Feeling “Whiplash” anyone?
James Stack notes in his January 9 update to subscribers that day to day volatility (S&P) over past 12 months is the 3rd highest in the last 60 years. It is exceeded only by 2008 and 2002.
Wow. I thought it was just me getting “jumpy”. :)
Can anyone explain why with all this volatility the VIX remains at relatively low readings?

Pretty similar portfolio & outlook to what @sma3 described; six years into retirement here with enough to last as long as I don't sustain significant losses. I'm slowly increasing three bond oef positions, expecting at best to get the yields as total returns ... and that would be just fine.
A next level of optimism would prob'ly lead to positions in allocation funds like CTFAX and/or WBALX, a conservative equity fund like PVCMX, and possibly an alt fund (long-short equity?) at least somewhat in synch with whatever the situation turns into.
About middle of the year, roughly half my T bills will have matured and I'll need to have a new allocation plan in place. Not particularly optimistic that there will be safe yields then as high as they are now, and I bought a slug of them in November and December, so won't likely be adding significantly more now.
Good luck out there. AJ

SCHP and TIP are twins for performance going back to January, 2013, including more recent time frames; 2 years,1 year, 6 months, 3 months and YTD. For LTPZ, one needs to monitor daily and it is best if one is a recent past or current champion in the bull riding section of World Rodeo. @Crash, have you looked at any of the BOND thread performance for various bond sectors?

@OJ and others who might have the same criticism this is why I asked about the specific composition of the initial portfolio. What was the makeup of alternative portfolios he's comparing AANA to? How does it compare to handing it all over to Warren Buffett and going hiking? If someone is going to say that AANA was a great way to go I'd want to see what they started with and changed over 50 years so that I could dig up my own back tested alternates also if I was OCD enough.

While I agree with the idea of diversification and disagree with posting articles’ texts in their entirety here, my main comment revolves around the hindsight is 20/20 and past performance is no guarantee of future results caveat. If anyone here could travel back to 1973, is this the asset allocation your younger self would have believed would work back then? OK, now how do you imagine the U.S. and the world will look like in 2073? Do you think history just repeats itself?
The advantage of this strategy though is it has different asset classes that work at different times in an economic cycle, inflationary and deflationary ones. But there’s no reason to believe that equal weighting these asset classes will produce optimal or even good results again in the next fifty years. It feels like too much reverse engineering/data mining with a flurry of new equal-weighted asset class ETFs in mind. These I expect will soon be launched with this backward looking data as their primary marketing tool. The ticker symbol could likely be AANA.
Figuring what has worked in the past and what will work in the future are two separate things. It is fair to ask if conditions today are similar to past ones and allocate accordingly, but I think nuance is necessary, asking what’s different today from the past and what remains the same.

Well it may not be an ad but it is crazy. IMHO if you're going to submit an article claiming that this group of ETF's has beaten Wall Street for 50 years it just seems to me that you would select funds/stocks & bonds/ whatever that have been in existence for those 50 years. So do we have a make believe history here or what? Saying that his chosen 7 are close enough or can be substituted doesn't quite cut it for me.
"Last year, 2022, marked the 50th year of this unheralded portfolio, which is termed “All Asset No Authority,” and which we’ve written about here before."
Q: what were the exact components of this portfolio on day one? I'll wait.

