I’m not sure how Christianity entered the picture here? Maybe Wood’s religion?
I can’t see much difference between stopping at a convenience store in Michigan on the way home from work and picking up a 6-pack of beer along with a half-dozen state lottery tickets and than watching the state sponsored “live drawing” on TV that evening, and wagering $5 or $10 online on a sports event you’re viewing at home.
There are a lot of vices in this world. Gambling is one. And more so when it involves amateur athletes. I agree. But, as think @Mark suggested, you can visit any live casino and bet on a college game just as you would at home. I don’t think @LewisBraham has been in many casinos. I haven’t either. But the few I have been in are highly addictive in atmosphere. The sounds, the flashing lights, the skimpily clad waitresses. All of this is compelling to the addictive personality who tends to stay too long at the bar and run up an excessive betting tab. I avoid live casinos like the plague.
The online casinos are taxed heavily. I don’t think 100% of it goes to education; but a lot of it does. In fact, it’s the heavy state taxes on profits (50% in NY) that is making it difficult for the online casinos to stay viable. Be careful what you wish for, because that revenue is critical to the government and would need to be made up from other sources.
Come to think of it … Any one of us can log-in to Fido or Schwab or VG any time, day or night, and place a “bet” on any number of highly speculative stocks, currencies or ARKK-like funds. But, we don’t call it “gambling”. It’s “investing.” :) Yes, the motive and purpose may be more noble - but the addictive nature and potential for great harm are very similar. If you doubt my analogy here, consider the very words that graced the home page of “Fund Alarm“ for many years. It was a line from the Kenny Rogers song: “The Gambler” .

You are correct, I inadvertently read off YTD rather than 2021 numbers in some cases. Thanks for spotting my errors!
SNGVX really did lose almost a full percent, but you have the correct figure for BBBMX.
GILPX did eek out a 0.02% gain (still effectively zero) rather than lose 0.07%.
But MERFX did really lose 0.19% (still virtually zero), VNLA did really lose 0.18% (again, virtually zero).
BSV did worse than I reported, losing over 1% in 2021.
T-notes (maturities of 2-10 years) saw yields go up by 0.6% to 0.9%:
2 year rose from 0.11% to 0.73%,
3 year rose from 0.16% to 0.97%,
5 year rose from 0.36% to 1.26%,
7 year rose from 0.64% to 1.44%,
10 yr rose from 0.93% to 1.52%
Though yields on T-bills rose only slightly, with the shortest maturity bills even having yields fall:
1 mo dropped from 0.09% to 0.06%
2 mo dropped from 0.09% to 0.05%
3 mo dropped from 0.09% to 0.06%
6 mo rose from 0.09% to 0.19%
12 mo rose from 0.10% to 0.39%
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yieldYear&year=2021
Since interest rates did not move in tandem, how a portfolio was affected depended on its distribution of bonds. Two portfolios with the same average duration could have all bonds of the same, relatively short duration (thus not much affected by rising rates), or a mix of very short term and somewhat longer duration bonds (with the latter losing more value).

I would probably opt for STIP for short-term TIP exposure, lower fees 0.05% versus 0.15% and shorter maturity bonds--0-5 years--so less sensitive to rising rates. VTIP also has lower fees. But TIPS in general look pricey right now.

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.

It was a tough year in this space, but your numbers seem off based on my personal data and MS. BSV was down 1.09 but BBBMX was up 1.18%. For the year as a whole in 2021, my "near cash" holdings were down .04%. Not great but I can live with it. Wish there were better options but I've yet to find one's I'm comfortable with. Hard to argue about RPHYX, which I hold, but would be reluctant to put big dollars into (or most of these vehicles). While things like SNGVX had a bad year I'm OK with that (based on rising rates) rather then risking a serious loss on defaults as is a bit more likely with most of the others. It happened with ZEOIX, which recovered, but stung when it happened.

I compiled all the funds listed on this thread(except two, see my prior comment) into a watch list so that I could run some metrics.
(1)Total of 42 Funds ranging in age from 1.9 to 39 years. Youngest is BLNDX and oldest is PRPFX
(2)Top 2 lowest Max DD(life) are RPHIX(1.1%) and BSV(1.4%). Top 2 APR(life) are BLNDX(19.7%) and SWAN(14.4%)
(3)Zooming out to 25 years(this period covers the dot com and great recession crashes), Top 2 APR's are PRBLX(11.7 with a Max DD of 35.6) and TRPBX(8 with a Max DD of 38.4)
(4)Zooming out to 15 years(this period covers the great recession crash), Top APR's are PRBLX(12.4 with a Max DD of 35.6) and TRPBX(7.6 with DD of 38.4)
(5)Zooming into the period of the Super Bull 2(as defined by MFO Screener to be the period 200903 to 202112) the Top APR's are QQQX(17.4) and PRBLX(17.3)
(6)Over a 15 year period, the highest 3 Yr Rolling Avg APR is PRBLX(12.3)
PRBLX has a strong showing in the 3 periods(albeit arbitrary) I looked at. I plan to dive deeper into this one.

