@hank, sorry about the confusing title.
She questioned the possibility of recession. Given the last quarter's GDP of over 4%, it has to get much worse to go negative. She mentioned high inflation but did not elaborate consequences.
As for us, changes were made last year. They are bearing fruits now: rotated from growth to value funds (both US and oversea), added precious metal and commodity funds, moved bond funds to short duration bonds and TIPS, and cash. Otherwise, our portfolio is down modestly. Considering the market condition, it would be down even more.

Thanks for the nice summation. Being “down a bit” comes with the territory if you’re invested for capital appreciation / growth. I don’t mind being down a few % some years. Limiting losses is about the best one can hope for unless you go into cash or some types of fixed income. In 2008 I lost 21%. Hurt a bit. But time horizon was much longer then and made it up in subsequent years. Situation much different today. Age forces some of us to take less risk and protect against double-digit losses.

@hank - do you know what happened to DraftKings. That was quite an owiee they took Friday.

DKNG? I’d averaged in (3rd time) at around $21 early in the month. Became concerned as it began to swing up and down by 5-10% daily. Sold out at $22.33 Monday. On Friday it was down 15% before the market opened. And finished the day off 18-20%.” Current price: $17.29 - No plans to reacquire.(Probably should knock it out of my tracker before end up buying again).
Why did it tumble? The ostensible reason was their earnings report released early Friday. While revenue was OK, new users acquired were lower than anticipated. And the cost of incentives (cash give-always to attract new users) had reached epic amounts as these firms fight for market share. I think it’s deeper than that. (1) Nobody thinks they can be profitable until about 5 years out. So they’re bleeding cash. (2) Firms like this rely on cheap funding to keep growing. With interest rates rising that’s bad news (3)Taxes imposed by states are high already (over 50% in NY) and it’s likely that when states need additional revenue they’ll turn to the online gamers first.
There’s a body of opinion suggesting DKNG is a good takeover candidate. An offer could overnight lift the price by $5 - $10 per share. Suspect that’s true. But I’m not in the merger / arbitrage business.

Sonders is smart AND gorgeous.
...I'm glad, particularly now, that I've been overweight in bonds. But not very happy about my timing, initiating a spot in HY TUHYX (TRP.) Yes, my stuff is down, but it could be a lot worse. Bank Loans (PRFRX) are almost at "even-steven." Just below the zero-line, by a fraction. Meanwhile, divs get paid, still. This past Friday, I moved the lion's share of my PRIDX (smid-cap foreign) into PRFRX for protection. (PRIDX = down -13.48% ytd.) I've managed to do very well over the past 5 years in PRIDX. Up over +11% in that time period, annualized. so, ya: the portfolio is down, but if I were invested in a way to directly track the major markets, the bleeding would be much worse.

Hi @hank
The graphic diagram should have stayed in the post, IMHO, too; to ENTICE everyone to read and save the report.
However, one of the best links at MFO......ever.
WHY ?????
For those who are thinking of investing and those who are investors; no matter how long in the investing seat, this is a MUST READ. One may also inject these ideas into their personal lives, to continue to improve themselves.
I'm reminded of 40 years of work with electronics/computer based systems interfaced with electo-mechanical devices, that had "burps" and phone calls with engineers explaining a circumstance and what was discovered. The discussions were many times based around the phrase, "that shouldn't be able to happen". But, critical thinking was always involved in a "fix".
Kinda reminds one of the markets into which we invest our hard earned monies, for whatever reason established.
Critical thinking should always be involved, no matter how many "great pundits" one has observed or read.
ADD: your post could be a separate post inclined to the brain/emotional side of investing, which is discussed periodically here, mixed inside of threads
Thank you.
Remain curious,
Catch

@MikeM said “If I found that over the years I was substantially behind a benchmark I would just buy the benchmark.”
Ditto … When folks like Mike (and many others) who’s been posting here and at Fund Alarm for perhaps 15 years explain what they do and why they do it, it’s worth listening. One might assume they haven’t been “beating their head against a brick wall” all those years without any incremental advantage … over a single fund approach

One thing on the benchmark TBLQX. I compare to it "now" because it has a very similar equity percentage for where I want to be, where I've been the past couple years. The stated year makes no difference to me.

