Good for you. I consolidated tax-deferred accounts in the last several years. VGWAX is a solid fund to compliment PRWCX, a growth-oriented allocation fund.

Here’s a clip of what Ed said re cash:
“So, back to asset allocation – obviously have enough cash reserves to fund at least two years of living expenses, in insured certificates of deposit. There is a market to be shopped there in smaller banks and credit unions, with nine to twelve month certificate yields running between 35 and 45 basis points. In terms of currencies, if your liabilities are dollar-denominated, your investments also should be. The exception is using international funds that do not hedge back their foreign currency exposure to dollars. In terms of bonds, favor those with maturities of less than a year, generally using some of the ultra-short bond funds available from Vanguard or Northern Funds.“
@bee Good point on oil. It’s taught me the value of patience and sticking to your guns, as most of us abandoned our oil positions way back and watched its price fall into negative territory (early 2020). Yet - here it is at near $83. I remember T Boon Pickins predicting this price rise a few years ago. T. Boone had it right. Unfortunately he died in 2019.

I used to own this fund years ago. Then declining returns forced my exit. I wonder if Aronstein is still spewing his arrogant pompous market commentary !

@ron - PRFDX is a stock fund. Back from the death because it had several lousy years before dividend paying stocks started to shine. ALAAX is one I owned briefly, I really like the approach but fees are too high and some of the underlying funds are suspect. That said, they’re only running 30-40% stocks compared to near 100% for PRFDX. So … maybe a fund that is similar to ALAAX, but with lower fees. Actually, many of the 40 / 60 funds might be what you’d tolerate. I use PRSIX. TRRIX is similar and equally fine. However, these do not focus only on dividend paying stocks - so I did not raise them earlier.
Good luck
Here’s your original question: Large Cash vs bonds or dividends? Nothing wrong with cash for older investors. It won’t keep up with inflation, but certainly helps sleep better. There’s been quite a bit of discussion here over whether the equity / commodity markets are valued rationally.

”See Ed Studzinski's commentary this month.”

Interesting commentary. Ed seems of the opinion we’re facing hyper-inflation. (But please read it yourself and draw your own conclusions.) He doesn’t much address ron’s question if I understand what ron is asking (kind of vague).
But, yes, as I think Shostakovich observes, Ed recommends staying very short on your fixed income duration - out to only a year or two. He points to 2 funds he likes that do that. Since “dividends” usually refers to stocks, not bonds, I gather that ron is contemplating some type of fund that invests in dividend paying companies. Hmmm … Tough call because these types of funds have run up a lot (ie PRFDX) this year and I never like buying high. But, what do I know?
A fund like like RPSIX will provide maybe 15-25% exposure to stocks while still playing mainly in the fixed income area. Not a bad choice - however, the bond duration is likely longer than Ed recommends. And there are combo funds like ALAAX that carry a slightly higher equity content - while still focusing on the income producing type stocks.
Real estate is sometimes included in that area, but it’s had a great run up this year. I’d be loath to buy a REIT at these levels. I’m thinking a utilities fund might be a better value if seeking dividend paying companies.
Full disclosure: I’m using a lot of GNMA funds in my fixed income portion. They’re on the relatively shorter end of the duration curve presently (for the type of fund) - only out 3-5 years, but still much farther out than Ed deems prudent. I like that they’re of a higher quality credit than corporate bonds and I don’t mind loosing a bit of $$ on them as long as the equity / risk-asset areas keep climbing.
No easy answers.
Here’s 1 out of many articles on using dividend paying stocks or funds. I haven’t had time to read it closely, but it appears something ron might find of interest - if only to encourage him to do more research on the subject. Here

Maybe not the most eloquent link on taxes, but I believe it was @stillers who mentioned that he pays nothing in taxes...
@stillers mentioned:

haven't paid a dime in taxes since 2012, and may not pay them for 5-10 more years.

