any negs or knocks on TIPX?

The 5 year TIPS/Treasury breakeven rate was 2.93% as of 01/04/22.
The long term average for the 5 year rate is 1.85%.
TIPS are "expensive" now.
If you believe inflation over the next five years will be greater than 2.93%,
you may want to consider purchasing TIPS instead of Treasuries.

Another fund with a nifty record, as all of its 17 (calendar) years show gains......AVEFX (Ave Maria Bond Fund). It holds a 20% allocation to equities, despite the name.
You know darn well what happens in 2022 if I buy it.

But since I use MERFX as a cash substitute, 2%-3% per year is fine with me

The problem is for me a cash substitute fund cannot have sustained a loss greater than 2% in a year, and preferably no loss ever. Why take the risk with such meager returns? My cash subs include, SNGVX (1 off year in 31, so it gets a pass on my 2% rule); BBBMX; GILPX, VNLA (ETF) and even good old BSV (ETF). You can buy with confidence that any loss will be small and temporary. Not so clear with MERFX, which suffered a 5.67% loss in 2002 and 2.26% loss in 2008.

Not picking on anyone here, just remembering the statement that SNGVX had only one losing year out of 31. It's now 2 losing years out of 34, with nearly a 1% loss last year. Not much, but something one hopes not to see with a fund used in lieu of cash.
FWIW, BBBMX stayed in the green, gaining 0.01%.
GILPX did not, losing 0.07%. Likewise, MERFX lost 0.19%, VNLA lost 0.18% and BSV lost 0.12%.
These five funds, win or lose, came so close to zero that one might as well think of them all as having broken even. SNGVX was a different story.
Meanwhile, RPHYX kept chugging away, gaining 1.8% last year. Only 11 calendar years so far, but not a single loss.
I'm also taking a closer look at VMLTX. Only 1 losing year out of 34; that was just a loss of 0.16% in 2016. It normally maintains a higher than average duration to get higher returns. But it has shortened its duration to bring it in line with its peers, showing that it can be managed conservatively if conditions warrant.
My parents used this fund in retirement. Yes, this is still your father's VMLTX.

The COVID drawdown was rough on many mutual funds, even treasury. Many were down 10-40% within 2 weeks. Nevertheless, this drawdown recovered quickly comparing to the 2008’s drawdown that lasted several years. Since then value funds trail their growth counterparts for a long period. Oakmark funds are no exception until last year.

@stillers: I think Vanguard Target Date funds could be used. If your friend wants maximum return and does not care about volatility, VTTHX, the 2035 fund, holds about 73% US and international stocks. 2035 is just an example; 2040 or 2045 will have even higher equity exposures. TDFs are not completely hands-off because as they approach the end date, the allocations change and become more conservative. If your friend is still doing well in five years, you could reassess her goals. In a tax-deferred account you can trade without penalty. VTTHX charges 0.14 % ER. Given the size of her account, I wonder if there is a cheaper share class.

Thanks for the replies.
I listed everything that I thought posters would need to know but based on some responses...
VHNW woman with well over $5M in this account alone who will likely never spend a dime of this money but would like it to be as large as possible for her gift to charity upon her death.
Amounts will only be w/d from this a/c because of RMDs.
There are NO required or even desired target stock/bond or domestic/foreign allocations.
She does NOT like to pay TFs so any non-VG AA funds suggested should be NTF at VG.
She desires AA funds in tribute to her beloved, deceased husband who always told her she should have "some bonds" in her portfolio after he passes, with AA funds being the simplest way for her to ensure that she does.
To repeat though...
Perhaps the most important "Particulars" to note are
Total Return investor seeking maximum TR over the next 5-??? years (via AA funds)
Tax-deferred account
Also of note...
I've been investing in OEFs since 1980 and there really aren't many (any?) GREAT AA OEFs that I am NOT aware of and/or own personally. SO I'm REALLY NOT looking for DETAIL of any given suggestions or WHY they were suggested or how they did during this/that period.
I'm REALLY just looking for poster's LISTS of 2-3 AA OEFs (NOT listed in the OP) that they believe will be amongst the BEST TR funds for the at least the next 5 years or until she becomes mentally incapacitated or passes. I can do the DD on them if I don't already know what I/she need to know about them.
Sorry for any confusion.

