15 years is a long time. 15 years before we landed on the moon we didn't even have an orbital flight. It seems like a short time but a lot can happen in 15 years, more so with an optimistic outlook. I'm sure in 1954 there were people who said there is no freakin way we'll ever land a man on the moon in 15 years, that's crazy talk.

@LB,
My trough period intervals were taken from M* $10k growth (= reinvestments) of FXAIX.
Something seems off with your chart, as $10k in Jan of 1973 into SP500 reinvested was back to $10k by early December '76, meaning breakeven a little less than 4y later.
The US market was sideways the next two years after that, though, yes --- until the nonstop bull started mid-'78 and rolled and rolled till the late summer of 2k.
So I dunno where their 7.5 comes from.
1929 will never repeat for a whole host of reasons behind now being way different.

It's funny how most studies on market performance ignore the Great Depression as if it never happened, yet the first article does reference it:

The author does mention that this price performance ignores dividends so the recovery rate would've been sooner than 25 years with that, but I wonder how many people during the Great Depression would have had the stomach or the financial wherewithal with 25% unemployment to hold on and reinvest their dividends as the market went into free-fall.

@LewisBraham makes a good point about KGIRX. David Iben, the manager, had a successful run working for other firms, including ex-Fidelity manager J. Vinik's, before he set up Kopernik, his own shop. I guess all gold bugs have their day in the sun, the problem is the uneven returns. The Permanent Portfolio looked unbeatable for several years, and then it wasn't. For my part, I've been sucked in by "story stocks" as often as I've been sucked in by "story managers."

This is why Warren Buffet recommends S&P 500 index fund for many investors. The compounding return year after year helps to build wealth.
My kid's 529 college funds invested in Total Market Index, Total Int'l Market Index, Total bond index and Total int'l bond index fund. Eighteen years later the 529 plan accumulated enough to pay for their 4-years college tuition plus room and board. The cost basis is about 40% of the total sum after 18 years of compounding. Through monthly investment the college grew and grew. We also added our year-end bonus to the 529 fund. Asset allocation were adjusted to pay the college bills.

I completely agree with the idea that many people should pay more attention to living and less to making a living. And if you're one of the fortunate minority at risk of dying with a surfeit of cash, there are many worthwhile things you can do with that money to solve this "problem".
But I do take issue with how the figures are presented.
" the average inheritance in the U.S. being $177,000(the median is closer to $69,000)"
The two numbers come from different sources. Which is curious, because the writer had available figures from the same source (Survey of Consumer Finances) on the page he cited:
$707,291 (average) and $69,000 (median).
By mixing numbers from different sources, he makes it appear as though average and mean are not all that far apart. So don't worry when he then gives only average figures:
"The average retired adult who dies in their 60s leaves behind $296k in net wealth, $313k in their 70s, $315k in their 80s, and $238k in their 90s."
However, from the source of that quote also comes this:

The median respondent that died in their 60s had about $3,000 in liquid investments within two years of their passing, which increased to $10,000 for respondents that died in their 70s and $15,000 for those that died in their 80s.

Without liquidating or otherwise monetizing their homes (if any) many people have virtually no assets to live on.

Indeed, about 46 percent of senior citizens in the United States have less than $10,000 in financial assets when they die. Most of these people rely almost totally on Social Security payments as their only formal means of support

https://news.mit.edu/2012/end-of-life-financial-study-0803
The shift from inheritance (used in the original piece) to liquid asset data in the quotes I gave is deliberate. If we're talking about trading money for time, we're talking about the money that you have to spend, not how much your heirs will inherit.
If one has the resources, or projected future earnings, to take more time for oneself, definitely go for it. But for far more people than his figures suggest, being able to do so is only a dream.

sma3 said:
"There is no magic cure in this low interest rate environment. With a duration of 8 years, VWINX may really hit the wall if rates go up."
I quite agree with your opinion on VWINX and, as I said previously, another Vanguard fund, VSCGX, may be a better option at this time.
Fred

