Thanks for the reminder about PURIX.
"Publicly available information on Fisher's funds and strategies showed mixed performance.
The Purisima Total Return Fund, for example, returned well under half of the S&P 500 Index
in its final 10 years before it was liquidated in 2016, according to data compiled by Bloomberg."
Link

While I'm hardly defending Fisher here, comparing PURIX (Purisima Total Return Fund) with the S&P 500, as done in the cited article, is misleading.
From the fund's final prospectus, dated Dec 31, 2015:
"The Fund seeks to achieve its objective by investing in a portfolio allocated between domestic and foreign common stocks and other equity-like securities ..."
The benchmark given in the prospectus is the MSCI World Index. The fund still significantly underperformed that benchmark (by around 0%-25% depending on timeframe). Lackluster at best, but nowhere near as great an underperformance as the article asserted in comparing the fund with the wrong benchmark.
FWIW, from that prospectus, the performance of PURIX ("The Fund’s year-to-date return as of September 30, 2015 was -5.43%"):

Liquidation was about six months after the prospectus:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1019946/000089418916009530/purisma_497e.htm

I'm buying VGSH and VGIT each time they hit 52 week lows. Looking to capture decent yield for the first time in years, and treasury's will still be inverse to equities in a real crises as opposed to just rising rates. Feeling good about this, short-term pain for long term gain. I'll start nibbling at EDV when the 10 year crosses over 2%.

Good entertainment but dreadful substance. I watch CNBC every morning and have for years. Before the big run in energy Cramer was calling big oil dead money and uninvestable, said that ESG meant these could not be in mutual fund portfolios. This week he was praising Exxon like it's Apple from 15 years ago.

Thanks for the reminder about PURIX.
"Publicly available information on Fisher's funds and strategies showed mixed performance.
The Purisima Total Return Fund, for example, returned well under half of the S&P 500 Index
in its final 10 years before it was liquidated in 2016, according to data compiled by Bloomberg."
Link

He's offered some decent prognostication commentaries regarding markets and investing over the years but I would bever trade or make specific investment decisions from his show, which he even admits is entertainment first.

@Mark,
Thanks for the link.
Market prognosticators make predictions that are often forgotten by investors.
These individuals' past prediction history can be very revealing.
The majority of "gurus" listed on the Guru Grades site have an accuracy rating of less than 50%*.
I was surprised to learn that Ken Fisher had the second highest accuracy rating (66.4%).
I've been bombarded with ads from his firm, Fisher Investments, over the years.
*I haven't researched Guru Grades' grading methodolgy.

This job report released today is the main cause of the spike in rates.
Story
ISTM the Fed’s control farther out (10 years) is minimal. Simply jacking up the overnight lending rate (which has been signaled in advance) could have the opposite impact on the 10-year bond if it causes investors to think the economy is about to slow. They might actually sell equities and buy bonds for protection. On the other hand, if the Federal Reserve stops buying bonds or begins to sell off their huge existing balance sheet that should cause longer rates to rise, as there’d be a larger supply of bonds looking for new owners.
It’s worth considering the effect on various types of hybrid funds. Balanced or allocation funds holding longer dated bonds will suffer inordinately. So will many hedge-type funds. Funds like TAIL (I own), SWAN, and DRSK invest mainly in bonds (around 90% of their assets). The remaining roughly 10% is used for options trading designed to protect against equity market downside.

If one could reliably predict that variance (1.51%) 10 years in advance (as in the case of fixed rate mortgages) I’d be moved.
But I don’t know how to forecast that far out. I find the two funds’ returns over a full decade remarkably similar considering all the unknowns that exist over that long a period. I’ll continue to hedge my bets by holding both in roughly equal amounts. Should those past numbers hold into the future, I’ll see a difference (loss) of roughy $2,150 over the next decade for every $10,000 invested. Averaged out over 10 years that’s approximately $215 per year or 60-cents a day on a combined $10,000 investment - the added cost of spreading out risk.
Great number crunching from everyone. The visual from @Observant1 is very impressive.
Afraid I couldn’t even name the current manager of DODBX today. (Low in celebrity status). Am aware that fund may soon be undergoing some revision by D&C.