See my concluding sentence in the thread Seeking Suggestions for Vanguard Asset Allocation Funds: "Or even push it to a 30/70 fund (VTINX)."
This vanilla Vanguard fund of funds returned more than AOK over one day (YTD), one year (5.03% vs 4.37%), three years (9.46% vs. 9.20%), five years ( 6.78% to 6.66%), and 10 years (5.81% to 5.41%).
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=VTINX (compare with AOK)
Its volatility (std dev) was lower over three years (5.87% vs. 6.34%), five years (5.02% vs. 5.25%), and ten years (4.42% vs. 4.62%).
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/ratings-risk.action?t=VTINX
The main area in which VTINX (or more generally, retirement income funds) falls short is tax efficiency. These funds are designed to generate income, and are thus not great in taxable accounts.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/tax-analysis.action?t=VTINX

I think you meant: Your job, should you decide to accept it ... This portfolio will self destruct in five years :-)
While active management (I'm a big fan of Wellington) can add some value its impact is marginal compared with the effect of allocation decisions. I'd focus on that, and then just pick the fund or funds that best match the chosen allocation.
For example, Life Strategy Conservative Growth (VSCGX) and Wellesley (VWIAX) are both 40/60 funds. VWIAX has done better over the past 1 and 10 years, while VSCGX has done better over the past 5. Over the past 3 years the difference was minuscule (0.04%).
With respect to the allocation of foreign securities, the portfolio is underweighted. I might try to increase that. (OTOH, given the long term underperformance of foreign holdings, this suggestion might be analogized to eating one's vegetables.)
Vanguard's neutral foreign allocation is 40%. (I'll dig up a source for that if needed.) VSCGX seems to target that, with 40% of its equity holdings being foreign. It also has a healthy slug of foreign bonds. So that's one way to boost foreign exposure. VGSTX (30% of equity is foreign) is another.
The point is not to pick funds at the start, but to identify a target allocation (stock/bond, domestic/foreign) and then pick the funds that most simply come close to that target.
FWIW, if the cash really is not needed over the next decade, and the target time frame is 5-10 years, a traditional 60/40 allocation would be reasonable. If the cash might be used in under five years, I'd think in terms of bond funds. Since the friend wants allocation funds, one could use a 20/80 fund (VASIX) and overweight it. Or even push it to a 30/70 fund (VTINX).

You need a lot of patience (or luck) to invest in small cap funds. Their returns vary widely among funds and from year to year with any particular fund. I’ve invested in small cap funds for about 30 years and they often have long spells of underperformance punctuated by incredible returns in relatively short spurts. I now get most of my SC exposure from index funds such as FSSNX. I would prefer IJR but it’s easier using Fidelity funds for rebalancing purposes.

Is the object is to get the maximum return for the minimum volatility (which IMHO is not the same as risk, but a subject for another day) with a traditional fixed allocation? That seems to be what's implied by the observation that a 20/80 allocation has the potential for 60% of the returns with 25% of the volatility.
Again using Portfolio Visualizer, one can see that the optimal allocation (using 20/20 hindsight) varies depending on the calendar years used. "Optimal" here meaning highest reward/"risk", i.e. highest Sharpe ratio. Using VTSMX and VBMFX as proxies for the US stock and bond markets, the optimal allocations (per PV) are:
Jan 2019 - Dec 2021 (3 years): 20.4/79.6, Sharpe ratio 1.64 (same as 20/80)
Jan 2017 - Dec 2021 (5 years): 21.8/78.2, Sharpe ratio 1.28 (vs. 1.27 for 20/80)
Jan 2012 - Dec 2021 (10 years): 26.5/73.5, Sharpe ratio 1.35 (vs. 1.33 for 20/80)
Jan 2007 - Dec 2021 (15 years): 13/87, Sharpe ratio 1.15 (vs. 1.11 for 20/80)
Even though the optimal allocation varies widely (from 13% stocks to 26% stocks) depending on years and time frame, a fixed 20/80 allocation appears to come very close to optimal in all periods. So it's likely not productive to try to vary one's allocation based on future predictions.
The Sharpe ratios (per PV) over 3/5/10/15 year periods for VASIX, FASIX, and BACPX are lower than the fixed 20/80 Sharpe ratios above:

Period	VASIX	FASIX	BACPX
3 years	 1.43	1.28	1.46
5 years	 1.15	1.01	1.10
10 years 1.22	1.10	1.27
15 years 0.86	0.76	0.66

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio
If one periodically rebalances one's portfolio, then there's no additional work in buying two index funds and maintaining a 20/80 mix. But if one wants a set-and-forget portfolio, then a single fixed allocation fund (or a target date fund if one wants the mix to gradually change) or a cheap robo advisor that uses basic broad market index funds could be the best and simplest choices.