I had rather large positions in ARBIX and MERFX. I never lost much money but never made much either. Over last 15 years MERFX has paid out about 10% in income and the share price is up 25% Over a fifteen year period that's not much
There is no magic cure in this low interest rate environment. With a duration of 8 years, VWINX may really hit the wall if rates go up. If there is a substantial equity pull back, you could lose 10 to 15% in a week or so.
I think at these valuations you are better off DCA into a target position over months if not a couple of years, unless you understand options well enough to buy puts ( which reportedly are very cheap now)

It is confusing and very messy when dealing with portfolios of all different maturities, coupons and ratings (different yield curves). That's why it's easier thinking about these questions with a single bond or a homogeneous portfolio of bonds all the same.
If you own a bond and sell it before maturity, even assuming that rates remain the same, you'll get a bit more than YTM. This is because longer term bonds pay higher rates. Since SEC yield reflects YTM, I don't believe this return is reflected in that yield.
Think of a two year bond paying interest annually. Let's say that market rate for a two year bond is 2% and market rate on a one year bond is 1%. (This time I'll ignore pennies for simplicity). If the two year bond pays 2% each year, it will cost you $100 (par).
A year after buying, you get a 2% interest payment. You're now holding a 1 year bond with a 2% coupon (that's above the 1% market rate for a one year bond). So you're able to sell that bond for $101 (1% premium). Your net return: 2% market rate interest plus 1% in capital gain.
[A buyer of your bond, if holding to maturity would net 1% on that bond (2% coupon less 1% loss in value). There's your 4% total return over two years.]
There's no difference between you doing this with your own bonds and a fund manager doing this with the fund's portfolio. You get more total return by turning over bonds because you're taking on more risk.
When holding a two year bond to maturity the average maturity over that time is one year. If instead you sell a two year bond after a year (and replace it with another two year bond), your average maturity over time is 1.5 years. You're always holding a bond that matures between one and two years from now.
We didn't assume rates were changing here - just that we didn't have an inverted yield curve where shorter bonds pay higher yields than longer bonds.
Rates changing complicates this. If you swap one bond for another of the same maturity, nothing's going to change. It's as if you sold your bond and then simply repurchased it. Your sale price and your purchase price will be equally affected by the rate change.
But if you're selling shorter maturity bonds and replacing them with longer maturity ones, then a change in the yield curve is going to affect how much you get for extending that average maturity. In ways I honestly don't want to work through right now :-)

@Observant1
Nice article by Ben Carlson, as usual. Thanks for sharing.
I'd add Bruce Berkowitz and the Fairholme Fund FAIRX to that list.
And Bill Miller of Legg Mason Opportunity Fund LMOPX.
There is also a fund company in SF that publishes the NoLoad FundX Newsletter, which is good. And they employ a hot fund chasing strategy in FUNDX. But it too has had years of over-performance followed by years of under-performance.
c

Thanks, Crash and Starchild, for your suggestions.
PTIAX, another multisector bond fund, looks good and I'll add it to my watchlist to monitor its risk/reward performance. Certainly seems to belong in the company of PIMIX and TSIIX.
I also took a look at VWIAX/VWINX, a highly rated 40/60 allocation fund. Unfortunately, according to M*, the fund is subject to "extensive interest rate sensitivity" which doesn't work for me in the current extremely low interest rate environment. The fund will face a significant head wind if, as is likely, rates will go up over the next few years.
Hence, I am looking at another well regarded 40/60 allocation fund from Vanguard, VSCGX, that is less interest rate sensitive as an alternative to VWINX.
Good luck,
Fred

PTIAX has 3.81% yield. YTD is +5.59 and last 10 years: +5.99, maybe call it 6% (?) The monthly dividends are always bigger than the 3 cents plus a fraction I typically get from my others: RPSIX and PRSNX.
RPSIX +5.6% YTD and PRSNX +8.00% YTD.
YIELD: RPSIX 2.98% and PRSNX 3.2%.