A more accurate list on taxation would point out that we all pay many "everyday" taxes well beyond income tax.

LMAO.
So sorry. I forgot to include the word "INCOME" taxes. Spent a lifetime of tax planning to ensure we would be able to pay personal income taxes when WE wanted to pay them, which may turn out to be not until the time of RMDs at age 72 or 75, depending on how that all shakes out in DC.

Wouldn't it be more honest if people who boasted of not paying taxes also boasted of the consequences such as saying "I've stiffed soldiers, police officers, firemen, teachers, etc. of their salaries since 2012 and I found a way to keep stiffing them for 5 to 10 more years," even though I've benefitted from their services? Or "I found a way to avoid helping children and the elderly have healthcare or to avoid helping the hungry get fed or helping the roads I drive on every day get repaired."

Maybe not the most eloquent link on taxes, but I believe it was @stillers who mentioned that he pays nothing in taxes...
@stillers mentioned:

haven't paid a dime in taxes since 2012, and may not pay them for 5-10 more years.

A more accurate list on taxation would point out that we all pay many "everyday" taxes well beyond income tax.

I like Vanguard Tax-Managed Small Cap (VTMSX) for taxable accounts.
The fund attempts to tracks the S&P 600 index while minimizing taxable gains.
VTMSX has performed well vis-a-vis small blend funds since my initial purchase approximately 10 years ago.

Each metric has different meaning and value to each investor
Yes, though my question was what the metrics mean to you. Certainly the approach you described (for the maximum acceptable pain, maximize return) makes sense. That's essentially what the efficient frontier is designed to do.
However, the fact remains that you're focusing on just a few metrics. This matters because you said that "MARMX has better metrics across the board than VTINX."
For example, you have focused on maximum drawdown. A typical definition is: "The peak to trough decline during a specific record period".
The SEC recognized the danger in funds selecting their own periods for comparison. It issued a rule for fund advertising designed specifically to preclude cherry picking. Performance figures given must span the preceding one, five, and ten year periods current to the most recent calendar quarter (here, Sept 30th). 17 CFR §230.482(d)(3).
Using these SEC-sanctioned metrics, one sees that MARMX has worse annualized returns over all standardized periods, one year (-1.97%), five years (-0.65%), and ten years (-0.15%).
This shows that MARMX does not have better metrics across the board. Though perhaps it does for every metric you care about (as you wrote, each metric matters differently for different people).
As to why I didn't mention the spike on 12/28/07 - you gave the answer. With or without it, the story doesn't change. There was an even larger one in the 2007-2009 period. That didn't matter either.
Finally, what's the big deal about a fund of just four funds and cash with static allocations? Given that there are just a few underlying funds, this is something easily reproduced on your own. It would be different if you were talking about a target date retirement fund (the subject of this thread), where a glide path were being followed.
For example one could substitute VFIAX (or VOO) for the more expensive MAEIX, and IJH (iShares S&P 400) for the more expensive MAMEX. Then one would just need to find a couple of solid bond funds to sub for the fairly vanilla Mutual of America bond funds in MARMX and then rebalance annually.
I tried BIMIX and MWTRX. Since they're slightly more volatile than the Mutual of America funds they're replacing, I took 2% off the S&P 400 index fund.
Works fine as a replacement. Slightly lower std dev (4.80 vs 4.88) and a slightly higher max drawdown (13.88% vs. 12.88%) all while returning a tad more (5.51% annualized vs 5.34%). All figures are monthly (so take drawdowns with a grain of salt) and this only spans 12/07 through 9/21. Looks even better over SEC standard periods. Data from PortfolioVisualizer.