I don't use a bench mark & find my account continues to grow. I'm not trying to keep up with the Jones or Smiths , just sleep good !

@Derf, try a comparison. Just give it a look. What do you have to lose?
If I found that over the years I was substantially behind a benchmark I would just buy the benchmark. In fact, that was the purpose of putting a good chunk of money, over 1/2 my retirement savings, into Schwab's robo account. Most of us don't trail a benchmark because of the funds we choose or investments we make. I contend fund selection is secondary to portfolio management. We trail because humans tend to be undisciplined and move in and out of funds at the most inopportune times. Benchmarks don't, and they exceedingly win the race over time. I know @hank has mentioned over the years, it is hard to beat a benchmark. But I concede it is fun to try.

This change requires a different way of thinking about the impact of energy price spikes.

The big picture: In the past, when oil prices spiked, the impact on the U.S. economy was straightforward: It made America poorer, as more of our income went overseas to pay for imported energy.
Now, after the shale gas revolution of the last 15 years, the impact is more subtle. Higher fuel prices disadvantage consumers and energy-intensive industries, yes. But there is a counteracting surge in incomes for domestic energy producers and their workers.
Higher oil prices no longer depress overall measures of prosperity like GDP and national income, but rather shift it around toward certain regions. Texas and North Dakota win; Massachusetts and North Carolina lose.

Link:
energy independent

Hmm.
One thing I have done learnt over the years is when the wise owl speaks, you might want to listen.
Couple tings:
Per recent Rosie/tweetie:
"For the first time on record, the Fed is embarking on it's first tightening campaign with the Dow, SPX, Nasdaq, Russ2000, all trading below their 200 day trendline. And the rate hikes haven't even started yet. Good Luck to all long-only equity investors"
And from watching the Barrons broadcast/interview with Mr Grantham...he mentioned breadth..while the indexes are kind of holding up, beneath the surface it's a "X-Large, street burrito, post bathroom visit, El-Grande flush" is the way I would put it to paraphrase.
We shall see.
Good Luck to all,
Baseball Fan

Benchmarks should be simple & stable/static. TDFs are too complicated as general benchmarks. Then, there are wide variations among the same-dated TDFs.
This is why I like previously mentioned Fido Asset Manager & Vanguard LifeStrategy series for general benchmarking.
But I understand that posters may choose any benchmark for their personal benchmarking purposes. In fact, PV even allows customized personal benchmarks.

Yep - I’ve never liked, used, or benchmarked to a TDF. (TRRIX and PRSIX aren’t TD / don’t use glide paths).
What’s always troubled me about TDFs is the glide path could end up being “out of sync” with valuations at any particular time. So you might end up with 80% in equities at a time of extremely high valuations and than 20-25 years later have only 30% in equities after they’ve become relatively cheap by historical standards. Not a prediction. Just saying …

It's impossible to keep track of all these series without a scorecard, and even then, I'm not sure.
Until 2013, T. Rowe Price offered an aggressive, but stable (unchanged glidepath) product, unlike its leading competitors, Vanguard and Fidelity.
2011 Ibbotoson Paper, Bait and Switch: Glide Path Instability

“In 2008 and 2009, there was increased interest in adjusting our glide path more conservatively,” said Jerome Clark, portfolio manager of T. Rowe Price’s retirement funds. “We avoid making glide path changes based upon short-term market environments, which is consistent with the message we communicate to our investors to stay the course when markets swing to extremes.”

https://www.investmentnews.com/target-date-glide-paths-are-unstable-at-some-major-plan-providers-37617
By 2013, T. Rowe Price and Vanguard had well outperformed Fidelity over the preceding five years because of their more aggressive glide paths. Consequently, Fidelity again changed its glidepath, bringing it in line with its competitors. It seems like a stretch to say that T. Rowe Price at the same time introduced a less aggressive line of funds because of loud complaints received years ago as it began multi-year run of superior results.

