-1-in-massive-artillery-battle-with-russia.html I will restate though and say that Russia is outfiring Ukraine. It's possible they are drawing down inventory. I can't say for certain it's all production. One more link: According to Estonia’s math, a sevenfold increase is needed in output capacity among European suppliers to reach a production rate of 175,000 shells per month, up from 20,000-25,000 now. That would put Ukraine on a path within six months to replace the estimated 60,000-210,000 shells currently fired by its forces every month. For comparison, Russian artillery averages 20,000-60,000 shells fired per day, according to the Estonian paper. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/03/02/eu-mulls-billions-in-funding-to-quicken-artillery-shell-production/

I own Canadian floats via ETf. Yield around 4%, maybe a touch higher. It's where I keep some cash buffer. Not exciting but decent safe spot.

Ukraine has foreign volunteers too. More and more. You have to actually be selected, require combat experience. They are ok for now on manpower. Conventional munitions are still an issue. Russia is out producing substantially and I read that it matters. For now. Nato needs to really push on smart but CHEAP munitions. Need the equivalent of Moores law on that stuff. Drones with basic sensors and autonomous can be built for $1000-3000, that kind of thing in scale is needed.

Some random notes from xerxes vid. - Germany and France have to take some blame for standing down in 2014. NATO as well. This fed into Putins logic. - failure of RU Intel pre invasion - half of RU armor lost due to mechanical failure. Too high even given conditions. "unprecedented" - weak RU leadership constant - RU not living up to their own combined arms doctrine - Ukr receiving exceptional Intel, frequently from the west, providing significant edge - Ukraine ability to target logistics depots and commanders - Defense of bakhmut may have been a Ukraine error. However many variables. - Ukraine success in Kharkov and Kherson do not represent full scale defeat of a Russia force - benefits of ukr foreign troops - importance of manpads and antitank missiles in bunting Russian advance - Mlrs critical role, targeting logistics - difficult to relate to any conflicts in his experience - largest conflict for west since ww2 - new tech weapons , drones, cyber attacks, ai, etc. not playing as large a role as thought previously - still require conventional arms - conventional artillery still very effective. Russia has significant advantage here. -putin has no choice but a counter offensive. Stalemate and casualties unacceptable. - likely more casualties to Ukraine to date - strengthening of NATO, Finland and Sweden joining, are seen as losses by RU - increases to west defense spending a result of the war also a loss - Putin can't go backwards given these conditions - objective likely to secure all donbass and south coast. Cut Ukraine from sea. - possible to take down Ukraine government if losses significant - Rus boosting manpower in spite of losses - Russia boosting conventional munitions - likelihood of some Russia successes. Possibly significant. - putins goals will be to undermine nato further if victory in Ukraine. E.g. securing corridor to Kalingrad. Will NATO respond? - question raised, "ukr is corrupt, why help them? Find political solution." He responds that it's a bigger war, a war against the west. If RU wins it sets a precedent. Undermines the west's authority. - Defeat here emboldens China. If US can't win here , why would they help Taiwan. - Iran and North korea are listed as learning from this as well. - comparison to 1930s appeasement - should supply Ukraine with what they need to resist - his goal would be to push RU back to pre invasion borders - Crimea cannot be retake by Ukraine That's all I got from it. Definitely worth watching. Cubsfan, I think the analyst in the interview broadly agrees with you.