Laugh all you want, the initial bounce IS over, bub.
They did NOT say there won't be another leg down, did they?
No, they said,
The indexes need to get above their resistance levels and confirm the new uptrend. If they fall back, there's a serious risk that this correction will take a new leg down....
You must not watch a lot of business news or read much worthy stuff as a central topic of the day Friday was, "Is it too late to buy the dip?" (Read, The initial bounce is over. The easy, LT money-making trades have been booked.)
And in case you missed it, IBD has been a widely recognized stock picking authority for decades with its specific, time-tested strategy (CANSLIM) for making indv stock investors out-sized returns.
Trying to diss them by citing "Numerous studies have shown..." is an exercise in demonstrating that old axiom about three kinds of lies:
(1) Lies,
(2) Damned lies,
(3) Statistics.
To wit, please show a specific study that includes IBD strategy results for indv stock trades and/or market moves to support your broad stoke diss of them.
FWIW, I used to subscribe to ALL IBD services back in the day and I routinely point to it as one of the primary reasons I retired early about a decade ago at 56.
YMMV.
And no need for a new thread on a current topic that already has one. FWIW, I'll continue posting on this thread until the Dip/Diplet is over (likely in a coupla days/weeks) and the BUYS I made during it (from cash and bond OEF proceeds; maturing CD proceeds to be deployed this week) are kicking arse like ALL of the Dip/Diplet BUYS I've made since March 2020.
Disclaimer: I am a LT Buy/Hold TR investor who BUYS Dip/Diplets with the above-referenced funds and since Feb 2020 have NOT taken a dime out of stocks. Have 96% of nest egg "under the umbrella" (read, tax-deferred a/c's), haven't paid a dime in taxes since 2012, and may not pay them for 5-10 more years.

Recently bumped up my allocation to VGWAX, one of the best performing newer (11/02/17) allocation funds and one not many are talking about. Yet.
Took a closer look at FSRRX, a fund that I owned many years ago. Truly is outperforming in its category during an inflationary period and worth a closer look for anyone with a strategy of owning specific inflationary period holdings.
That said I'm not as psyched out over inflation as many on forums are, and I'm also not inclined to BUY a fund that I think will outperform ONLY in an (albeit potentially transitory) inflationary period. I simply just did the fundamental move - I added more stock exposure via Total Mrkt/S&P index funds. Yeah, FSRRX is less effective equity and less risk, but increased inflation means increased stock exposure to me, and I'll take their 18% YTD TRs and higher risk over FSRRX's 13% YTD TR every time.

Thanks for posting. Motley Fool has many paid subscription equity newsletters, which I never subscribed to, though I know people that do. I did not know they have mutual funds. Not sure if the buy and sell recommendation through those subscriptions are good but MFOM mutual funds seem to have average performance and have not gained much AUM after many years in existence.

“FSRRX may be a fund of interest to those who believe that inflation is a concern or that rates may rise. It has had a maximum drawdown of nearly 15% over the past five years with an average annual return of over 5%. The yield is about 2 percent.”
Yes - But the max drawdown (14.5%) appears to have come in a single quarter (Qtr 1 2020). By contrast, Price’s TMSRX lost 3.2% over that quarter. To be fair, that brief period was particularly cruel to funds holding certain types of fixed income, as a severe liquidity crunch threatened until emergency measures by the Fed to prop up corporate debt were undertaken.
Not to suggest FSRRX sn’t still a fine fund. Just to say that along with 2008 (if a fund’s history extends back that far), Qtr 1 of 2020 is another place to look if seeking out maximum historical volatility.
For the roughly 30% of portfolio devoted to “alternatives” I like to include at least 2 (preferably 3) different funds, as the approaches and success achieved under varying market conditions vary greatly among the alternatives. None, AFAIK, have perfected the “secret sauce” for managing risk in down markets.