Still, it is notable that as of Aug. 22, [2013] T. Rowe Price launched new funds that recognize that some investors are more risk averse as a complement its core T. Rowe Price Retirement Funds, which had $88.1 billion in assets as of March 31.

https://riabiz.com/a/2013/9/27/after-a-lot-of-flak-fidelity-investments-does-a-study-and-pledges-to-change-how-it-manages-its-170-billion-of-target-date-funds
Meanwhile, Fidelity was not only tinkering with its initial Freedom series, but creating a slew of variants: Freedom Index (same idea, but w/index funds), Managed Payout Funds and Simplicity RMD Funds (originally Income Replacement Funds launched in 2008, with dates every two years). That change came about around 2017.
You can find those four series on Fidelity's Asset Allocation funds page (click on Asset Allocation tab).
https://www.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/fidelity-funds/overview
What Fidelity isn't showing you there is that it has a fifth(!) series of funds. Fidelity Freedom Blend funds, which is a "blend" of active and passive management. See, e.g. FHARX. These date from 2018.
As Yogi noted, in 2020, T. Rowe Price decided change the glide paths of both of its series to make them more aggressive. Rather than make a quick change, it changed the allocations over a period of two years, which should be complete in the middle of this year.
In 2021, T. Rowe Price launched a series of blend funds (that appear to make more extensive use of index funds to reduce cost). These follow the same new ("enhanced") glide path that the Retirement Series are migrating to. But since the Retirement Blend series is new, it doesn't need to transition to the new glide path, it starts with that immediately. The two series, Retirement and Retirement Blend, should be tracking the same path within a few months.

• The Retirement Blend Fund series is designed for investors who prefer a single, simplified, professionally managed solution for retirement investing and who want an approach that marries the benefits of active and passive investment styles, including placing a greater emphasis on managing overall cost.
• The Retirement Blend strategy has been in place at T. Rowe Price since 2018 but it was previously available only in the collective investment trust format. This mutual fund series extends the firm's Retirement Blend approach to a wider range of investors for whom a mutual fund is the preferred or most appropriate vehicle.
• The Retirement Blend Funds use the enhanced glide path and the same diversification and tactical asset allocation as T. Rowe Price's existing Retirement series of target date portfolios.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/t-rowe-price-adds-retirement-blend-funds-to-target-date-lineup-301343055.html
I respectfully disagree that T. Rowe Price has made this confusing to the max. IMHO that "honor" goes to Fidelity, with its ever changing glidepaths, its greater multiplicity of series, its "hidden" series of blend funds, and its changing of series names and objectives. And lest I forget, a slew of share classes, including K and K6, and Fidelity Advisor variants with their alphabet soup: A, C, M, I, Z, and Z6.

A number of posters have referenced possibly investing 100% in their chosen benchmark fund. Not a bad idea. That’s what prompted me to switch from TRRIX to PRSIX in early 2021 and than stake out a modest portfolio position in PRSIX. It’s a very good fund, and I anticipated ramping up the commitment in coming years with an eventual 100% stake in that one fund.
What changed my thinking? Here’s a few considerations:
- For one, I’d had some favorite long held funds at several different houses I didn’t want to part with.
- A second thought was the suspicion that some of PRSIX’s solid past performance was owing to the decades long bond bull market we’ve experienced and that if that trend reversed the fund would cease to post such fine returns.
- Third, 100% in PRSIX wouldn’t provide the level of exposure to commodities and precious metals I deemed important.
- Fourth, there was a reluctance to put all the eggs in the same basket.
- Lastly, while PRSIX’s 5% investment in a Blackstone hedge fund had appeal initially, after moving from TRP to Fidelity many alternative ways to hedge had become available.
Like most here, I suppose, I occassionally compare my portfolio’s performance to a wide array of funds. Benchmarking to one (or in my case 3) funds is fine - but not an end-all in itself.