My point with those funds (which do make an interesting list) is that value simply hasn't performed as well as blend, let alone growth. Lewis made this point as well in asking whether you were disappointed with the fund or with value in general.
KGIRX was not a fund I was familiar with. Something to note about it is that unlike most of the other better performing foreign LCV funds is that it has a large measure of EM. Really large. 43%.
I ran a few searches, and the closer one hews to low risk, foreign LCV, the more similar the performance becomes. For example, one screen was:
Category = foreign large value or foreign large blend
Large Cap Value >= 25%
Large Cap Growth < 10%
Bear market percentile < 50%
YTD return > 0
For me rapid spikes down or up don't matter. Unless one is planning on selling within a small window of time, ISTM that recovery time is more important than how deep a plunge is. Since the 2020 spike (decline) was between January 17 (when the market hadn't risen much YTD) to March 23, it seemed reasonable to look for funds to "break even" over the current year, hence YTD return > 0. (Between 1/17 and 3/23, many funds seemed to have drawdowns of 34% - 35%.)
Not too many funds pass this screen. (Variants include increasing the percentages of both LCG and LCV while keeping a significant difference between the two.) One of the few that did was PRCNX, which led me to believe you were looking for very similar funds.
Another fund that came out of that initial screen (LCV >= 25, LCG < 10) was GSAKX. This sits on the border of value and blend. It wanders along the dividing line; M* called it value in 2019-2020, but blend in the prior three years. It's highly concentrated (34 stocks), and very Eurocentric @ 79% including UK. Its 1/17-3/23 drawdown was 34.5%, just slightly less than VEA's 35.1%.
Changing the screen slightly (LCV >= 35, LCG < 25) gives a few different funds. One is LZIOX. This is a more wide ranging fund from what is generally a value shop. It's generally been blend, though it had a year as a LCG fund and is now LCV. It has a more conventional 70 equities. It has performed respectably, though it too fell 34.6% between 1/17 and 3/23. Over the past three years it has done significantly better than TBGVX.
BRXAX is another fund from this screen. It's been LCV for the past four years, but this year its portfolio is blend and M* has placed in in the blend category. 149 stocks, including a bit more than 20% EM. Likewise, it fell 34.5% between 1/17 and 3/23.
None of these funds is going to set the world on fire. They're lower risk, reasonably performing, relative value funds. In contrast, TBGVX is a "deep-ish value" fund.

Yep, I get that. But, we have to give them a nod for what they've done so far. They sure got it right ... six years worth.
Four MFO Great Owls (all those older than 3 years). Four on MFO Honor Roll (all older than five years).
They are top quintile in both absolute and risk adjusted return; in fact, three rank #1 in absolute return and one ranks #2 in their respective categories.
Waxed peers by double digits ... per year!
ARKW has delivered 43.1% annualized for the past 6.2 years ... with only 18% drawdown. That level of compounded return is an incredible number!
Here's table of four oldest funds since launch through November.

@msf. agreed- Several great ideas ! ( thanks ) and I think it has gotten a bit confusing because....
1. I asked to consider a "global blend manager" in the hopes that might put the decision making between Value & growth in the hands of the manager. Perhaps that is not the smartest way to gain the exposure that I think I need. As I stated in the opening post - it has been a long wait for the value proposition to kick in. I welcome your comments on the issue of Value vs. Growth at this time
Here are my priorities
2. I am willing to give up on the upside for protection on the downside - so I have been looking at the Sharpe and Martin Ratio, and Max DD in the MFO screener. Is there better process for evaluating the risk ?
3. EM was only referred to because I stated that I was moving on to researching small/mid and EM next/separately - I am not screening it as an alt to TBGVX.
TBGVX is 68% Western Europe 13% U.S (that slug of US probably helped the performance vs. a strict Foreign only fund - ARTKX has outperformed in 1/3/5 years, but as you point out has had steeper MAXDD in 2011 and 2018.
I am already holding MINIX, TBGVX (in a 401k that I did not sell), DFALX that I can't sell due to cap gains in it.
does that add clarity ? Your advice is welcome.

