@Old_Joe ...yep. I do think though that the emerging market classification of a dozen years ago is very different than those of today...still with significant political risk, but they do have largely functioning economies. Past EM funds are more similar to the "Frontier" markets of today.

What can I say?
Devesh, who worked as a high-level professional in the options industry, begins a two-part series of options (in general) and options as an OEF/ETF portfolio tool. The work arose from a request by an MFO reader and accelerated as Devesh discovered the relentless flow of assets moving in that direction.
Lynn pokes around in an area that he's paid relatively light attention to, the world of active ETFs, and comes away sort of impressed, I think.
Shadow digs through the corpses and the industry's other bits for us.
I spend a little space making a contrarian observation - perhaps it's time to start paying attention to GMO's projections again- and offer a half dozen strategies (and a dozen funds) that might help investors navigate a world in which they are, for the first time since about 2009, quite right.
In reviewing the funds in registration as the SEC this month, I was struck by the ongoing interest in launching "disciplined" and "disruptive" funds. Since they seemed to represent very different ways of thinking, I decided to investigate how well discipline and disruptiveness have played out. Hmmm ... let's say that over the past three years, it's been a pretty one-sided debate in terms of performance, if not of cash flow.
Berkshire Hathaway takes up a fair slice of the publisher's letter. I was touched by Buffett's encomium of Munger; it was less "he was my friend" and more "he made more of a difference than you could imagine." Buffett, sincerely I suspect, describes Munger as Berkshire Hathaway's architect while he, Buffett, got the plaudits but was mostly its general contractor. It was a thoughtful, adamant essay. Berkshire also played a role in a billion dollar gift to a small medical college, a far better use of money than the impulse to give it to Harvard. (I growl just a bit there.)
Hope your find nuggets at the least,
David

Here is the data from MarketWatch which is more current than Fido. No changes to YTD data. And the data per MW ties to M* - both are as of 03/01/24.
YTD_1_3_5_10
FXAIX_7.97_32.11_11.32_14.78_12.77
GSIHX_11.85_33.70_9.24_13.00_N/A
NEAGX_15.64_43.34_12.25_24.13_14.37
GQGPX_9.27_38.07_1.06_10.18_N/A
So in effect, using more current MW and/or M* data, the relative performance of GQGPX is not any better!
Bottom Line_1: 2023 and 2024 may very well be the go-go years for EMs, or at least for GQGPX!
Bottom Line_2: Which of those funds would you have rather owned for those periods? Was venturing into a DEM worth your additional risk? Here's the biggie - Would you have stuck with GQGPX during its DOWN years?
Bottom Line_3: Was diversifying to a top-performing FLG or SCG fund a better option than diversifying to a top-performing DEM?
Bottom Line_4: It's SO HARD to consistently beat or at least track with the S&P but some funds do it. DEMs generally do not but GQGPX is worth a shot if so inclined to try.

@stillers ..."GQGPX is actually UP 9.36% over 5 years."
According to M*, GQGPX has returned an annualized 10.18% over the last 5 years.

GQGPX is actually UP 9.36% over 5 years.
EDIT_See corrected, more current data below thanks to @PRESSmUp. Thank you!
It lags the S&P in all regularly shown interim periods and was very poor for the past 3 years.
It is currently being fueled by its large stakes in India and Brazil, but also by its ~5% stake in (say what?) Domestic NVDA! Strip NVDA's parabolic TRs out of there and I trust you will have different TRs.
YTD_1_3_5_10
FXAIX_7.97_30.45_11.90_14.75_12.69
GSIHX_11.85_20.58_7.82_11.95_N/A
NEAGX_15.64_28.34_10.39_22.37_13.16
GQGPX_9.27_26.41_0.31_9.36_N/A
EDIT_See corrected, more current data below thanks to @PRESSmUp. Thank you!
If it doesn't consistently beat or at least track with the S&P, and carries and ER of over 1% (1.2%), we are generally NOT interested. FLG GSIHX's ER at 1.14% and SCG NEAGX's at 1.85% are our two exceptions. But we believe their two HIGH ERs are reasonable given their results. (NEAGX is noted here as IMO SCs are a much more attractive play in 2024 than EMs and NEAGX's performance supports that notion.)
Of course Domestic LC and even MC/SC can and do have indirect EM exposure. That's a given. But their respective performances are generally NOT driven by that exposure and are usually nominal to negligible. An investor really doesn't get much EM exposure unless they are holding DEM, Global and/or Foreign funds.
And while many investors may not be aware of their EM exposure, having invested directly in EM stock and bond funds for a coupla years, we keenly are. (FNMIX was a favorite when John Carlson was the PM.) We have some direct EM exposure via GSIHX (mainly India and Brazil) but negligible, if any, in all other funds.
Several years ago on the M* forum, stock and bond EMs were dissected ad nauseum. What I remember most about all that activity was a large group of retired investors, ourselves included, determined that there really is no need for direct EM stock or bond exposure in a retiree portfolio. The reasons: Why bother having to track and attempt to understand EM exposures? Why add that extra level of risk, when the TRs were not worthy of it?
For adventurous and perhaps younger investors (and also for expert market timers-raise your hands), EMs can be a viable playground when the EM cycle is in the UP mode. But the risks are clearly elevated and the DROPS can and usually do shake out weak hands at just the wrong time. The Callan Table that I previously posted is a clear visual of the feast or famine inherent to this category.
YMMV.

