There isn't much AUM at launch and PGIM hasn't seeded it with its own capital, so the ERs look huge but are capped. I have seen high but capped ERs at launches but not this high.
Alternative ways to launch funds are 1) use seed capital from the firm that is withdrawn a few years later, 2) lineup some institutional buyers/sponsors ahead, or launch a fund on institutional request(s) but open it to others, 3) use the weird subscription process of several weeks that Vanguard uses where the money collected just sits in m-mkt funds until deployed (I don't understand who these foolish investors are who fall for this).
PGAEX Prospectus from PGIM Site https://prospectus-express.broadridge.com/PNET/summary.asp?clientid=pi&fundid=74440K512&doctype=pros

The same manager in a related ~ 2 years old fund in UK : https://markets.ft.com/data/funds/tearsheet/summary?s=IE00BKV41X02:AUD

Ahhh someone's monetizing the famous buy-at-close, sell-at-open strategy that's worked well in the futures markets off-and-on for years. Interesting.

Any time I see a post about DSEEX or CAPE I think of poster @davidmoran, who from my memory was the first to bring attention to these funds years ago. I don't catch everything here, but I haven't seen David post lately. Hope all is ok.

Maybe, though recognize that correlation is not causation.
DoubleLine has not especially impressed with its enhanced version of CAPE (DSEEX). It has generated negative "enhancement" relative to CAPD over the past five years (11.13% vs. 12.50%), three years (11.35% vs. 13.50%), and one year (-8.01% vs. -5.86%).
No matter, they've both underperformed the S&P 500 over the past five years (13.09% return), three years (14.62%), one year (-1.23%). All figures from M*, through June 8th. At least through the last quarter (March 31st), CAPD has outperformed the S&P 500 over the past five, three, and one year periods, though DSEEX remains the worst of the three.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=DSEEX
(Add CAPD for performance comparisons)
FWIW, M* reclassified DSEEX as large cap blend in 2019. Until then it had considered the fund to be a large cap value fund. In contrast, CAPD (formerly CAPE) maintains its classification as large cap value.
https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/arcx/capd/performance
DoubleLine could be taking a reputational risk as a bond house by starting a CAPE ETF that might outperform the bond-enhanced DSEEX, just as CAPD has outperformed DSEEX. Or perhaps not, since its CAPE ETF is not going to track the CAPE index (unlike the equity portion of DSEEX).
The ETF's stated "objective is to seek total return which exceeds the total return of the S&P 500 index." (One might ask why then is it using the Schiller CAPE index as a reference, since that's underperformed the S&P 500 for years; but that's a separate question.)
The ETF merely "considers the underlying constituents of the Shiller Barclays CAPE® US TR USD index ... Because the Fund is actively managed, the Adviser has the discretion to invest in securities not included in the index and may over or underweight a particular sector as it deems appropriate in seeking the Fund's investment objective."
In short, "the Fund does not seek to track or replicate the Index."
CAPE ETF Summary Prospectus

It appears that DoubleLine, which manages the CAPE-Shiller strategy in a new ETF, got the desirable trading symbol away from Barclays. From my observations, Barclays ran the ETN under the symbol CAPE for several years, but it had to change its symbol to CAPD when the Gundlach team got into the ETF game. DoubleLine has run the MF versions of the strategy since inception, I believe. No idea how this played out behind the scenes. Maybe Barclays isn’t as big a gorilla as the US firm.

Checking out TIPs (and bonds) performance for the past 10 years -- which coincidentally is where Portfolio Vizualizer shows to be FIPDX's commencement, annual CAGRs for TIP, VIPIX & FIPDX clock in at 1.83%-1.94%. The CAGR of the general bond market (VBMFX) was 1.54% (all through May 2022).
By replacing FIPDX in PortViz with TLT (nominal LT Trsys), history goes back to 2004. TIP CAGRs were 4%, VBMFX was lower at 3.27%. TLT was 5% --- but with materially greater volatility vs both TIP & VBMFX.
Looking forward, unless one's view is that deflation will take hold, TIPs, post-bond selloff, strike me a marginally more attractive than nominal Trsys.
Opinions, pro or con?

One way to do it is to select a date range from the chart that incorporates the dates you're interested in (in this example three years would work). When the chart pops up move your cursor along the graph and you'll see daily dates whirring by. Find the one you want, but note you'll have to do your own math in order to determine the return during that custom period. The other way to approach it is to slide along the graph at the bottom of the chart but it's pretty fussy and difficult to pinpoint the dates you're interested in. Those are my work-arounds, so far at least.