good grief, reading comp
It is NOT an ad.
Brett Arends has been a v smart financial writer for decades
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Arends
The article:
Brett Arends's ROI
This ‘crazy’ retirement portfolio has just beaten Wall Street for 50 years
by Brett Arends
This strategy beats the market with less risk, fewer upsets and no ‘lost’ decades
You could call it crazy.
You could call it genius.
Or maybe you could call it a little of both.
We’re talking about a simple portfolio that absolutely anyone could follow in their own 401(k) or IRA or retirement account. Low cost, no muss, no fuss. And it’s managed to do two powerful things simultaneously.
It’s beaten the standard Wall Street portfolio of 60% U.S. stocks and 40% bonds. Not just last year, when it beat them by an astonishing 7 percentage points, but for half a century.
And it’s done so with way less risk. Fewer upsets. Fewer disasters. And no “lost” decades.
Last year, 2022, marked the 50th year of this unheralded portfolio, which is termed “All Asset No Authority,” and which we’ve written about here before.
It’s the brainchild of Doug Ramsey. He’s the chief investment officer of Leuthold & Co., a long-established fund management company that has sensibly located itself in Minneapolis, a long, long way away from Wall Street.
AANA is amazingly simple, surprisingly complex, and has been astonishingly durable. It consists simply of splitting your investment portfolio into 7 equal amounts, and investing one apiece in U.S. large-company stocks (the S&P 500 SPX, +2.28% ), U.S. small-company stocks (the Russell 2000 RUT, +2.26% ), developed international stocks (the Europe, Australasia and Far East or EAFE index), gold GC00, +0.04%, commodities, U.S. real-estate investment trusts or REITS, and 10 year Treasury bonds TMUBMUSD10Y, 3.562%.
It was Ramsey’s answer to the question: How would you allocate your long-term investments if you wanted to give your money manager no discretion at all, but wanted to maximize diversification?
AANA covers an array of asset classes, including real estate, commodities and gold, so it’s durable in periods of inflation as well as disinflation or deflation. And it’s a fixed allocation. You spread the money equally across the 7 assets, rebalancing once a year to put them back to equal weights. And that’s it. The manager — you, me, or Fredo — doesn’t have to do anything else. They not allowed to do anything else. They have no authority.
AANA did way better than the more usual Wall Street investments during 2022’s veil of tears. While it ended the year down 9.6%, that was far better than the S&P 500 (which plunged 18%), or a balanced portfolio of 60% U.S. stocks and 40% U.S. bonds, which fell 17%.
Crypto? Er, let’s not talk about that.
Last year’s success of AANA is due to two things, and them alone: Its exposure to commodities, which were up by about a fifth, and gold, which was level in dollars (and up 6% in euros, 12% in British pounds, and 14% when measured in Japanese yen).
Ramsey’s AANA portfolio has underperformed the usual U.S. stocks and bonds over the past decade, but that’s mainly because the latter have gone through a massive — and, it seems, unsustainable — boom. The key thing about AANA is that in 50 years it has never had a lost decade. Whether the 1970s or the 2000s, while Wall Street floundered, AANA has earned respectable returns.
Since the start of 1973, according to Ramsey’s calculations, it has earned an average annual return of 9.8% a year. That’s about half a percentage point a year less than the S&P 500, but of course AANA isn’t a high risk portfolio entirely tied to the stock market. The better comparison is against the standard “balanced” benchmark portfolio of 60% U.S. stocks and 40% Treasury bonds.
Since the start of 1973, according to data from New York University’s Stern business school, that 60/40 portfolio has earned an average compound return of 9.1% a year. That’s less than AANA. Oh, and this supposedly “balanced” portfolio fared very badly in the 1970s, and badly again last year.
You can (if you want) build AANA for yourself using just 7 low-cost ETFs: For example, the SPDR S&P 500 SPY, +2.29%, iShares Russell 2000 IWM, +2.25%, Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets VEA, +2.76%, abrdn Physical Gold Shares SGOL, +1.94%, a commodity fund such as the iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust ETF GSG, +0.55%, the iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond ETF IEF, +1.29%, and the Vanguard Real Estate ETF VNQ, +2.69%.
The list is illustrative only. There are competing ETFs in each category, and in some — such as with commodities and REITs — they vary quite a lot. GSG happens to follow the particular commodity index that Ramsey uses in his calculations.
There are many worse investment portfolios out there, and it’s a question how many are better. AANA will underperform regular stocks and bonds in a booming bull market, but do better in a lost decade.
For those interested, Ramsey also offers a twist. His calculations also show that over the past 50 years the smart move to make at the start of each year was to invest in the asset class in the portfolio that performed second best in the previous 12 months. He calls that the “bridesmaid” investment. Since 1973 the bridesmaid has earned you on average 13.1% a year — a staggering record that trounces the S&P 500. Last year’s bridesmaid, incidentally, was terrible (it was REITs, which tanked). But most years it wins, and wins big.
If someone wants to take advantage of this simple twist, you could split the portfolio into 8 units, not 7, and use the eighth to double your investment in the bridesmaid asset. For 2023 that would be gold, which trailed commodities last year but broke even.
Crazy? Genius? For anyone creating a longterm portfolio for their retirement there are certainly many worse ideas — including many embraced by highly paid professionals, and marketed to the rest of us.

