@Baseball_Fan.... To be nice, I'll mention that Hussman's Total Return fund (HSTRX) only had 2 down calendar years out of 18, with a +5% average return over the life of the fund.
Not sure which of his funds you dabble with. His newer Allocation fund (HSAFX) has done kinda ok so far.
But yeah, he missed the Fed boat completely, and he never corrected/adjusted appropriately. Stubborn.

Thanks @msf for the enlightening retort to the article I linked from the WSJ. I agree that the lending ability of mutual funds has been public information for many years. The % of fund investors actually aware of it, however, may not be high.
IMHO this article doesn’t appear to be up to the general caliber of the WSJ. I’ve gone back and updated the OP by providing the author’s name which is Dereck Horstmeyer. Horstmeyer in the piece referesences an assist from his able assistant, Pamy Arora. Apparently, Arora did some of the number crunching.
Who is Derek Horstmeyer? “Derek Horstmeyer is an associate professor at George Mason University School of Business, specializing in exchange-traded fund (ETF) and mutual fund performance. He currently serves as Director of the new Financial Planning and Wealth Management major at George Mason and founded the first student-managed investment fund at GMU.” Source

Author: Derek Horstmeyer (with assistant Pamy Arora
“Unannounced to their investors, mutual-fund managers will often lend the shares they hold to short sellers who bet against particular stocks.By doing so, a fund manager can earn a little extra money (on the interest charged) and reduce the overall costs to operate the mutual fund—hopefully passing on the cost savings in the form of a lower expense ratio to the investor. But the flip side is that if the manager is lending out a good amount of the fund’s holdings, this means there is a lot of demand by other investors to bet against the exact holdings the fund manager has in the mutual fund.
“When all is said and done, if your fund manager is lending out a good amount of the underlying portfolio, is this a negative sign for future returns? The answer is a resounding yes: Active fund managers who lend out more than 1% of their holdings on average during the year underperform their fellow mutual-fund managers by an average of 0.62 percentage point a year across multiple asset classes …
“In the U.S. large-cap arena, we can see that if a fund manager is lending out shares, it isn’t a good sign for the fun fund performance. Active large-cap fund managers who lent out more than 1% of their shares averaged a return of 12.93% a year over the past 10 years. Active large-cap fund managers who lent out less than 1% of the shares averaged a return of 13.29 a year over the past 10 years. This amounts to a 0.36 percentage point difference in returns a year. … When we look at mutual fund managers who have lent out more than 2% of their portfolio on average, the results look even worse for lenders …“
WSJ July 6, 2022
Interesting Article - However, “total return” doesn’t tell the whole story. Article doesn’t address impact on fund volatility or downside performance. My (uninformed) guess is that the lenders perform better on those scores, even while generating lower overall returns.

The Ulcer Index measures the length and duration of the maximum drawdown over a period of time which in this case was three years including the 2020 bear market.
Each bear market is unique, but I believe that it is a great relative risk indicator. Over the past three years the S&P 500 had an UI of 5.2.

Each month, I download hundreds of ETFS and generally require that they have at least three years of history, and at least $100M in assets before up loading them into my Ranking System. I maintain a list of funds that have at least $100M but aren't three years old. This is a short listing of the funds:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4438107-infant-exchange-traded-funds-attracting-inflows
ESGV, BBAX, USSG, SUSL, IVOL, VSGX, EAGG, RPAR, VCMDX, PTBD, SWAN, DRSK, NTSX, NUSI, LDSF, XLSR, JCPB, PTIN, MUST
All but three of these funds have lower risk than the S&P 500 as measured by the Ulcer Index. These funds either have positive three-month trends or inflows. All but one fund have earned more than 6 percent annualized.

Well, Hussman is still the king of perma-bears. Does anybody hold any of his mutual funds? Even his defense is questionable, and there is no offense.