People are offering many good fund names. Though they are all over the map, e.g. global, growth (notably Morgan Stanley), EM. High risk, low risk. More clarity on what you're interested in would help.
For example, you are sick of waiting on value, but you're not sure if you want to bail on it totally. You put your five star fund(!) up against an index fund in a different category (foreign large cap blend).
There are only five foreign LCV retail funds that have posted better performance than VEA over the past 1, 3, or 5 years: FIINX, EPDPX, EPIVX, KGIRX, VTRIX. Something has to give: commitment to value or a sense of what constitutes "decent" returns.
Or perhaps it's the demand for low risk that needs to be relaxed. When a fund earns five stars, it's because of risk adjusted performance. That can be achieved either through earning outstanding returns, offering a lot of protection, or a balance of the two. TBGVX's returns have been "only" above average and average, respectively, over the past three and five years. But it still earned 5 stars over three years and 4 stars over five because its risk as calculated by M* was low.
VTRIX is one of the half dozen high performing FLV funds listed above. However, to achieve that it took on more risk - "average" per M*. You can see how the risk played out. Each year in the past decade when it lost money (2011, 2014, 2015, 2018) TBGVX out performed it by 5%-10%.
Note that M* risk is very different from max drawdown. If low drawdown is your sine qua non of risk management, then throw the star ratings out the window, because it barely registers in the calculation.
FWIW, between 10/31/2007 and 3/9/2009, TBGVX lost "only" 50.5%, compared to VTRIX's loss of 59.3%, and VTMGX's loss of 60.6%. (The VEA share class doesn't go back that far.)

@newgirl: in your list of possible international/global funds, you have several MS offerings managed by Kristian Heugh. I am very high on him and own MGGPX. For EM, I like ARTYX. I have previously opined here that global funds do the job of giving me the international exposure I want without having to screen for international funds. Believe me, I have owned the usual suspects over the years from Harbor, FMI, Marsico, etc. Nowadays, it’s global LC and a couple of SMID international such as BCSVX. Artisan and Baron also have some worthwhile global growth funds.

If over 55 years of age I would probably chose Vanguard Wellesley even though dealing with Vanguard has become an unpleasant experience. But then I wouldn't invest in only one fund.

@LewisBraham- I took note of QUSOX after your earlier comment on anther thread.
It is categorized as small/Midcap even has a small slug of micro in there - which might be of interest for a smaller allocation.
I have not compared it to other strict small Mid cap funds yet. I have been concentrating on Large or Multicap managers. ARTKX is interesting - It had less of a drawdown this year than TBGVX - and over performed . Weirdly it underperformed the pure Value fund ARTGX in several years.
It's on my dashboard. Waiting for an opportune time to invest some cash ( like the rest of the world)
Thanks ! your posts have always been very informative

I know this is sorta a ridiculous question, but I was able to increase the money into my Roth using a conversion. As I hopefully will not have to touch this, I am mulling over the best fund(s) for it. I am partial to actively manged funds, but want to avoid funds I will have to deal with the only lead manger changing or loosing it ( ie Fairholm etc) or loosing their touch (Vanguard Health Care comes to mind)
However, I also think that funds run by a committee or a computer rarely do well long term.
If things were cheaper it would easier, but I thought I would see what people think. Over the years I have had great success with BPTRX ( Ron Baron has done a great job, but is over 70 and bringing his kids into business. This gives me pause)
POLRX is another of my winners, although rather US centric.
One day the growth bias will change, but it is hard to see when if debt levels stay so high and GDP growth is constrained as a result. Firms with good growth prospects will prosper, although their valuations are very rich currently.