@Mav123 - I hold a 3% position in EPD in my Roth account. Opinions seem to be divided on whether that's a good idea or not but I haven't had any issues yet. I've held it for 10-12 years despite that contrary opinion. It does issue a K-1 which TurboTax handles easily.

The OP discussed HMEZX, a merger type fund, which is quite different from that of RPHIX. I selected a comparable fund, MERFX, which by coincidence, I have owned for numerous years.
You can see the returns here for MERFX since its inception:
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MERFX/performance/
MERFX was closed to new investors as of June 1, 1996 and resumed sales in 1998.
(closed)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/701804/0000950123-96-002625.txt
(re-opened)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/701804/0000950123-98-008974.txt
MERFX's YTD return is (1.61%) according to Google which is better than many of my other mutual funds.
Concerning one year cd rates, the rates have only increased due to the FED increasing interest rates in the last several meetings. Before those meetings. short term CD rates were abysmal in comparison to RPHIX.

Also, Mav123, please explain the appeal of RPHIX? The fund's total return % for 1 and 3 years is 1.70 and 1.78, respectively. Over the past 5 years its 2.21%.
On the other hand, you currently can get a 1-year FDIC insured CD at Fidelity or Vanguard that pays 3.05%. Why bother with RPHIX?

Hi Crash, I agree with you, BUT, the beauty of investing is the fact it can be extremely easy. Suppose someone decides to invest $1000 monthly in a target fund(made of indexes) for 40 years in Roth 401K, makes 8% annually, and never touch this money until retirement. She retires with about 3.2 million, not bad. At age 65, she takes SS and another 2-3% from her Roth for living expenses...DONE.
Of course, she can do better and invest more.
I believe the above can beat most investors, and even pros. KISS and effective, no science or art needed. I also think many people who participate in investing forums make things too complicated, including my own (system). Financial advisers make it complicated to confuse their clients.

@ Vanguard ; I put in 3 buys all of the same MF. my bad ! Called to straighten out the buy of 3 funds , all different. They fixed my f up. This happened about 3 years ago.
All is good, Derf

Concur with LB.
More, I read many of Marks articles over the years and they are long. Lots of fluff with contradicting reasons of what to do and what not. The end result is hardly any specifics of what to do and when.

......Sounds like a very common reaction from years ago on this Board re: The Zurich Axioms: complaints about the Axioms containing contradictory observations and advice, making them virtually useless. I think the response here from @FD1000 illustrates perfectly the fact that we are all put together differently. We confront the world from different perspectives, operating with very different assumptions, fundamentally. Our various approaches to making sense of things will be different. My own reply is simple: investing is not a cut-and-dried process, like following a recipe. If that's the way one invests, I assert that it must be a method arrived at after much PRIOR investigation and analysis. Because not only the Markets, but the entire world, is a jumble of contradictory signals and noise and extraneous incidentals. Each of us must sort it all out for ourselves. I am very much in touch with the line of thought which says that investing is always some combination of both Science and Art. Very little in this life is all-or-nothing, either/or, or black or white. It's complicated. Anything which is important enough to matter is complicated.

Concur with LB.
More, I read many of Marks articles over the years and they are long. Lots of fluff with contradicting reasons of what to do and what not. The end result is hardly any specifics of what to do and when.

Good post. The longer you check, and I'm talking about at least 20-30 years, a cheap index such as the SP500 beats most stock funds.
The SP500 is based on the best indicator, the price. The price never lies, regardless of any opinion.
The SP500 is global too, it gets about 40% of its revenues from abroad.

The S&P 500 index is a good representation of large-cap U.S. stocks.
Most active funds underperform this index over longer time periods.
Although many S&P 500 companies derive substantial revenue from foreign countries,
it may be prudent to also include foreign-domiciled companies in your portfolio.
I respect Warren Buffett and Jack Bogle but disagree with their views to avoid foreign investments.

I have heard the above many times. Why stop at foreign-domiciled companies? Why not slice it 8 ways, just to be sure. This is why many investors lag by complicating their portfolios. The fact is that the most dominated companies are in the SP500 + the USA is very stable + capitalism is not perfect, but still the best we have + I prefer American management globally. China high tech looked great until Xi Jinping took care of that. Europe have been sinking for years. Did you know that there is no European high-tech company by revenue at the top
(link).

