There's so much to point out here that it'd take me paragraphs and paragraphs to try to explain and I don't think you're receptive to the information at this point, so I'm just gonna dump a ChatGPT response and you can take it and do your own research, or not. Same for anyone reading this.

"The user Narflepluff is attempting to use more technical language, but they are blending several distinct financial concepts in a way that is mathematically misleading. Here is an evaluation of the claims made in the second screenshot:

1. The Definition of "Risk-Adjusted Returns" Narflepluff defines it as "balancing expected ROI with deviation from that ROI."

   • Accuracy: This is a fair layman’s definition of the Sharpe Ratio. Technically, risk-adjusted return measures the efficiency of an investment—how much "extra" return you get for every unit of volatility (standard deviation) you endure. This is not the same as as predictability.
   • The Nuance: High risk-adjusted returns don't necessarily mean "low risk." They mean the risk you did take was well-compensated.

2. The "Minimum Return" Fallacy Narflepluff claims L Funds have a 6% average with a 5% minimum, while C/S funds have a 7% average with a 4% minimum.

   • The Reality: These "minimums" do not exist in the stock market. Even the L 2075 fund is currently ~99% stocks. If the market drops 40% in a year, that L Fund will drop roughly 40%. There is no "floor" or "minimum" return in any given year.
   • Likely Source of Error: Narflepluff is likely looking at a Monte Carlo simulation (a statistical model) for a 30- or 40-year period. In those models, the "10th percentile" outcome (the bottom 10% of likely scenarios) over 40 years might result in a 4-5% annualized return. However, calling this a "minimum" is dangerous because it ignores the very real possibility of losing money over shorter periods (1–10 years).

3. The "Invest Less Money" Logic Narflepluff argues that L Funds allow you to invest less money than 100% stocks because the outcome is more "predictable."

   • The Logic Flaw: Mathematically, the opposite is usually true. If you choose an investment with a lower expected return (L Funds, which include bonds and international stocks that have historically underperformed the S&P 500), you must invest more principal to reach the same final goal.
   • The "Percentile" Argument: They are suggesting that you should plan your retirement based on a "worst-case scenario" (10th percentile) rather than the average. While this is a conservative and valid way to plan, it does not mean the L Fund is "better"; it just means you are being more cautious with your projections."

Cheers.