Premise:
You are gratuitously managing the portfolio of a 70-year old dear friend in great health with NO income or cash needs.
Friend has been sitting on about 20% cash for the past several years and has decided she now wants to invest some/all of it.
Friend particulars:
Total Return investor seeking maximum TR over the next 5-??? years
Tax-deferred account
Volatility is NOT an issue
Diversification is NOT an issue
Already owns sizeable chunks of VWENX, VBIAX, VWIAX and VGWAX and does NOT want to add to those positions
ONLY wants to own VG Asset Allocation funds
No heirs, entire estate is being willed to charities
Friend has never and you trust will never hold you accountable for anything related to her portfolio performance
Your job:
You are trying to compile a suggestion list of at least 2-3 funds but know there are not many more VG AA funds available.
Given this premise and these particulars, what VG Asset Allocation fund(s) would you suggest?
EDIT: I have compiled my suggestion list but don't want to present it here yet and possibly affect other suggestions.
Given the limited number of other VG AA funds available, would you attempt to suggest
(1) any non-VG AA funds and if so, what would they be
(2) simply adding to existing holdings?

Interesting interview from Nov. https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1063412/these-renowned-stock-pickers-are-taking-change-in-stride
One gets a clear sense of the differences between these two fund managers but some similarities too… and even with dare I say Cathie Wood?
Favorite quotes:
TESLA
“Lynch: I think it’s a tough business. Selling cars that are expensive for the average customer, that require financing, is a little different than selling Internet ads. We did own Tesla for about three years. It was a small, more of a speculative-size position back when the first consumer reports came out around the product, and the company was starting to have a real revenue stream in front of it. But the constant need for capital from the capital markets does put you in a position, potentially, during times of uncertainty of relying on the kindness of strangers to continue the business model. Cathie Wood would say it’s not just about selling cars. There might be more to it than that—energy storage, energy services, and things of that nature. Still, ultimately, it’s a car company, and there are a lot of other big car companies that scale. They do a lot of things differently that are interesting, but ultimately the capital intensity and the constant need for external financing for us became problematic.”
ZOOM
“ Nygren: When we weren’t able to be in the office, we were using Zoom as much as anybody else was, and as a consumer, I loved the product. The concern that we had was that Zoom was being priced as if it were going to be the dominant market leader for a long time. But one conference call would be on Zoom, and then the next one on Google Meet, and then Microsoft (MSFT) Teams and BlueJeans, and they all look just about alike as a user.” <— He’s absolutely right on this point.
BUBBLE? Stocks vs Bonds
Nygren: “ I’m not going to sit here and argue that it’s a generational opportunity to buy equities or anything like that. But given where interest rates are, owning an equity like the S&P that pays almost a 2% dividend yield and has earnings that are growing at 6% or 7% a year, compared to a long-term bond, is an easy choice to make.
Lynch: “ But all things equal, I would rather own smaller companies with smaller market caps that we think could be much bigger over time than some of the larger companies that exist today.”
BITCOIN
Lynch: “ We talked about persistence earlier. Bitcoin’s kind of like Kenny from South Park. It dies every episode, and then it’s back again. As for adoption, it’s almost like bitcoin’s a virus and we’re all a little bit infected. Some people fully have gone there, and some people haven’t, but we all know about it. That’s interesting to me from a viral mechanism.”
BANKING
“Reichart: Bill, you own a lot of financials. How worried are you about disruption in the financial sector?
Nygren: Most of the financial names we own are selling relatively close to stated book value. In a world where they get disrupted and their business goes down every year, they could liquidate for relatively close to the current stock. Brian Moynihan [CEO of Bank of America BAC ] said that the pandemic has pulled forward mobile banking by a decade. If you go into a bank to a teller, it costs them $4 to process your check. If you do it at an ATM, it’s 40 cents. And if you do it on your phone, it’s 4 cents. The big banks are a disruptor there because they are so far ahead in mobilization for their clients. I don’t see a big downside for most of the companies that we own.”

@JonGaltIII, since you brought it up, I think you may be over analyzing. Just a question, why are you stressing over having "the best fund(s)" when there are absolutely no guarantees that the statistics will look the same next year or the year after? Isn't it all a guessing game, or at best an educated-guessing game anyway?
I'm probably different than most on this board but I'd say pick your horse and jockey and ride it. If your jockey (manager) consistently beats an index fund, say VBK, or is in most years a top 20% performer in the category, you've done great. Don't second guess a well thought out choice because your likely to second guess that choice in a couple years too.
Just my humble 2-cents.