He’s done somewhat better recently. But for 10 years you’d still be underwater. Wonder what they’d say if you phoned and asked them why that’s the case. I did something like that once years ago with a different fund. The response was: “Our manager has been positioning himself.”
HSGFX 10-Year Chart from Lipper (shaded dark blue.)

I like to look at upside and downside cature ratios of mutual funds to see how defensive a fund is. The Morningstar site provides this data (look in the "risk" tab). When I use Portfolio Visulaizer's data it appears inconsistent with M* (FWIW). You may to constrain PV to the last ten years of data to match M*'s data. PV data can go back to 1985 if the fund is that old.
One of the best funds for this type of risk/reward is PRMTX. Here's its risk profile (Upside=114 / Downside=65):
https://morningstar.com/funds/xnas/prmtx/risk
Some others I hold:
FSMEX (100/58)...100% of the upside with 58% of the downside
PRWCX (117/88)
PRNHX (108/69)
PRHSX (98/71)
PRGSX (122/86)
A fund like CTFAX has a (78 upside cature/13 downside capture) so this fund captures 78% of the upside (reward) while only taking 13% of the downside risk. Pretty good risk/reward.
SVARX works hard (ER over 3%) to produce an upside of 128 and a downside of (-53). Help me understand the negative downside capture number.
Some other notables in this thread:
TGHNX (123/72)
Explanation of Upside and Downside Capture:
https://freefincal.com/how-upside-and-downside-capture-ratios-are-calculated/

Taking a quick look at MWFSX, I couldn't help but notice that M* reports a rather suspiciously high SEC yield of 8.55%! Just curious how that is possible in today's low interest rate environment? Certainly raises a red flag for me.

MWFSX : ER is a turn off for me. Wavier will expire the end of July '21 , if I'm reading fees correctly.

I did address these, but tersely, and I concur with the concerns.
Fees: I suggested MWFSX as an alternative to EIXIX, which has a fee waiver expiring end of Oct '21. Without speculating on the relative likelihood of either waiver being extended, it does not seem to me that this is more of a concern for MWFSX than for EIXIX.
As stated, the high SEC yield comes from the low average weighted price of the holdings - under 90% of par. Think of YTM for a single bond. The greater the discount, the greater the YTM. The SEC yield of MWFSX is not coming from the coupons, which average 3.52%; that's not much more than EIXIX's 3.26%. EIXIX's SEC yield, while not as stratospheric, is above 5%, which is still rather rare outside of EM bonds and TIPS.
Long duration bonds can sell at large discounts simply because there are so many below market rate semiannual coupon payments for which the discount must compensate. But when the duration is short and there's still a significant discount, that's a strong indication that you're deep into junk. Indeed, over ¼ of MWFSX's portfolio is below B, while its duration is a modest 2.94 years.
At least I know that, because Met West (now a TCW subsidiary) is a transparent company. I know that over 60% of the portfolio securities (weighted) have durations under 1 year. I have no idea what the average credit quality or duration is of EIXIX, let alone a bar chart of credit quality or duration for its portfolio holdings. I just have to assume it's in a similar ballpark to MWFSX based on the few data points already described.

Hi @Rickrmf,
I have put a lot of time into analyzing defensive funds. My ranking system is based on seven factors applied equally to every fund. After the article last month I now apply the seven factors differently to Mixed-Asset Funds, Uncorreclated Funds, and the remainder of the stock and funds. I also apply them differently to funds by MFO Risk levels. For example, I do want good performance for the Mixed Asset Funds and Uncorrelated Funds, but momentum is not a determining factor in finding these funds.
Combining these funds can reduce volatility. You asked about GAVIX/GAVIX. It is one of my poorer performing funds in the short term but not the long term. That is the benefit of combing uncorrelated funds. Some will be up while others are down so that they do not all rise and fall at the same time. I thought about selling GAVIX, but now classify it is as an uncorrelated fund and am content with it.
I also own COTZX/CTFAX, DIVO, ARBIX and TMSRX. You may also want to look at CDC which I also classify as an uncorrelated fund. I am working on an August article which covers this topic.
We may well be in a year like 1998 or 2007 with good recent performance. However, Federal Debt to GDP is almost as high at during WWII. The federal deficit is also high. The rise in asset prices is due more to massive stimulus than growth. Even conservative Vanguard is estimating very low growth over the next decade due to high valuations.
For the past 120 years the stock market has returned 6.8% plus inflation. Limiting downside risk in this environment is likely to lead to outperformance as it did following 1998 and 2007. Stimulus has also inflated expectations. Notice how Mr. Buffett always seems to be sitting on cash when the bear market arrives.
Regards, Lynn Bolin

