james22

Hate? Enron.

The drop has allowed me to Roth convert more shares than I otherwise would have been able to, so there's that.

Two years into retirement, I fear sequence of return risk, of course. But given the starting overvaluation, a sharp correction and couple year recovery is probably the best I can hope for. Much preferable to something like a lost decade. -20% from peak, but after two year's expenses and one-time buys, I'm back to even. That's OK. The 90/10 allocation really only gave back its gains. I've three to four year's expenses in cash (and a less than 3% WR), so right now I'm mostly happy BRK (45% position) has the opportunity to spend some cash and there might (finally) be a rotation into SV (25% position).

LOL

A couple friends of mine were caught on business trips when Covid began and spent several months in luxury hotels living on room service and by the pool. Ha.

LOL, there's NO downside.

And maybe the market is rightly buoyed by all the other-than-tech stocks that have been left for dead the last ten years? They now recognized as undervalued?

For good reason, given finite resources.

My research and observations lead me to believe that there is the potential for traditional energy to break out of its boom-bust cycle, at least for an investable period of time. https://www.mauldineconomics.com/frontlinethoughts/turning-bullish-on-energy#disqus_thread

Thanks. One wonders if the interpretation was deliberate...

Top Dems Urge Biden To Nationalize Oil & Gas Industry At a Houston conference last week, Jason Bordoff, Dean of Columbia University’s Climate School, called for the “nationalization” of oil and gas companies. “Government must take an active role in owning assets that will become stranded,” he said, “and plan to strand those assets.” By “strand” Bordoff meant “make financially worthless.” Bordoff made the point at least twice during the confrerence. Bordoff’s call shocked many in the audience. “Jason is smart, well-informed, and well-connected to the Biden Administration,” said someone who was at the conference, “so these comments are scary.” https://www.zerohedge.com/political/top-dems-urge-biden-nationalize-oil-gas-industry

Yeah, wish I'd have had a little more courage in my conviction.

US SV

Shouldn’t I make money first — to fund my dream? The notion that there’s an order to your working life is an almost classic assumption: Pay your dues, and then tend to your dream. I expected to find numerous examples of the truth of this path. But I didn’t find any. Sure, I found tons of rich guys who were now giving a lot away to charity or who had bought an island. I found plenty of people who had found something meaningful and original to do after making their money. But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the garden-variety fantasy: Put your calling in a lockbox, go out and make a ton of money, and then come back to the lockbox to pick up your calling where you left it. It turns out that having the financial independence to walk away rarely triggers people to do just that. The reality is, making money is such hard work that it changes you. It takes twice as long as anyone plans for. It requires more sacrifices than anyone expects. You become so emotionally invested in that world — and psychologically adapted to it — that you don’t really want to ditch it. ... The ruling assumption is that money is the shortest route to freedom. Absurdly, that strategy is cast as the “practical approach.” But in truth, the opposite is true. The shortest route to the good life involves building the confidence that you can live happily within your means (whatever the means provided by the choices that are truly acceptable to you turn out to be). It’s scary to imagine living on less. But embracing your dreams is surprisingly liberating. Instilled with a sense of purpose, your spending habits naturally reorganize, because you discover that you need less. https://www.fastcompany.com/45909/what-should-i-do-my-life

Here’s a stat for you, as of January of this year. At the end of last year, overall, fossil fuels represented 81 percent of overall energy consumption. Ten years ago, they were at 82. So though, all of that investment in renewables, you’re talking about 3.8 trillion, let me repeat that $3.8 trillion of investment in renewables moved fossil fuel consumption from 82 to 81 percent, of the overall energy consumption. But you know, given the recent events and what’s happened with the loss of gas and replacing it with coal, that number is likely above 82. The net of it is clearly we haven’t made any progress. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/25/goldman-sachs-jeff-currie-3-8-trillion-of-investment-in-renewables-moved-fossil-fuels-from-82-to-81-of-overall-energy-consumption-in-10-years/

I expected it (one of the reasons I retired early), but still underestimated what a difference it makes in my life. Unbelievable.

Retired, I've all those (important) things. And everyone I deal with is by choice.

The program changes with age.

I don't believe investment is very much related to education at all, rather the content of what is taught.

Call it a lack of cultural confidence, if you prefer. I'm trying to keep this as apolitical. Obviously, both sides believe (as I do) the other the problem.

Sure, but Western culture has real advantages.

The fundamental advantages: free speech, free markets, and free elections. China's (and Russia's) problems are obviously fundamental. The US problems (political polarization) don't compare.

You don't have to be impressed with the US to recognize our competitors have much more fundamental problems.

Join a class for motivation. Crossfit, or a Starting Strength gym or affiliate: https://coaching.startingstrength.com/gyms/

Fun? Boating and golf. Wouldn't have included crossfit and cycling. But I really do enjoy them, now that I think about it. Thanks for the realization.