The ten year numbers are also the difference between a 197% cumulative return and a 240% one. Both calculations are correct, just a difference in perspective, one cumulatively from the initial investment, and one the percentage of difference—14.4%—between the end investment numbers. For a $10,000 investment, it would be the difference between a $34,000 end investment after ten years and a $29,700 one. The more money you invest, the worse those differences seem.

Thanks for the fact checking. Remember the old Avis commercial from the 70s?
“We’re #2. So we try harder!”
In another year after DODBX has pulled ahead for 10 years, please run those numbers again.

I'm fairly certain the difference between a 13.01% annualized return and a 11.50% one over ten years is more than 14.4% cumulatively, more like 40 percentage points if this is correct: https://investor.gov/financial-tools-calculators/calculators/compound-interest-calculator I think it is the difference between a 239% cumulative return and a 197% cumulative one from the base investment, although I'm tired and my math could be off.

To say “Over 10 years, it leads DODBX by only 1.5%” annualized and assume that is a small amount I would suspect misunderstands the power of compounding. But I haven’t done the math in this case.

For 15 years PRWCX outperforms DODBX by 2.44% PER YEAR, that's a substantial difference.
9.87% vs 7.43%.

One of the things I’ve noticed on MFO Premium and Morningstar results is anything with technology held up well in 2020 and has skewed volatility rankings when searching for something less volatile lately. It’s probably skewed things for 10 years, but doesn’t look like it will work going forward if this trend continues.

:(

PRWCX down -1.16% today.

I don’t care if PRWCX is up or down. Just tired of Giroux being worshiped at the alter!
Over 10 years, it leads DODBX by only 1.5%. The gap has been narrowing for a year or more. And DODBX did slightly better today.
10 year performance from Lipper as of yesterday:
PRWCX +13.01%
DODBX +11.50%
Not to trash PRWCX (I own it). Just don’t believe in hero (or fund) worship.

Yes but think of how much they've gone UP over the past many years.....
But sadly mass-market psychology (and/or lack of experience) doesn't always understand that context.

@Derf- I don't understand your suggestion of a connection between Apple, Amazon, and Google. While we don't use a smartphone or Kindle, we do use Apple desktops exclusively, Firefox browsers, and do purchase from Amazon very frequently.
On those platforms we've had no problems of any kind. As a matter of principle for at least fifteen years I've done everything possible to avoid use of any service offered by Google, as it was evident to me many years ago where this whole tracking/privacy/advertising thing was headed.
With respect to Amazon, certainly there's a great deal of search operation within Amazon itself when you're looking for various products. I have no idea if Amazon does all of that itself, or possibly uses Google or some other search provider to help power it's internal searches. In any case, I've never experienced any suggestion of a connection to me as an Amazon customer and Google.
As a general comment on the whole tracking/privacy/advertising issue, we have never joined any "social" organization such as Meta (nee "Facebook") which on the face of it has absolutely no reason for existence other than to abuse user privacy for financial profit. Immense profit, at that.

Buffett’s original advice (quoted by @bee) was initially offered 8-10 years ago as I recall. Go back and check the major indexes than (much lower). But I won’t dispute that he probably still adheres to the recommendation made when he was a youthful 82 or 83.
And we did “bat that one around” quite thoroughly here 8-10 years ago when it was first announced. Geez - would have been sometime in the first 2 or 3 years of MFO’s existence. Thanks @larryB for posting the question. All of us can reflect / learn from this.
For continuation of thread …

Gentlemen: Thanks for the thoughtful replies. As far as using WB as a model that has to be a non starter for most seniors. A 90 % equity allocation ? Everyone has a different set of circumstances. As for us, our withdrawal rate is essentially zero and I have no need to maximize returns. I do, or will have a need to simplify our already simple portfolio at an equity position close to our current allocation. Thanks again for responding.

@Mark -- the metaverse is more than a name change or re-brand as i understand it. Zuck has been working for sometime on related projects (oculus). I don't think it's smoke and mirrors.
That said, i struggle to see the allure of a all-encompassing virtual reality platform (although i had a junior colleague tell me few years ago that many of her peers were actively planning to live the majority of their lives in the virtual world).