Great point. The FAANG stocks (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google (Alphabet)) have dominated the broader US index for the past 10 years while the value stocks trailed by sizable margin until late 2020.
As @hank suggested above, it would be a good idea to review the top 10 holdings in each funds in your portfolio on a regular basis. Case in point, the value oriented Wellington fund, VWELX, now holds: Alphabet Inc, Microsoft, Facebook and Apple among the top 10 holdings per 5/31/2021 reporting. The fund is now categorized as blend according to M*. In the same period, Wellesley Income, VWINX holds more the traditional financial, pharma and consumer staples stocks. Also Global Wellington holds only Microsoft as #4 position. Likely I will move fund away from Wellington.

Here's a more detailed history of AMG:
https://www.referenceforbusiness.com/history2/13/Affiliated-Managers-Group-Inc.html
Until I checked, I also thought: "Affiliates operate independently" and "AMG invests in independent investment managers and allows them to remain independent". But it surely can't be coincidence that a large number of AMG branded funds had complete management changes and sometimes radical objective changes in or around March.

AMG is not as hands-off as I once thought.
The firm replaced third-party subadvisors on thirteen mutual funds earlier this year as part of a broad strategy change. AMG's affiliates will now manage $5B in assets previously subadvised by these third parties.
"'Over the past two years, we have evolved our global distribution resources and clarified our strategy for the benefit of our affiliates,’ said AMG president and chief executive Jay Horgen. ‘Focusing our US wealth platform exclusively on in-demand strategies from our affiliates will ensure that clients are choosing from highly differentiated products.'"
Citywire
AMG Fund Updates

Lots of ways to slice and dice this one. I did some revamping recently. (Same funds / different way of viewing) - Risk Assets (equity-centric & commodity related) are targeted at 35% of portfolio. Alternatives & Fixed Income are each targeted at 32.5%.
Truly “defensive” to me would be the fixed income portion. Despite all the talk about rising rates, a diversified income approach concentrated in short to intermediate duration bonds (and maybe some TIPS) stands to loose less during a time of market duress than either equities or alternatives.
However, @Rickrmf is asking, I suspect, more about the alternative type funds and @Derf seems to confirm that. A lot of people seem to view TMSRX as an “everything or nothing” option. What I do within the alternative sleeve is mandate that at least 40% be in TMSRX. The remaining 60% (or less) is split between PRPFX (which I’ve held for many years) and Invesco’s ABRZX.
Surprisingly, TMSRX has been around for 3 years already! So throwing together TMSRX’s 3-year performance of 6% at a 40% weighting and than adding equal portions of PRPFX (12.9% for 3 years) and ABRZX (8% for 3 years) I get something in the vicinity of an 8.7% average for the 3 alternative funds working together over the past 3 years. One can look at returns for PRPFX and ABRZX farther out than 3 years, of course, if they wish.
Like I said earlier, alternatives aren’t necessarily risk-free. But over time they should prove more stable than equity-centric or 60/40 funds. Of course, their return over longer periods should also be lower.
Footnote: I was curious how my tracking fund PRSIX stacks up against that 8.7% return for the alternatives.
PRSIX: 3 years +9.5% // 5 years + 8.78% // 10 years +7.7% (close)