The more I analyze and perhaps "over analyze" - I think I may need to give my 2 SCG funds WAMCX and MSSMX some more time. Using MFO tools (especially the Analyze button / Performance / Rankings / Ratings and Batting Average etc.) - it appears that WAMCX, MSSGX and NEAGX all perform high and low and switch back and forth in terms of performance with similar Ulcer over LT. Small Cap growth for you. There's no clear winner, if you will. The youngest fund on my watch list in this cat, DVSMX only shows 4 years of performance and it's been consistent. Perfect FCI. Ferguson Metrics FCI would lead me to conclude WAMCX is better than MSSMX but DVSMX (young fund) is best so far if I'm understanding it correctly. Not being declarative so if someone has a difference of opinion, I’m open to it.
Pro Tip for MFO Discussion Search: Use oldest share class symbol and you're likely to turn up more meaningful results.

I was reading the thread on Thermostat, which prompted me to peer at its risk-adjusted returns. Interesting. Of all funds and ETFs - equity, allocation and income together - only CTFAX makes it as a top 10 fund for the past three, five and 10-year periods. I was a bit skeptical because the discipline was revised three years ago to allow greater latitude in equity exposure. Nonetheless it remains locked-in to a top 10 Sharpe ratio. 8.7% raw returns over the decade, 16.9% over the past three years.
If Morningstar's to be trusted, the fund has hit its minimum permissible equity exposure (10%).
Fascinating and just enough to give one slight pause.
Cheers!
David

The author's recommendations for the coming year resonate with me.
"Looking back over the past two years, one word comes to mind: extreme.
It’s been a period of extremes in the market and the economy.
Many have benefitted, but we’ve also seen excesses that aren’t necessarily healthy—from the rise in NFTs to the craze in SPACs to the boom in day trading.
That’s why, as you look ahead to the coming year, the theme I recommend is moderation."
Link

I enjoy reading the MFO articles. Anybody have thoughts regarding the article mentioning .....a 20% equity portfolio translates into receiving 60% of the returns of an all equity portfolio with about 25% of the volatility? Just a Thinking Fast and Slow type observation....volatility (SD) is a annualized metric that would remain in this case relatively consistent over time around 25% but the 60% yearly returns vs SPY compounded over a 30 year retirement horizon would not be 60% after 30 years. A significant difference in return. IOW's the value one receives from low SD does not compound over time. Although there is value inherent.

Rosenberg seems to think both long duration bonds and gold are an attractive play.
I’d actually intended to make a small spec play today with a bet on on GLDB, which combines a gold position with investment grade corporate bonds. Looking at the substantial damage today to that “cocktail” brew (the fund’s down nearly 2%), I decided to stay put. By chance, I rebalanced Friday and sold off a bit of OPGSX. That proved fortunate.
Predictions ….. Who the f knows? I agree somewhat we’re in a bubble. But, as Rosenberg mentions, it could continue on for years. The action today is nasty in the metals and bond markets for sure.
Thanks @bee for noting. It is one of the more in depth interviews I’ve seen.

Not a lot of port moves specifically for 2022. We are nearing end of 10th year of retirement. We use 5-yr retirement portfolio strategies and are nearing the end of our 2nd 5-yr plan (June 2022). All major moves towards next 5-yr plan have been gradual/cumulative over past six months or so and will be completed by June.
Core for next five years will consist of 11 AA OEFs (and possibly 1-2 more) that can be detailed here or via PM if anyone is interested. Still reluctantly holding a smaller slug of dedicated bond OEFs (HY Munis, BL, Multi, ST HY), significantly reduced in number and aggregate $ amount from initial 5-yr plan plan. Also initiated much larger explore section during 2nd, 5-yr plan that will carryforward in next one, comprised of a coupla indivdual stocks and a coupla dedicated stock ETFs and OEFs. Former 10-yr CD ladder initiated at start of retirement continues to see final rungs fall off w/o being replaced. Maturing CD proceeds continue to be rolled to much higher risk cats, primarily explore stuff. Keeping an eye on 5-yr CD rates this year as they inch back to levels that may be acceptable replacements for some dedicated bond OEF holdings.
Will continue to make (what are effectively) tax-free IRA w/d's for personal spending wants/needs up to taxable income threshold in lieu of making Roth conversions. Continue to be ~96% under the umbrella (read, in tax-deferred a/c's) and ~4% in taxable. Haven't paid a dime in FIT/SIT since final year of employment in 2012 (state has actually been paying us $50 annually last coupla years via tax credits) and starting to look like that will all continue for at least five more years or until RMDs are um, required. Life-long tax planning strategy has been to Avoid, Defer, Minimize, and pay them on our terms when we want (read, ultimately have) to pay them.
REALLY appreciated the contributions of many of MFO regulars. Keep up the great work and contributions here and Happy New Year to all!

I’m not hallucinating. Just misread Wood’s words. A total 40% appreciation is possible over 5 years.. 40% annually is totally wacko!