I hadn't looked at the performance tabs on Yahoo. That's a really nice feature.
Now, if Yahoo would only report accurately. FGMNX had three losing calendar years: the two you mentioned and also 2021. Yahoo show 2021's return as N/A, though it knows better. Yahoo gives December 31 adjusted closing figures as 11.58 (2021) and 11.68 (2020) for a loss of 0.85%, matching Fidelity's official figure.
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/performance-and-risk/31617K105?type=sq-NavBar
FWIW, according to the Yahoo performance tab, the fund's worst calendar quarters were in 1987: 2Q (-2.48%) and 3Q (-3.40%). The worst three month drawdown, irrespective of month boundaries, was around 6½%, from the close on July 17, 1987 to the close on Oct 16 (a Friday) or Oct 19 (a Monday) 1987. Nearly double the calendar quarter max loss.
I got this by downloading the daily adjusted close figures from Yahoo and playing with Excel to approximate quarterly returns day by day.

Yahoo Finance shows the yearly returns and returns by quarter on their performance tab. For example, FGMNX has had 2 losing years -2.17% in 2013 and -2.00% in 1994. 2Q 2013 and 1Q and 2Q 1994 were when the biggest losses occurred.

Jeremy Grantham was on Barron's roundtable today and his take on the market was extra bleak.
He believes we're in a "super bubble" about to burst and something that has only occurred 3x in the last 100 or so years.
-S&P 500 to fall 50% to 2500 in his opinion.
-"Today, well over 40% of the Nasdaq is down 50% from their highs" - suppose he's referring to the death cross.
His Recommendations?
- Have cash for next few years
- Avoid US stocks except high quality
-Blue chips are the way to go, but avoid US
-Go International, they are normally overpriced
-EM like Japan, Growth
-Oh and avoid US stocks
Those are his "thoughts" on the market.

Thanks everyone for this thread. Since I am at 31% equity I use VTINX and AOK as my benchmarks. I am -2.01 YTD so slightly beating them. @wxman 123. I too have thought about just putting the whole thing in VWIAX. Have thought about it for years. The long duration of the FI position is off putting but I bet they are smarter than me. So I might.

Thanks @MikeM. Great question. You & I go way back on this one.
WOW - Lots of changes for me the past few years.
- My original benchmark (for 15-20 years) was TRRIX (40/60) - although I deviated away to “buy down” on equities during the ‘07-‘09 meltdown.
- Beginning in 2021 I switched my benchmark to PRSIX (also 40/60) and for the first time decided to include a small weighting (7%) of the benchmark inside the portfolio. Switching was bad timing. PRSIX, which for years has outperformed TRRIX, lagged badly during 2021.
- In late 2021 I sold PRSIX and moved to PSMM for a benchmark, also buying a small slice. The advantages were lower cost and ease of trading in and out. It’s 40/60 with the ability to alter its allocation as managers see fit. Yikes - the bond exposure seemed to really jerk this one around, so I quickly exited.
- Early this year I developed a tri-fund tracker (benchmark) I like so far. This tracker follows three equally weighted funds: AOK (30/70), PRSIX (40/60) and ABRZX. The only one I own is ABRZX to the tune of 7+%. (I’m sure there are superior funds.) It’s a quirky fund you need to follow to appreciate. But, using derivatives it provides a moderate “hedged” exposure to commodities, stocks, and bonds.
How am I holding up? I’m pleased to be ahead of the benchmark YTD. Below is the performance of those benchmark components this year. Age and circumstance dictate a rather conservative approach - and I’ve never maintained a separate cash stash.
AOK -4.52%
PRSIX -4.45%
ABRZX -3.10%
YTD benchmark average: -4.02%
Yesterday, the tracker dropped 0.12% (equally weighted in dollar terms). / My portfolio was right in-line with that (although some days it varies a bit).One reason is I’ve been maintaining a speculative position in TAIL (an inverse fund) to the tune of 6-7%.
There’s an old cliche about “if you don’t have a road map you’ll never realize by how far you’ve missed your mark.”
@MikeM - I admire your work with benchmarks. Generally you’ve chosen wisely. One thing I’d toss out is I’ve noticed TRP doing some things in their allocation funds over the past year (assuming you benchmark to them) that indicate hedging on their part. One is overweighting their Dynamic Global Income fund (RPIEX) which appears to short bonds to some extent and also ISTM they’ve beefed up exposure to floating rate bonds. Also, TMSRX is showing up in some. For RPSIX it comprises 4% of holdings.
In my own case, I’m “playing with fire” having built up a near 10% spec position to hedge what I still perceive as expensive equity markets. Mostly TAIL but also GLDB which holds longer-dated corporates and gold. They haven’t made $$ yet - but they have buffered some of the bigger downdrafts in the markets. “Staying power” is worth something.
FWIW