With the preface, that I am a novice at TIPs, having thought them overpriced for so many years. --- so please pardon the following questions... I am dipping my toe in them now (via ETFs), since the general sell-off in bonds.
1.What is the rationale to buy individual TIPs vs an ETF. -- And especially VTIP, which holds short-term TIPs? any reason other than one has a finite duration instrument when buying the bond directly?
2. As I look at Fidelity's list of 2ndary-market TIPs, it appears shorter-term TIPs are still priced high with negative real-yields, while longer-term TIPs do have a modest (meager) posiitve real-yield. -- So why not go for longer-duration, especially, since the inflation-adjustment feature should serve as a mitigant to the longer duration?
3. More generally, as regards constructing the Treasury sleeve of one's portfolio, mightn't it make sense to populate the longer-duration portion of one's holdings with TIPs, rather than nominal bonds? --This would serve to protect one's buying power in the "outer years". And because TIPs are still risk-free (i.e. issued by Uncle Sam), they still seem to benefit from a flight to quality during risk-off periods. - I guess my point is if one is going to own ANY longer-duration Treasurys here, wouldn't TIPs have the edge over nominal bonds?
Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts/comments on the above.

In terms of risk, we may be talking about two different things. You're looking at short term predictions (early 2020 presaging March events) as exemplified by this IBM commercial. It dramatizes how Watson could predict that an elevator might fail without maintenance.

Morningstar is talking about intrinsic risk in portfolios, which might, I suppose, be analogized to two different elevators, one built with reliable parts and one with third rate reconditioned parts. Or two different portfolios, one built with bonds (BND) and one built with stocks (VTI).
Certainly a higher sampling frequency would facilitate the detection of short duration events. Worth doing. Standard deviation can be used in identifying changed conditions (see, e.g. Westinghouse Rules, aka WeCo Rules) so long as the sampling rate is high enough. That's different from asking whether volatility (taken over years at any sampling frequency) is a good measure of risk.
https://ats-help.com/ATS_Inspect_6_3/Variable_Data_Collect/WECO_Rules.htm

I'm really not clear on what's being said here.
The data lag issue may be explained by the use of monthly data for MPT stats by M*
BECAUSE M* uses monthly data, its MPT measurements lack sensitivity that weekly (or daily) data may capture.
These are two different issues. Lag (or latency) is merely the delay in reporting something. Sensitivity is the ability to detect small changes. M* is not saying that there's a lag in identifying risk - unless one is suggesting that there's a multi-year lag (due to monthly sampling) because some markets have been sedate for years. Rather, M* is saying that because volatility is not the same as risk, and because there can be risk without volatility, volatility may be a poor metric for it.
On a daily basis, the market is close to a random walk with a positive (upward) drift. I'm still working on finding a good citation for that. Think of it as flipping a biased coin. In the long run, you'll get more heads than tails, but toss by toss, the pattern looks random. Virtually all noise. I've played very little with daily returns and volatility, and not for some time, but what I recall is that it was not especially informative data.
Likewise, I'm not clear on what's being said here:
It IS a circular argument as yogibearbull says
What is the argument you see M* making, and why is it circular? I don't see what you're getting at.
Certainly if one assumes that volatility and risk are one and the same, then a period where volatility is low would of necessity mean that risk is low. That's not circular, it's a tautology.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/34409/difference-between-tautology-and-circular-reasoning
Regardless, volatility and risk are not one and the same. Let me try an analogy - Russian roulette where one spins the chamber after each shot.
After three, after five, after how every many shots you like, you find that you are still alive. Does that mean that there's a low risk of shooting yourself, verily, getting lower each time you survive? Or does it mean that your survival to date is not a good indicator of the risk inherent in the "game"?