Good post. The longer you check, and I'm talking about at least 20-30 years, a cheap index such as the SP500 beats most stock funds.
The SP500 is based on the best indicator, the price. The price never lies, regardless of any opinion.
The SP500 is global too, it gets about 40% of its revenues from abroad.

The S&P 500 index is a good representation of large-cap U.S. stocks.
Most active funds underperform this index over longer time periods.
Although many S&P 500 companies derive substantial revenue from foreign countries,
it may be prudent to also include foreign-domiciled companies in your portfolio.
I respect Warren Buffett and Jack Bogle but disagree with their views to avoid foreign investments.

Scanned @bee’s linked article. Typical Marks. To me the take away is that market valuations follow a herd mentality. At any given time part of the price of a security rests on investor sentiment. Now, none of us has the research capabilities and analytic tools at Mark’s disposal. So it’s difficult trying to replicate his process or even come close.
Still, I think the herd mentality concept has legs - more so today than ever. Go back 8-12 months and read the threads posted on this forum. Certainly some anticipated the approaching storm and were taking steps to lighten up on risk. But the overwhelming number of posts remained quite bullish. People were eagerly buying. I nearly got into a spitting match with one fellow who insisted “buying the dip” was always a reliable investment approach, even with the DJI near 37,000 and the NASDAQ 20% higher than now,
So if (a big if) one can identify severely undervalued assets and if one can remain calm and allow time to do its work, than one can be more successful than investing in broadly diversified funds. It’s difficult to see how an extra 1 or 2% in fees would cancel out the benefits of a 2X or 3X appreciation in value over a few years time. BTW - Not long ago passive investing - mostly the S&P 500 was near conventional wisdom here and elsewhere. Doubters were faced with fiercely intense posts trying to prove its validity. Now many (including some D&C funds) are actually shorting that index. One problem some of my sources identify is the huge amount of passive investing coming from retirement plan contributions at the individual level. Much of that has been going into funds linked to the S&P index for decades.

Good post. The longer you check, and I'm talking about at least 20-30 years, a cheap index such as the SP500 beats most stock funds.
The SP500 is based on the best indicator, the price. The price never lies, regardless of any opinion.
The SP500 is global too, it gets about 40% of its revenues from abroad.

I have no idea how to make geographical sector bets so personally I wouldn't use any non-diversified EM fund myself, especially as a buy and hold fund.

Yeah, That’s a tough nut to crack. I have a little diversified EM at Dodge & Cox. Blind faith I guess in their stewardship. And a very small hold in ENOR (Norway) which is actually in my Real Assets sleeve due to its economy’s heavy dependence on energy exports. Neither of the aforementioned funds, however, is “shooting the lights out.” In fact I’d liken it more to shooting myself in the foot.
As far as going “off the reservation” is concerned with non diversified EMs, I always think back to hearing Sir John Templeton remark that it’s very rare for any country’s market to fall more than 50% and stay down that far for long. (In specific he was addressing a rout in the Asian EMs back than.) In that day Sir John would have found an economy down that far a lucrative investment target. However, a lot has changed in the 25-35 years since he made that remark. May not hold water today.
Kudos to @Crash for sticking to his guns.
Great insights from @LewisBraham. Much appreciated.

@Crash SFGIX has done really well lately, beating 92% of its peers in the last three years. Still, that is a relative game. Emerging markets in general can be a stressful game for investors who can’t stomach volatility. I feel similarly about these Vulcan funds. They are concentrated and that courts volatility and idiosyncratic stock selection risk, so when the manager makes a mistake, it’s painful. But acknowledging that mistake and seeking to avoid a similar one in the future is essential. It’s a stark comparison to me between this response and others I’ve seen where the manager refuses to acknowledge any problems or change anything. The ARK ETF comes to mind. Still, those who can’t take volatility should generally steer clear of concentrated funds. This is especially so in the small-cap arena where idiosyncratic stock risk is the greatest. The long-term returns may prove great, but when the fund is down 40% one year and the markets are down 20%, psychologically many investors can’t handle it and will sell at the bottom.

EFCU Financial, out of Baton Rouge. 3.75% for 5 years. (Scroll down the page.) For a "jumbo," you can get 3.85%. That's a $100,000.00 minimum.
https://www.investopedia.com/best-5-year-cd-rates-4801473
https://www.efcufinancial.org/media/201852/august-2022-rate-sheet.pdf
I did not look to see about membership eligibility.