My portfolio has become unbound, surpassing its all-time high achieved in 2021. It was close at year’s end, but blew past the previous peak in late January— despite two years of modest withdrawals since 2021. The usual suspects (Mag 7) have accounted for much of the recent growth but long time laggards have started to pick up as well (eg, small caps, value and foreign stocks.) Bond funds continue to underwhelm.

Of course this assumes the Commies learned their lesson in the last few years that to run a modern economy you have to lighten up on market manipulation.

Yes this is the crux of the China investment problem. China isn't investible until their government decides that outside investment is a priority, instead of their need for total control. So far, not. So far, guessing if things will change, or that they need to change, is a bettor's game for now. BABA and BIDU should be excellent investments on their own merit, but...
Agree, India has run up quite a bit. Maybe to fast.

Dipped my toe into China. Just a little bit. India is getting all the attention but seems pretty expensive, and when 40% of investors in a survey believe China is "uninvestable" sentiment seems like it can hardly get worse.
Sentiment is so negative and BABA is trading at 8 times free cash flow and it's ratio of free cash to market cap is 35%. Of course this assumes the Commies learned their lesson in the last few years that to run a modern economy you have to lighten up on market manipulation.

EM bonds have outpaced EM equities for THIRTY YEARS. Nuthin' like waiting for the turnaround, I guess. Of course I got suckered in myself a few times. What an opportunity cost . . . .
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/when-bonds-beat-stocks-emerging-markets

My overall is up around +2.3% YTD, slowly creeping up. Can't complain (but I will in the next paragraph :) ). Schwab says their 'moderately conservative' benchmark portfolio is up +1.3% YTD. Another bench mark I compare to is the TRP 45% equity retirement fund (TRRAX), up +1.9% YTD.
I'm going to give up totally on the Schwab Intelligent Portfolio, the robo. It has made 0% YTD after many years of lack luster return. At one time I split about 50:50 between the robo and self managed. I reduced the robo to ~15% by the end of 2023. It's high cash allowance, ~12%, makes fractions of a percent while the Schwab MM, which they don't use in the robo, has consistently made ~5%+ the past year. This cash allotment is an anchor. Also, it has consistently been heavy International and emerging markets which also hasn't worked out. I gave it time. I've had it for ~7 years and it hasn't performed any better than a target date fund. Worst in fact.

Not sure why he called his portfolio “garpy”

@Sven, I think he made the case very well that most of those companies (Microsoft, NVIDA, Amazon) are growth-at-a-reasonable-price given they will lead the way for AI in coming years. Sounds "garpy" to me.
Great read. Thanks @Roy.

I have been pleased with MRFOX performance (not just TR) for the one month I have held it. Decided to do additional research on it and am surprised to note M* says MRFOX portfolio is of one of the lowest Quality (as of Aug 31, 2023). Its D/C ratio is 46% which probably explains the low Quality. Over the past couple of years, I generally try to stay away from high D/C ratios but the fund managers seem to be able to manage well.
This yet small but not new fund is seeing a lot of inflows since beginning of 2023- the last three months' inflows alone account for 1/10th of AUM.

@yogibearbull.
Wow. You are first subscriber I've come across that uses Insurance Funds! In ten years, I do not believe I've ever seen them even discussed on the board.
In addition to suspecting they were of little use to MFO community, I have also found that they tend to be duplicates of portfolios found in other funds, becoming almost more like additional share classes instead of unique portfolios.
Not all have IF- tickers, only those that have do not have their own NASDAQ tickers. Then, we assign the IF- designator.
I'm curious. I'm assuming you purchase these through an insurance agent or a broker dealer with an insurance license.
And, do you find they offer portfolios (strategies) not available in other fund vehicles?
Hmm. I believe you should be able to run without saving. But, in any case, please do not remove ... we will add insurance funds back in.
Very much appreciate the feedback and will extend to your subscription for the hassle.
c

@Charles, this is only one perspective.
Just in December 2023, I prepared a long write up what then was a unique feature of MFO Premium - its insurance fund coverage. Many years ago, M* had many of those, but it moved them from the free side to the professional side. But it seems that this unique feature of MFO is/will-be gone.
In trying to verify this, I find that NONE of my Saved MFO portfolios can run - there is an alert box that I must first remove unidentified IF-TICKERS from everywhere (i.e., from all portfolios) first. I am not going to do that yet. At least, this should be portfolio specific - i.e. the MFO portfolios without IF-TICKERS should run, while only those with IF-TICKERS should fail. Now, all of my MFO portfolios are basically frozen.
See these previous features on Insurance Funds at MFO. Once confirmed/verified, I will modify/update this information. MFO Premium suddenly has much less value for me personally.
1 https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/536/tiaa-cref-vas-mfo
2 https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/61774/tiaa-cref-vas-at-mfo
3 At Facebook