This small ($69M) sized Event Driven fund has had a really nice run. It's been around for almost 20 years. Would have to eat a 2% Front-end Load for the A class (EVDAX), which keeps many investors away.
I do see that ETRADE has it LOAD WAIVED. The Institutional version is $1M Min. Any takers?
As of 12-31-2022:
Camelot Event Driven Fund Class A
1 Yr 3 Yrs 5 Yrs 10 Yrs Life
3.51% 14.76% 12.05% 8.59% 7.26%

” The average stock market return is about 10% annually in the U.S. over time — but realistically, that figure varies widely from year to year, and it’s more like 6% to 7% when accounting for inflation. For context, it’s rare that the average stock market return is actually 10% in a given year. When looking at nearly 100 years of data, as of September 8, 2022, the yearly average stock market return was between 8% and 12% only eight times. In reality, stock market returns are typically much higher or much lower.” Source
Since gold has been mentioned, personally I’ve held small exposures to it through “thick and thin”. But more “thin” than thick. Nonetheless I remain optimistic. Folks are usually referring to p/m mining funds when they reference gold - albeit it is possible to buy ETFs that invest in the less volatile metal itself. Be aware gold funds have in the past declined by as much as 70% over shorter periods (3-4 years). How many small investors possess the fortitude to hold an asset like that when it’s in a downtrend?
Not promoting or discouraging gold. Just pointing out why you don’t hear a lot about it here. Hasn’t shined for at least a decade - few really good years over my 50+ years investing. Recently it has been hot. Friday alone my fund (OPGSX) and one mining stock I own were both up well over 3% on the day.

+1 hank No etfs were available 50 years ago, as SPY was launched in January 1993 !

“ Did no one rtfs?”
I did a quick read of the advertisement / article. Was only allowed to access it once on M/W and was cut off from subsequent reading.
This did not seem to be written in any kind of objective manner. Those who read the WSJ, Barrons, fund reports and prospectuses are not accustomed to simplistic analysis (using words like “crazy, amazing, simple”). However, if you think the world of equities, bonds, commodities, previous metals, real estate, derivatives can be boiled down to a “simplistic” formula that even a 12-year old could grasp - than by all means study the author’s scheme and take away his suggestions.
Reading Level / Text Analyzer
If the intent of the writer is to emphasize the importance of diversification across asset classes and regular rebalancing, I agree. In the past I recall more discussion on this board and its predecessor about both of those issues. Threads like “How much do you allocate to commodities?” or “How frequently do you rebalance?” were quite common. Today, less is said of that for whatever reason.
Does the plan involve owning ETFs? How many were available to retail investors 50 years ago - the date from which the success of this plan is purportedly measured?
50 years is a long time if the author’s assessment is accurate. While past performance does not necessarily predict future performance, I’d think it entirely possible to generate a 9% annual return over very long time periods with a well diversified portfolio and annual rebalancing.
As I said, I no longer have the article / Ad to view, so am going here with what I rirst glimpsed.

FRNW has a similar mix of sectors as ICLN, minus Con Ed, plus a healthy dose of Hong Kong. It's only been around a few years. So it's entire track record is in the red.
More info from etf.com:

FRNW provides exposure to the global clean energy industry utilizing an ESG overlay. The fund specifically includes developed and emerging markets firms of any size that generate at least 50% of their revenue from one or more of the following business activities: clean energy distribution, clean energy equipment manufacturing, and clean energy technology. Eligible companies are initially assigned with ‘thematic relevancy scores’ based on a proprietary natural language processing algorithm—which identifies clean energy firms using keywords from publicly available company documents. Firms are then further screened for various ESG factors. The highest scored companies are selected for inclusion and are weighted by market-cap. The index rebalances quarterly.

That's good enough for a C from fossilfreefunds.

ICLN invests in global clean energy companies, which is defined as those involved in the biofuels, ethanol, geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, and wind industries. Aside from holding companies that produce energy through these means, ICLN also includes companies that develop technology and equipment used in the process. Selected by the index committee, the fund is weighted by market-cap and exposure score — subject to several constraints — and reconstituted semi-annually. Prior to April 19, 2021, the index followed a more narrow methodology.

Given the weight of utilities in both funds (56% and 52%), it's going to be hard to get good carbon grades. A plain old utility index, like VUIAX makes ICLN look like Mr. Clean.