@Baseball_Fan : I checked average 5 year cd's issued .from January 2019. 1.4 -1.5 %
Your total sum seems somewhat suspicious for holding it that long, 3.5 years .
If you google , average cd rate 2019, you should find a chart.
I'll also admit it seems to me I bought a cd @ 3 % around 1/st qter 2018.
One other thought. Maybe that's the value going forth, if you sell, after your interest payment to you?
Have a good one, Derf

Good afternoon All,
Serious question here as I feel I should but do not know the answer.
CDs.
When I buy them thru a bank, let's say for example sake, $100k, 3% APY, I see $103000 a year later in my account.
How does that work for CDs that you buy thru Schwab. When I look at the value, it makes no sense to me what the value and gain/loss is. For instance I opened a 3.55% brokered CD thru Schwab 3.5 years ago with $90k and it states the value is ~$90,492. No way that can be correct right? I called and their rep could not explain it. Does it all "true up" at the end of the CD term?
I hope this question makes sense.
Best,
Baseball Fan

At the time, interest rates were near zero, tech companies were expanding, and Americans had extra cash thanks to stimulus checks from the federal government.

Two years later it is quite the opposite now with rising interest rate and that put considerable pressure on tech stocks.
Traditional brokerages such as Fidelity and Schwab provide 99% of my financial needs. Don’t see much value in Robinhood.

@davidrmoran, thanks, I missed that. Kitces' tweet was on 7/31/22. I also checked Kitces' Twitter feed and the tweet dated 7/31/22 is there too. Unclear why he recycled 5 yr old stuff.
https://twitter.com/MichaelKitces/status/1553821828153577475
In building the OP, I captured the link to the "image" and also to the more detailed referenced "article" that I thought would be more useful. I didn't provide the link to tweet itself (above). But I see now that the article and chart are from 5 years ago. I also see that you have posted a comment on that article's feed (below) TODAY and let us see if there is a response,
https://www.kitces.com/blog/safe-withdrawal-rate-calculator-software-big-picture-timeline-app-reviews/#comment-5935337942
May be you can engage him on Twitter if you are there.

As one digs a little, it just keeps getting better.
It seems that the 10% performance fee used to be 11%:
https://prdistribution.com/news/tbo-capital-announces-reduction-of-performance-fees-for-all-balances-2.html
The application form lets you send in money and lets you make daily withdrawals. That's an open end fund. But the Terms and Conditions page says that this is a "closed ended [sic] mutual fund".
How many decades of industry experience does it take to differentiate between an open end fund and a closed "ended" fund?
The page goes on to say that "It offers monthly dividends to investors instead of growth option i.e. increase in NAV (share) price."
This begs the question: is it selling shares of its underlying holdings every month and distributing proceeds to keep its NAV from growing?
I think I'll stop now. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. I'll leave with a couple of questions based on this excerpt:

Outperformed 95% of peers over the last six years with less risk.
...
Long-tenured advisors of three PhDs and one MD in internal medicine

What are the 5% of health care fund peers who have made more than 50% annualized over the last six years? Or is this "outperforming 95% of peers" just a made up figure to make it seems that the 50% returns reported are not equally fictitious?
M* premium screener returns no funds of any type with 50% returns over the past five years.
Stringing together the best performing health care fund in each of the last six calendar years, e.g. FSMEX (8.68% in 2016), ETIHX (45.83% in 2017) and so on, one achieves only a 36% annualized return. All actual health care funds returned less than my cherry-picked combo.
Who are the PhDs and MD? TBO Capital names only four principals, and none of them hold any sort of doctorate degree according to their Linked In profiles.

Unexpected large mutual fund year end distribution is where it get sticky.
True enough. Though Uncle Sam doesn't require you to pay taxes on money earned faster than you make it. If you have large YE distributions, Uncle Sam is fine with your paying more in the fourth quarter. You "just" have to document your uneven income in Schedule AI of Form 2210.
Over the past several years with cash paying nothing it hasn't been worth it to hold onto that extra money for a quarter or two, and sending it in with the fourth quarter estimate. But now with MMFs paying real interest, it may be worth a second look at paying in estimates as necessary rather than evenly.