I have owned VTMFX for several years and think it is a "file away and forget it" fund, although I am not sure it is really "defensive"
1) it is 50% equities and 14% FAANG and their sibs. A day like today with the Nasdaq down 3% will hit this fund harder than a more broadly based 50% fund.
2) Their 50% bonds are largely Munis, so will likely be less sensitive to interest rates etc. The duration is over 4 so with a rapid rise in interest rates, especially if due to increasing inflation that tanks the stock market, their bond portfolio may not be much help

@msf said,

A similar fund (the only similar fund I'm aware of) is VTMFX. Cheaper and has outperformed in almost all calendar years. But, one needs a Vanguard account to invest in it.

USBLX would be similar to VTMFX...long term VTMFX has out performed USBLX
Could the .5% extra ER on USBLX (ER is .59%) be the main reason for VTMFX out performance?
VTMFX ER is razor thin at .09%
.5% on 10,000 year 1 = $50. From 1995 to 2000 both funds doubled (so USBLX paid out 50+60+70+80+90+100...etc each year more than VTMFX). A better way of putting it is VTMFX "reinvested that extra .5% ER" by not distributing it to management. 26 years later this becomes 10's of thousands of dollars ($85K vs $65K).
Is there a calculator for this @msf?

added a conservative allocation fund TAIFX to taxable (really like its holdings, muni’s along with strong underlying equity funds).
A similar fund (the only similar fund I'm aware of) is VTMFX. Cheaper and has outperformed in almost all calendar years. But, one needs a Vanguard account to invest in it.

This is a great thread, appreciate everyone's views. Personally I use rolling 36 month stats to gauge a fund because I do not believe a 12 month eval period(even one over many years) is indicative. Bill Miller outperformed S&P each year for 15 or so years I believe in the late 90's and early aughts and I recall he stated something to the effect of the streak being a quirk of the calendar.
For defensive alts I like ARBIX, SFHYX and SVARX. I have positions in the first two.

ARKK was off about 3% just before 1:00 PM. Down over 5% YTD. A friend of mine at work years ago used to say, “Off to a roaring halt!” Don’t think he coined that one, but certainly describes the action for ARKK early in the year.
Part of that cargo, DKNG, is currently flirting with $25, having been around $75 earlier in the year. Suspect it will close below $25. If I were Wood I’d consider tossing that one overboard.

Keep in mind that David Rosenberg is among generally bearish strategists and he has been so for a long while.

Yes, of course. I should note that (while not a sharp strategist like Rosenberg) I am also bearish on many risk assets. (I’d compare investing in today’s environment to navigating a minefield.) So I tend to post articles that coincide with those views.
Note that Rosenberg isn’t calling for a “meltdown” this year or next. He’s concerned about over-valuation in many (not all) risk assets … but also believes that situation could persist for many years. One must also take note of the euphoria among small investors. In the past that has often been a sign of market tops. That all makes our jobs as investors harder. But neither he nor I would recommend avoiding equities or other risk assets (like higher yielding bonds) altogether.
If you are young (under 50) I believe you should be dollar averaging into equities for the long run - regardless of your view of valuations. Time cures a lot of missteps. If you are much older and in “preservation mode”, keep in mind that a 25% portfolio loss requires about a 33-34% gain just to get back to break-even.
Thanks @Catch22 for the insights.

I read David Rosenberg for a few years after the market melt of 2008 and agree with @yogibearbull, that Mr. Rosenberg, much of the time seemed to be on the edge of "don't invest in equity right now". Perhaps his investments were heavily damaged in 2008 and that he remained "twitchy".
FRIFX is a unique fund in the real estate area, maintaining somewhat of a balance between equity and bonds. Many of the bonds ARE NOT investment grade. I did invest in this area after 2008 for a few years.
Surprisingly, in the chart below; FRIFX did well during the chart period, relative to the more heavily positioned in equity of the other funds in the comparison.
Being curious about the investments mentioned in this thread:
Below chart is for FRESX, VNG (Vanguard real estate eft), FREL (Fido real estate etf) and FRIFX
CHART Chart limited to start of Feb. 2015 due to an inception date for FREL. At the left bottom edge of the chart, one may select the "red and green" icon to display a bar chart for the returns period.

Happy New Years,
I just posted an article on Seeking Alpha regarding using the business cycle to evaluate funds. While the title is for Retirement Portfolios, the focus is on the business cycle including funds that do well or not during normalization of monetary policy. It includes a model portfolio for Vanguard and Fidelity.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4477697-positioning-retirement-portfolios-2022
Regards,

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