Hi @Sven
The two Vanguard funds are inside the UTAH 529; which we established in 2006.
VITPX and VBMPX are the original tickers, and were changed several years (by Vanguard) ago for use inside of 529's. The new tickers are VSTSX and VTBSX.
Both funds are U.S. centric. The total U.S. equity index performance is a mirror of the broad based ITOT etf, and I suspect many other U.S. total equity market funds. The total U.S. bond index is a performance mirror to the bond etf of AGG.
This LINK is a current listing of the investment choices for the UTAH 529. We didn't use the age based investment choice that reduces equity exposure over time, and used the 'build our own mix' option, which was set at 50/50%.
Sidenote: The ER's are so low, that the holdings are almost 'free'.

LewisBraham
January 2 Flag
Another excerpt:
"The atmosphere is softer there. The economy is booming. The electronics manufacturer Foxconn is rapidly expanding production capacity for Apple devices, building a hostel for 60,000 workers on a 20-acre site near the city."
A few years back Foxcon made a deal for screen production in the state of WI. somewhere around Milwaukee. I can't give you the numbers on how this worked out, only Foxcon didn't live up to it's end of the bargain.
I guess I know now where all those jobs went.
A quick search provided this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_in_Wisconsin

Direct link https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/923184/000119312523002397/d416122d497.htm
M* had mentioned that co-lead-manager Yu Zhang was responsible for the recent (5+ years) shift in MAPIX from old current-dividend emphasis to also include dividend-growth emphasis. As a result, MAPIX started behaving similar to other growth-oriented Matthews Asia funds. IMO, this change may restore MAPIX to its original current-dividend emphasis.

As with star ratings or any other magic numbers, one needs look behind the numbers to better understand what they represent.
Somewhat like SRI funds that set very stringent de minimis thresholds on investing in "bad" companies, the sites I suggested grade on severe curves. Invest more than a little in "bad" companies, and your score goes down rapidly. It's still monotonic - the more a fund invests in "bad" companies, the worse its score. But it's a nonlinear scale.
To take ICLN as an example - fully 1/8 (12.49%) of its portfolio is invested in utilities selling or using fossil fuels. Half of that alone (6.22%) is invested in ConEd. Seriously?
Sure, ConEd has a "clean energy" subsidiary, ConEd Solutions. They used to offer me clean electricity as an ESCO, but that ended years ago. Now, all I can buy from ConEd as an electricity supplier is this mix (as of Dec 2020 - the latest info provided):
Biomass <1%
Coal 2%
Hydro 9%
Natural Gas 47%
Nuclear 36%
Oil <1%
Renewable Biogas <1%
Solar <1%
Solid Waste 3%
Wind 3%
Emissions relative to NYS average
SO2 113% of average
NOx 112% of average
CO2 113% of average
Needless to say, I buy electricity from a third party, not ConEd.
Carbon footprint? ICLN is off the charts, as measured by direct and indirect carbon emissions per dollar invested. You may disagree with FossilFreeFund's figure, but even MSCI's figure for the fund (also direct and indirect emissions), is still very high (nearly double that of the S&P 500 (IVV), per MSCI).
https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/products/239738/ishares-global-clean-energy-etf

Tax-managed VTMFX has 50-50.
But other Vanguard allocation/balanced funds are either 60-40 or 40-60. For years, people have talked about a 50-50 mix of VWELX and VWINX to produce 50-50 allocation.
Wellington managed HBLAX is close to 50-50.

As You Sow has really upped its game in the last couple of years since I last visited there. Appears that it is important to look at the details of the ratings.

@sma3. When I was doing the research, it was easy to find alt-energy ETF funds that excluded consumer durables. IIRC, that is the category that Tesla, and other EV makers, fall into. It's like looking for dividend funds that exclude REITS.
I'm also always irritated when I find Amazon in an ESG fund.
And all of the funds we bought get horrible grades from the site recommended by @msf.
In my experience, when I bought any fund is the single largest factor in how I feel about it years later.
Alt-energy and tech were at significant discounts this past year. TDV and CSGZX have held up reasonably well from our purchases in July. Purchases from 2021 don't leave us half so enthusiastic.
One question I ask myself is, "Are these things going to go away?" Another question I ask myself is whether I will be disappointed if tech, alt-energy, and health become as boring as consumer durables and utilities.