That piece is arguing that at best, VWINX will fall less than other traditional funds, e.g. since it leans toward value¹. That's in contrast to funds that are designed to benefit from inflation. Which is why I felt that it doesn't make much sense to directly compare performance of these two types of funds.
¹This is not unusual for traditional 40/60 funds. Only 4 out of 120 (30%-50% allocation) funds have portfolios that are in growth style boxes (per M* screener).
The writer speaks in sweeping generalities without substantiation:

• the fact that the Fed Funds rate will stay at or near zero for at least the next few years [as of Sept 2020].
  Facts don't change, but predictions do as events change or more data is known. In June, "The central bank forecast[] it would raise interest rates twice by the end of 2023 after previously estimating there would be no interest rate hike until 2024."
  Most recently (Sept), "Just over 70 per cent of [leading academic economists surveyed by FT] believe the Fed will raise rates by at least a quarter of a percentage point in 2022, with almost 20 per cent expecting the move to come in the first six months of the year. That is far earlier than the 2023 lift-off from today’s near-zero levels that Fed officials pencilled in back in June."
  
• Higher inflation likely leads to higher interest rates and a steeper yield curve?
  Wellesley traditionally holds a longer duration portfolio than is typical for its peers. That would hurt Wellesley if you believe this generalization linking interest rates and yield curves and that it will hold the next time.
  However, when we look at the last sharp spike in interest rates (1978-1981) we see a very different picture. Rate going up across all maturities (which would hurt all high grade bonds), but with the yield curve inverting - the opposite of steepening. (Inverted yield curves often presage recessions, which in turn can be triggered by high inflation and lower spending.)
  
  (Source page)

Speaking of the late 70s and inverted yield curves, banks (notably S&Ls) took a beating, as they lent out long term money at lower rates while borrowing short term money (via deposit accounts) at higher rates. SA notes that VWINX concentrates on financials, but doesn't break it down further. (According to its latest semiannual report, about half of the fund's financial sector holdings are in banks: JPM, BAC, MS, TFC.) Personally, I have faith in Wellington Management to navigate this risk.
M* has an actual analysis of real performance data for VWINX to see how the fund responds to rising interest rates.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1041732/stress-testing-some-vanguard-and-t-rowe-allocation-funds
What M* found was that Aug-Dec 2016, "as the price of long-dated bonds fell, Vanguard Wellesley Income lagged its average category peer by 1.2 percentage points." VWINX lost money over that period while on average its peers eeked out gains.
OTOH, "over the more recent January-October 2018 interest-rate climb ... [VWINX] modestly outpaced the average of that group by 0.5 percentage points. Even with its longer duration, the strategy’s lower exposure to weaker-performing non-U.S. equities gave it a bump.
Hmm, a lesser exposure to foreign equities. SA didn't pick up on this. Could help again if rates climb globally, but hurt if rates rise disproportionately in the US. Regardless, we're again talking about relative performance against peers, not measuring against inflation oriented funds.
I certainly wouldn't sell VWINX. Though that's different from saying that this fund is designed to weather extended bouts of inflation well.

While I'm a big fan of VWINX, I don't feel that comparing it with funds that are very different in composition is quite cricket. VWINX has had a 40 year tailwind (falling yields), while real return funds have had a headwind over the same time frame - years of moderate to low inflation.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2497/historical-inflation-rate-by-year
Should inflation pick up (OP: " I don't see how we can avoid inflation"), this could all flip. Unfortunately, what appears to be the granddaddy of inflation friendly funds, PRPFX, goes back only to 1982, after inflation started receding. So one can't look easily to historical data.
Here's a recent M* column suggesting 22 funds that could be considered diversified real asset funds designed to handle bouts of inflation:
Now's the Time to Consider These Inflation Protection Strategies

I can't disagree with the view that inflation seems inevitable (starting with wage inflation because of the difficulty hiring these days)...but OTOH I can recall commentators throwing darts at VWINX for at least a decade over the same concern (granted, with minimal inflation headwinds over that stretch). It's navigated pretty well, including this year. Gun to head, VWINX still beats real asset funds over the next decade, even if inflation pans out to a foreseeable extent. My personal strategy is to hold VWINX as a core holding, never sold a share, but supplement with GUNR when opportunity permits.