I benchmark to VWIAX, down only 3.08 ytd despite bonds getting killed. I think its probably among a handful of the best conservative allocation funds all time. Perhaps the GOAT. I rarely beat VWIAX in up years and only slightly outperform in down. I'm currently down 3.06. Were it not for the sport of all of this I'd probably dump everything in VWIAX and let it ride. You could do a lot worse!

@msf, good points.
Both Yahoo Finance and Stockcharts use adjusted-prices (ratio-adjusted for distributions). These provide good enough approximations for cumulative or annualized TRs for up to 10 years, in my experience. Beyond 10 yrs, the approximation errors become noticeable, but still OK for most purposes. Yahoo Finance often delays making adjustments, or, some skipped ones are never fixed. As internal details are not visible at Stockcharts, I keep my fingers crossed there.
It bugs me that Yahoo Finance provides adjusted-prices in tabular form but charts only actual-prices. So, Yahoo Finance charts are mostly useless except for short-term. Why not provide charts for BOTH actual-prices AND adjusted-prices like Stockcharts does (with _TICKER and TICKER, respectively).
The SEC/Edgar is a great resource. Each fund prospectus and semiannual/annual report has 5-10 years of TR data and one can go back years. This does require lot of patience and hard work that can be repeated manually only for a handful of funds.

You can also use M*'s new "Interactive Charts". You'll find them on the home (quote) page for each fund. You need to click on the "Show Interactive Chart" button at the upper left of the graph shown.
While I prefer M*'s legacy pages for most purposes, the interactive charts have the advantage of showing you the cumulative gain in percentage between the dates you specify. So if you give dates of 12/31/97 and 12/31/98, it will tell you the annual gain for 1998 without your needing to do the long division.
Yahoo's finance pages also provide figures that one can use to deduce annual returns. Select the historical range of data to cover the years of interest. Then look at the adjusted price on Dec 31 of successive years and divide to get the growth for the selected year. Adjusted prices incorporate the effect of dividends, splits, etc., so it represents total return. You can download the data and let Excel do the division for you.
https://finance.yahoo.com/
There are minor differences. For DODGX, the M* interactive chart reports a gain from the end of 2020 (12/31/2020) to the end of 2021 (12/31/2021) of 31.73%. This is also what M* reports in digital form on the fund's performance page, confirming that these are the right endpoints to use.
M*'s performance page for DODGX
Yahoo Finance reports adjusted closing prices of 186.20 and 245.26 at the end of 2020 and 2021 respectively, for a gain of 31.72%. Going to the horse's mouth, D&C reports a 2021 return of 31.68%.
Yahoo Finance, DODGX data
D&C performance page
This illustrates why I try to go as far upstream as possible to the data source if accuracy is important. One can find 10 years of performance data in a fund's prospectus, so by looking at a prospectus that's 15 years old one can get the annual returns for years 1997-2006, and by looking at a prospectus that's 5 years old one can get the annual returns for years 2007-2016.
SEC fund filing search page: https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/mutualsearch.html
For example, for DODGX, here are the bar charts for those 20 years and the prospectuses they come from:

Dodge and Cox Prospectus, May 1, 2007        Dodge and Cox Prospectus, May 1, 2017

It appears that M*'s annual mutual fund performance data only goes back ten years. If I'm wrong, please tell me how to unlock "older" annual performance or where I might find annual data going back 25 years or longer. I want to see how each fund performed at least back 25 years and preferably even longer. (And yes, I realize that the older the data, the greater the likelihood of changes in management, etc. that could discount the value of some historical data.)