There have been a couple of interesting thoughts recently about how the "Nifty Fifty" really did going forward.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2024/02/21/magnificent-seven-bubble-nifty-fifty?hsid=28049439&_hsmi=295446596
Table one is particularly interesting. I have found Leibowitz to be very thoughtful and insightful, and free!
He references Jeremy Siegel's article years ago, proving ( Siegel says) that even getting in a the peak, you made money in Nifty Fifty, as long as you held on ( for dear life!)
Hussman has a new "special edition" piece reiterating his previous concerns about valuations. He sounds so logical, but the differences between the portfolios of HSTRX and HSGFX could not be more extreme.
https://www.hussmanfunds.com/comment/observations/obs240225/

My most successful mutual fund is FCNTX, which I’ve owned about 25 years. I have sold portions over the years because it had grown so much that I was afraid it getting too large. Plus, I used to follow M* religiously, and they rarely have anything good to say about Fidelity funds except to da,n them with faint praise. It’s still one of my largest holdings and continues to amaze me. I don’t worry about its holdings because Danoff seems to find value in every market. Similar results from FBALX, another fund that gets no respect from M*.

Hi, guys.
Colohouse, our web host, substantially underestimated the size of MFO when they configured the new server onto which we were being copied. Part way through the transfer, they got a "holy mackeroley" alarm from the software, notifying them that they had run out of room (ummm ... we've had lots to say over the years? And Ted!) and the transfer was being terminated.
Their next try at making a duplicate of the site will occur after 10:00 CST tonight. And disruption should be, they swear, minimal.
Just thought you'd like to know!

I recall the San Bruno explosion and fire in the news. Very near the SF airport, yes? And a person killed in SF when a natgas build-up resulted in an explosion which sent a manhole cover into the air. Damaged a car, killed that individual. PG&E was the defendant in that Erin Brokovitch matter many years ago, down in Kern County. Rural CA.
PG&E has shown itself, over way too long a period of time, to be a hot mess, an unethical scum-sucking disaster of an entity. Highest yoot rates? Let's say 1st or 2nd highest. I have to deal with HE over here in Hawaii.

@Graust. “Don’t fight the market.” If I were 30 years younger I would agree. In fact, thats what I tell my adult kids who have plenty to invest and then ignore it. As for this old guy I am increasingly risk adverse. Today’s market is expensive and too concentrated.

With respect to PG&E, the facts are a bit more complex than the shotgun evaluation from Berkshire. For many years PG&E grew safely and profitably, with a reasonable return mandated by the regulatory environment. As the Berkshire report itself observes, this system worked perfectly well. Because of it's financial stability PG&E was regarded as a "widows and orphans" stock- plodding but safe and dependable- predictable dividends right on schedule.
Then came, from the "conservative" political forces, demands to "free" the utilities from the "artificial regulatory burdens" and allow them to "compete" in a free-for-all environment that would "unlock" their potential for greatly increased profits. The Berkshire report very conveniently "forgets" how PG&E and other utilities were raped by entities like Enron in this new era of "regulatory freedom".
PG&E management, it turned out, were sheep who after years of cozy and protective regulation, were completely unsuited to life in the wild, and were duly herded into the corral and slaughtered. Bankruptcy followed in 2001, with of course, "new management" following.
The new management cut back severely on any equipment purchases or upgrades, and their maintenance forces were left to wither. Their once new and shiny service vehicle fleet became more of a traveling junkyard of faded-paint and obviously over-used equipment. Maintenance support personnel were cut back to the point where even the office support staffs had no resources to document what little construction or repair work was being done.
This resulted in the first of a long line of subsequent safety-failure episodes: in 2010 a massive explosion and eight-alarm fire in a major natural gas line just to the south of San Francisco killed eight and destroyed or severely damaged some forty homes. The US Geological Survey registered the explosion and resulting shock wave as a magnitude 1.1 earthquake.*
PG&E's service resources were so depleted that it took them over an hour just to determine what had happened, and to respond. The fire was only fifty percent contained after four hours, and continued to burn for another 12 hours.* It later was found that that section of gas pipe was fabricated of scrap piping material, incorrectly welded during installation, and incorrectly documented in PG&E records.
This disaster was followed by a long series of major fires caused by faulty or aged PG&E electrical equipment, leading eventually to a second bankruptcy in 2020. We PG&E customers now have the dubious honor of having the highest electrical rates in the entire United States, as PG&E attempts to rebuild what they neglected for so many years.
And Berkshire now has the temerity to complain about "profits". Right.
* per Wickipedia