That page is not substantially different from the 2020 report where the Section H options were likewise numbered H2-H7, and generally the only difference was that the years for implementation were one year sooner. See p. 31 (pdf p. 32):
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions_tr2020/summary.pdf
As I wrote above, nothing new to see here, move along. Just the same "news" pieces trotted out as though they were reporting on new proposals.
I suspect that if you go back year by year, you'll see very little different in the proposals aside from the dates. Here's where you can find earlier years:
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/

msf said:
"A bet on higher yield may pay off nine years or out of ten, or even better, but that just means that when 00 comes up, the impact is likely to be more severe. IOFIX, SEMMX and their brethren were never "cash subs", regardless of how sedate they looked before 2020."
IOFIX and SEMMX were touted as "cash subs" by some participants on another investing board.
This was before IOFIX lost 36.18% and SEMMX lost 20.85% in Q1 2020¹.
¹ returns reported by Morningstar

Nice links on that obscure history, @msf. I for those into minutiae and NYC public works history, no source can outdo Robert Caro’s The Power Broker. I hope he finishes his volume 5 on LBJ and the Vietnam years before age catches up with him (not to say that others of us are not so similarly affected).

The point in the excerpt below cannot be emphasized strongly enough. There is a reason that some bonds or funds pay more. It is called risk premium. That is not a free lunch. A bet on higher yield may pay off nine years or out of ten, or even better, but that just means that when 00 comes up, the impact is likely to be more severe. IOFIX, SEMMX and their brethren were never "cash subs", regardless of how sedate they looked before 2020.

Return-Based Risk Measurements Miss the Mark
The fundamental risks that we see in multi-asset income funds, moreover, can hide in plain view for extended periods. That is, when looking at metrics based on trailing returns, funds can look sedate until a crisis. On this front, multi-asset income funds faced a comeuppance in early 2020 during the pandemic panic from Feb. 19 through March 3.
The classical volatility measure is historical standard deviation, which didn’t signal an impending problem heading into the 2020 crisis. From 2012 up through early 2020, it would have been fair to call multi-asset income funds sedate based on it. Over this nine-year period, they had an average three-year standard deviation of 6.6%, roughly two thirds that of the S&P 500 index’s 10.5% mark. At the end of 2019, multi-asset income funds’ average three-year standard deviation was just below that level, at 6.4%.

Sure. There's the federal excise tax of 3% on interstate calls originally imposed to support the Spanish American War and removed for good in 2006.
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/557559440437EDBC8525718B005ACCCB?OpenDocument
More recently, in 2018 New Jersey eliminated its estate tax. For decades it had been that rare state with both an estate tax (on the property [estate] of the deceased) and an inheritance tax (on the amount of assets passed to the inheritors, taxed individually and based on who each inheritor was). It now has only an inheritance tax.
https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/inheritance-estate/inheritance.shtml
A more obscure one that I'm rather fond of is a use tax (road toll) imposed on vehicles using the Southern State Parkway on Long Island. Originally a dime, it had been imposed to fund road improvements. It was raised to a quarter two decades later, spurring such outrage that three years after the hike, and one year after the state took over the parkway maintenance, it was removed and the toll booths torn down.
https://www.liweddings.com/wedding-forum/for-newlyweds-only/long-island-history-did-you-know-there-were-toll-boths-on-the-southern-state-107508-1.html
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/southern/

If you believe that fossil fuel vehicles are on the way out and EVs are here to stay… what opportunities are out there as a solid risk/reward investment for the next 10 years? Everyone talks about lithium but could there be more important materials to focus on. This graphic shows the current elements in an EV: https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/evs-vs-gas-vehicles-what-are-cars-made-out-of/
Listen to educated people like Elon Musk and rare earth expert James Litinsky and you may start researching NICKEL and Graphene etc. The capital required to build out a mining operation for these materials is intensive. 10 years away to build out.
Nickel is on fire due to Russia and Ukraine conflict: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/08/nickel-price-surge-could-threaten-automakers-ev-plans.html
Glencorp GLNCY and VALE are dominant and according to Litinsky they will free cash flow themselves in 3 years. Perhaps they will be bought by an EV OEM. Musk has recently requested more mining investment.
Of course, the risk is the future battery chemistry. Will it always be lithium and nickel etc? Seems like a compelling case -these two stocks. Something to consider.
FWIW: GLNCY is up 45 percent in the last 52 weeks.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/buy-mining-stocks-growth-51631918714

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/03/crypto-firms-say-thousands-of-digital-currencies-will-collapse.html
Crypto firms say thousands of digital currencies will collapse, compare market to early dotcom days
***There are more than 19,000 cryptocurrencies in existence and dozens of blockchain platforms that exist.
Several cryptocurrency industry players told CNBC that thousands of digital tokens are likely to collapse while the number of blockchains in existence will also fall over the coming years.
Brad Garlinghouse, CEO of cross-border blockchain payments company Ripple, said there is likely to be “scores” of cryptocurrencies that remain in the future.***
we have stop investing CRYPT-BASE currencies past 3months. was a smart move IMHO. Many friends lots moderate amount of monies