While I'm a big fan of VWINX, I don't feel that comparing it with funds that are very different in composition is quite cricket. VWINX has had a 40 year tailwind (falling yields), while real return funds have had a headwind over the same time frame - years of moderate to low inflation.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2497/historical-inflation-rate-by-year
Should inflation pick up (OP: " I don't see how we can avoid inflation"), this could all flip. Unfortunately, what appears to be the granddaddy of inflation friendly funds, PRPFX, goes back only to 1982, after inflation started receding. So one can't look easily to historical data.
Here's a recent M* column suggesting 22 funds that could be considered diversified real asset funds designed to handle bouts of inflation:
Now's the Time to Consider These Inflation Protection Strategies

I'd be inclined to pass on MARMX. If you really want to purchase it, it's available through some annuities, e.g. Mutual of America's individual retirement annuity (IRA).
More completely:

The Investment Company offers shares in the Funds to the Insurance Companies, without sales charge, for allocation to their Separate Accounts. See your variable annuity or variable life insurance prospectus ... Shares of the Funds are also offered through retirement plans. See your Summary Plan Description or consult with your plan sponsor for information on how to purchase shares of the Funds through your retirement plan

https://connect.rightprospectus.com/MutualofAmerica/TADF/62824C842/FS?site=NAV#
(click on statutory prospectus)
Here's MARMX's legacy risk/reward page. One can enter VTINX to compare the funds on these metrics.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/ratings-risk.action?t=MARMX
Over the past three years, VTINX has produced better returns (Average vs. Below Average) albeit with higher risk (Average vs. Below Average), leading to a three year 4 star rating (vs. 2 stars for MARMX).
VTINX has superior 3 year returns (7.53% vs. 6.27%) albeit with more volatility (6.25 vs 5.18) leading to nearly identical Sharpe and Sortino ratios.
All of which is about what one would expect when comparing a fund with a 30% target equity allocation (VTINX) to a a fund with a target 25% equity allocation (MARMX).

Nice! @LewisBraham
I get all “choked up” whenever I hear the party of tax cuts for the wealthy decry “saddling our children with mountains of debt”. Sure. You bet! Bleeds one’s heart. Debt can be good or bad. Most of us wouldn’t have been able to finance a home without debt. Many continue to refinance, putting the proceeds to other productive uses and keeping the economy growing. Muni bonds have financed schools and infrastructure for years, affording everyone a better standard of living. Don’t hear anyone hollering about munis.
For as long as I’ve followed the economy (a long while) there’s been a “tug-of-war”, so to speak, between the diametrically opposite fears of deflation and inflation. That concern continues to this day with a recent post by @bee raising the deflation specter. And now, here we’re discussing inflation. Most would agree that deflation is the tougher problem to deal with. And, by most accounts, we came perilously close to falling into a deflationary sink-hole during 2007-2008. Let’s not forget that the Depression years were a deflationary period. One less desirable outgrowth of that lovely period was the rise of Nazism in Germany and other parts of Europe.
“Inflation can be good or bad.” Whatever failings they may have, the folks at the Federal Reserve aren’t dumb. Their stated goal for years has been achieving a 2% inflation target. And they’ve made clear they’d rather over-shoot than under-shoot. While they may not express it openly, they’re scared to death of the global economy tipping backwards into a deflationary spiral and the pain to society that would bring on. Is higher inflation coming? I think so. Invest accordingly.

My apologize, but are you trying to create a catastrophe or avoid one with FSRRX?
Here are FSRRX stats (source Portfolio Visualizer):

FSRRX has had no clear advantage over a conservatively allocated fund similar to VWINX.
It's almost 32% draw down in July of 2008 took over 2 years to dig out of. It Real return (after inflation) is barely 2% over the last 15 years. I believe Fidelity offers MM Mutual funds that might achieve this.
As a hedge against bad outcomes what about PRPFX..not perfect but better at dealing with equity market catastrophes.