Complete text of article from Barron's: Affiliated Managers Group, the big holding company for asset managers, has agreed to buy Parnassus Investments, the socially responsible investment firm, for $600 million, according to a person knowledgeable about the transaction.
The move demonstrates the popularity of environmental, social, and governance, or ESG, investing. In recent years, Parnassus, based in San Francisco, has grown swiftly as the vogue for sustainable investing strengthened and as the firm developed a reputation for reliably good performance. It has five mutual funds, all fossil-fuel free.
Sustainable investing, also known as ESG investing, has been a huge and steady trend in recent years. In 2020, nearly a quarter of all fund flows went into sustainable funds. That could gain strength as U.S. retirement plans open up to sustainable investing.
About a third of the $51.4 trillion of U.S. assets under management is sustainably managed, according to US SIF, the trade group for the sustainable-investment industry. Indeed, a survey by investment manager Schroders found that 69% of retirement-plan participants said they would or might increase their overall contribution rate if their plan offered ESG options.
Both Parnassus and AMG (ticker: AMG) declined to comment or confirm the terms of the transaction. The transaction is subject to the agreement of Parnassus fund shareholders.
Parnassus is approximately 35% owned by its employees and 65% by the founder, Jerome Dodson, and his family. It oversees $47 billion. AMG invests in independent investment managers and allows them to remain independent while providing capital, distribution, and other capabilities to affiliates such as AQR Capital Management and Yacktman Asset Management. It has roughly $720 billion in assets under management.
In recent years, some of the most venerable names in U.S. sustainable investing have been purchased by larger entities. Calvert Research & Management was acquired by Eaton Vance in 2016, which in turn was bought by Morgan Stanley (MS) this year. In 2018, Pax World Management was acquired by Impax Asset Management (IPX.London). Trillium Asset Management was purchased last year by Australian financial services company Perpetual. This year, AMG bought 15% of Boston Common Partners, while Boston Common’s management team and principals retained 85%.
AMG has agreed to pay Parnassus $400 million in cash on closing and an additional $200 million one year later. There is an additional performance fee, according to the person familiar with the transaction. As part of the transaction, Parnassus CEO Ben Allen and chief investment officer Todd Ahlsten, both longtime employees, are signing contracts to remain with the firm. Ahlsten is also a member of the Barron’s Roundtable.
Founder Dodson, 78, a longtime star investor, stepped back last year, leaving Parnassus Endeavor Fund (PARWX) and the funds’ board of trustees. Dodson founded Parnassus in 1984 with $350,000 from friends and family.
Write to Leslie P. Norton at [email protected]

In 1997 my stock walked around 200 acres baa-ing or naa-ing. I had 250 shares of baa and 50 shares naa. My “stock” broker would buy the sheep and goats at last Saturday’s auction price minus 4%. In 1983, I sent a dozen lambs to market and got $100 a piece, in 1999, I sent 100 lambs and got $37 a piece. Soon all I had left was dirt and debts which will be the title to my country and western song if I ever write the lyrics. Fortunately over time the dirt grew in value enough to cover the debts with a little left over to start a handyman business in town. I will always know those years, and yes, with fond memories.

Here’s another one …
http://www.funds.reuters.wallst.com/US/etfs/overview.asp?symbol=DUST.K
DUST is down nearly 50% since inception (2010) and has lost more than 70% of its value over the last 3 years. This one bets against gold, employing 2X leverage.
(“Rules by Which a Great Fortune May Be Reduced to a Small One”)
With both of these funds, I think they’re meant more to be traded by experienced hands in the game than average investors. Read somewhere that some die-hard gold bulls use DUST temporarily to hedge their gains after a big run up in gold’s price. A bit disillusioning to know that some actively followed gold bulls may be shorting the stuff whille continuing to preach its virtues to their followers..
All the above is too complex for me. I’ll stick to a conservative static allocation with occasional underweighting or over-weighting of a component plus regular rebalancing.