Jamie always sounds to me like he’s got half a toot on. Not that I’d hold it against him. Wondering if comment was made before or after lunch? In the town I grew up in the local bankers were the worst of the lot. Rarely blew a sober breath after lunch. Re Diamon … Sometime ago he criticized crypto as “worthless.” Although it wasn’t worthless, many crypto currencies took a big hit only months later. If you listened to him, you probably came out better off.
As for that “hurricane” … A growing land war in Europe and a growing U.S. role providing weaponry; a tightening Federal Reserve; A near total Covid lockdown in China (easing at present); Supply chain shortages; Near dysfunctional politics; Growing firearm related violence here at home. 21 killed in Texas a week ago and 4 more killed overnight in Oklahoma. All told, it’s enough to make you not want to get out of bed in the morning - or buy stocks.
They all have their story to tell. And it’s hard to know to what extent they’re “talking their book” and trying to move their stock or a segment of the market this way or that. But I like to attribute to them the best of motives and like to think they’re looking out for the best interests of we small individual investors.
Others I’ve followed somewhat this year:
- George Soros thinks WW III has already begun - and I’d give about 1 in 3 odds that he’s correct, Could be catastrophic for equities.
- Ray Dalio thinks cash is trash. He’d prefer most anything to cash and has liked gold for a long time. He also thinks the tremendous wealth disparity in this country spells civil strife in coming years. Again, not good for equities.
- Rick Rieder, who’s involved in multi-asset strategies at Blackrock, loves cash presently. Interviewed on Bloomberg in the past month he commented, “We’re holding on to cash with both hands!”
- Howard Marks was on Bloomberg TV yesterday remarking on the good values that have now developed in the markets - particularly high yield bonds. His approach is to grab off whatever value he can see right away rather than waiting for the price to fall further. Overall, he views the risk markets as offering much better value than 6 months ago. And he’s picking up bargains.
- Larry Fink of Blackrock is being interviewed on Bloomberg as I write. He scoffed at Diamond’s “hurricane” analogy saying he thinks it was intended to represent just one possible outcome. Fink doesn’t think the Fed can solve the inflation problem with the tools they have. Will remain high for 2-3 years, but moderate further out. Fink commented that there hasn’t been much change in how individuals are positioned in his funds. Most are staying the course.
- I subscribe to James Stack’s InvestTech newsletter. Proprietary material. But I suspect it’s widely known that he’s been recommending for some time that individuals maintain a 50-60% long exposure to equities and hold the rest in cash + an inverse S&P fund. He’s expecting trouble ahead - not unlike Diamond’s “hurricane.” I march to my own drummer - but take Stack’s views into consideration.
- I subscribe to Bill Fleckenstein’s “Daily Rap”. When he’s not wasting time criticizing the alleged ill effects of Covid vaccines, Bill makes a compellingly bearish case for equities. (But it may take months or years to play out). Also likes gold and the metals. Been wrong a long time. But the metals are spiking big time today. Miners up 4 - 5% on the day.
Of all the commentators mentioned above, Howard Marks makes the most sense to me. Generally does. And I’ve fallen asleep more than once listing to the audio version of one of his books.

I appreciate the info about real estate funds, and the tables, but a quick search at Vanguard, Schwab and Fido shows that none of the three GO funds Mr Freeland has in the table with the best Sharpe Ratios over five years ( TIPRX VCMIX GIREX) are available to individual investors.
A broader search since inception shows the same 14 great owl funds, but again the only ones with Sharpe ratios over 1.02 and std dev under 10 and Max DD under 8% are unavailable to individual investors, and are all interval funds.
An interval fund is not traded daily, and the company is not obligated to allow redemptions at any time other than the end of the quarter and then for only 5% of total assets. If everyone wants out, too bad, even if you need the money to pay for junior's college.
While the Apollo fund apparently is available directly thru Apollo, with a low minimum, there is a sales charge.
MFO Premium search has a function for interval funds, but only to search only for them, not to exclude them.
I am glad Mr Freeland put in the hard work gathering the information, but it is less useful to us individual investors than I initially thought, as the best funds are really unavailable.