For many years the Yahoo historical data for funds included capital gains in the "dividend" historical data. Some time in the last three months, only "dividend-dividends" appear in the amounts. (Go look at a fund that pays sometimes-whopping CG but not income like RYPNX for proof.) So back to scraping prospectuses for the data.

For every OEF I've checked for the past six months, Yahoo stopped counting cap gains during year-end 2020 and has not corrected the problem. Of course that's made a hash of any total return calculations that include that time, given how many funds handed out large capital gains distributions then.
And, mirabile dictu (as old Latin students tend to shout at times), Morningstar has become the better source of distribution info. Plus, for mutual funds, M* is much more timely now than Yahoo, which had been taking a good month at times to post OEF dividends. Looks like they may be getting a little closer to timely lately, though.

Thanks @bee
You reminded me to link this week’s Wall Street Week from Bloomberg. I’ve really grown to appreciate this one-hour show. When it first aired a couple years ago I didn’t think it was very good. Don’t know if it’s really better now or if maybe my expectations now are less. Somewhat unfortunately, I think, they named this one after the old Rukeyser show. Comparisons are inevitable and nothing, including this one, compare well against that classic.
Larry Summers may be bright, but his appraisal of markets late in the show makes about as much sense as I do after 6 drinks. I’m going to have to listen again to see if I can discern what he’s saying. Might be something really profound. :)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2021-07-03/wall-street-week-full-show-07-02-2021-video

For many years the Yahoo historical data for funds included capital gains in the "dividend" historical data. Some time in the last three months, only "dividend-dividends" appear in the amounts. (Go look at a fund that pays sometimes-whopping CG but not income like RYPNX for proof.) So back to scraping prospectuses for the data.
For 30 years I've kept a database of weekly quote data for 50 or so funds, etfs, and indices, including distriubution data. So goes the last vestige of usefulness for Yahoo Finance for this, unless you like spam from crypto pump and dump schemes. I switched to Tiingo for my weekly quote update long ago when Yahoo dumped their finance API, and I recommend it. It's free for modest use; they seem to make money by charging for more advanced and real time data.

Hi @Simon
While the tilt of Mr. Snowball's monthly commentary (over the years) and Mr. Bolin's current articles may be directed more towards capital preservation; one has the full discussion forum available here to seek any and all investment opinions with posting the proper question(s) to discover appropriate and proper suggestions that you may find worthy.
While some of the old farts who regularly post here may be 20+ years your age; do not assume they are not growth investors; or that their investment path has not included growth in their portfolio to arrive at it's current value.
The Start New Discussion icon and selecting either Fund Discussions or Other Investing is the start point to begin your query, of your topic.
I also suggest reviewing the Discussion board at least on a weekly basis to discover if a post is related to your inclination and investing style.
Regards,
Catch

“Optimism is as American as hot dogs and apple pie. Too much optimism, though, is about as good for you as eating a few dozen hot dogs and slices of pie. In a recent survey of 750 U.S. individual investors, Natixis Investment Managers found these people expect to earn 17.3% this year, after inflation. That might not sound like pie in the sky. The S&P 500 returned 18.4% last year, counting dividends, and is up 15.9% so far in 2021. Recent past returns always mold future expectations.
“Over the long run, however, the people in the Natixis survey anticipate earning an average of 17.5% annually, after inflation—even higher than for this year. That’s up from the 10.9% long-term return they expected in 2019, the previous round of the survey. It’s also more than twice the return on U.S. stocks since 1926, which has averaged 7.1% annually after inflation. It’s more than triple their 5.3% return over the same period after both inflation and taxes, according to Morningstar … The biggest winner of all over the 10 years through the end of May was Tesla Inc., up an average of 59.1% annually …”
Full story appears in The Wall Street Journal July 3, 2021