While historical data is interesting; I reserved any comment until I clarified the "65 years" description in the below quote. What 65 years period?
Perhaps my 1 year of Covid era sheltering has literally affected my cognitive abilities; a "can't connect the dots anymore" circumstance.
Thank you @David_Snowball et al, and don't hesitate to point out that I may have begun a cranial-rectal inversion syndrome.
Stock light version 4.0 MFO, April link

In the past, 2004, 2010, and 2014, we’re shared research from T. Rowe Price that illustrates the dramatic rise in risk that accompanies each increment of equity exposure. Below is the data from the most recent of those articles, which looks at 65 years of market history, from 1949 to 1913.

It looks to me VGHCX was a grand slam !!!
That's assuming investors have the stomach for it. It went through a patch where excluding withdrawals, it dropped 33.17%. How many people would have stuck with it, let alone taken the scheduled withdrawals, which would have increased the drop to 42.88%? And that's just month-to-month calculations. Daily peak to daily trough was likely worse.
That drop lasted the better part of two years (1 year, 9 months), and the fund took nearly an additional two years (1 year, 10 months) to recover.
Investors may have had an even harder time sticking with PRWCX: max (monthly) drawdown of 36.61% with no withdrawals, 45.38% including withdrawals. That fall took the same 1 year, 9 months as it did for VGHCX, though PRWCX recovered faster, taking "only" 1 year, 2 months.
(Some drawdown figures come from the "Drawdown" tab on the PV page.)
I'm not saying that past results including these bumps in the road aren't impressive, or don't suggest a good likelihood of doing very well by investing aggressively. I am asking, when people do encounter sizeable bumps (even with a small withdrawal rate), whether they will hang on. Unlike using an annuity, they have no guarantee of success with funds: "past performance does not guarantee future returns."
Unfortunately people have a tendency to bail at the worst times. One will do better by making a plan, any plan, whether it is self-managed retirement, an annuity, target date funds, or anything else and just unemotionally sticking with it.

Just posted all updates through March to our MFO Premium site, including MultiSearch, Great Owls, Fund Alarm (Three Alarm and Honor Roll), Averages, Dashboard of Profiled Funds, Portfolios, QuickSearch, Fund Family Scorecard, and Dashboard of Launch Alerts.
The site includes several other analysis tools: Correlation, Rolling Averages, Trend, Compare, Ferguson Metrics, Calendar Year and Period Performance.
Glancing through the Honor Roll funds, which represent best performing funds in category based on absolute return for the past 1, 3, and 5 years, you'll find some eye-watering numbers this past year.
QuickSearch, Great Owls, Three Alarm, and Profiles tools remain available to the public without subscription.
More of the latest update here.

Using Portfolio Visualizer's portfolio analysis tool I wondered if the "safe withdrawal rate" data could be used as a substitute for an annuity rate. SWR is a historical data point that changes depending on the historical start and end date. An annuity is a guaranteed income based in part on today's low interest rates. Obviously two different approaches to securing income in retirement. I'd like to consider part of my retirement income being derived from a Safe Withdrawal of stocks, bonds, and alternatives.
Exploring some older mutual funds (VWINX, VWELX, PRWCX, and VGHCX) I discovered the following SWRs (found within the Metrics tab):
VWINX = 7.18%
VWELX = 8.02%
PRWCX = 9.16%
VGHCX = an astouding 14.31%
In other words, for each $1,000 invested in these four funds, each could safely pay out their SWR each year of:
Year 1:
VWINX = $71.80
VWELX = $80.20
PRWCX = $91.60
VGHCX = an astounding $143.10 (close to double VWINX's SWR)
note: the annual dollar amount would adjust based on the annual mutual fund's dollar value at the end of each year:
Using VWINX's SWR (I set the annual withdrawal of a fixed percent of 7.18%) and I tested all four funds over the past 35 years (back tested from 1986 - 2021). All four survived a 7.18% annual withdrawal. Both VWINX and VWELX ending "cash value" were impacted by inflation. The 2021 (inflation adjusted value) of VWINX being only $567 of its original $1,000 value. Both PRWCX and VGHCX value stayed ahead of inflation while paying out 7.18% annually. VGHCX's value grew four fold over the last 35 year time frame. As a result it paid out larger and larger amounts annually compared to the other three fund choices. While VWINX paid out a pretty steady amount over the 35 year time frame (between $70 - $100), VGHCX's pay outs grew from $70 in year 1 (1987) to over $400 - $600 annually (years 13 - 35).
Most annuities don't provide inflation riders and many do not offer a cash value upon death. So strictly speaking even VWINX would be a good substitute for an annuity that pays out 7% with a ending cash value of $1,351 (equivalent to $567 back in 1986). The other three funds were an even better "annuity income" choice at that SWR.
None of these funds busted (went to zero) at this 7.18% Safe Withdrawal Rate. In fact, VGHCX's inflation adjusted cash value was $4,141...four times what was invested back in 1986. In addition, VGHCX provided larger and larger annual income pay outs that kept up with (exceeded inflation). Will the healthcare sector, and more importantly this fund, continue to offer such great performance?
Here's the link to PV with these four funds. The "Metrics" tab has the data on SWR (Safe Withdrawal Rate). Let me know if you find a fund with a SWR higher than VGHCX (14.13%).
PV Link

"In addition, while DIVS is GAINX, Morningstar has struck all historical data for the fund (and is currently treating DIVS as if it first saw the light of day last week)." - David.
If true, this could be a problem if trend persists.....I'm surprised it is being handled this way.
I would think it would be a high concern for a PM to extinguish a good track record over many years by rating services.

I decided in February to put a little weight in commodities. Chose a broad basket ETF for that bet, DBC. It's been up and down and I haven't made much on it yet, but I do think there is merit in owning for the next few years.

@Mark I'm not really disagreeing with you about purchasing return of capital at a discount. There is a value to the amplification of the yield from the discount regardless what the source of the yield is. But I do think there is often an intention to mislead investors with managed distributions. Consider why CEFs exist at all. At a discount they can be great investments. But think about the time when they're first issued. Who exactly is buying these CEFs at the IPO at full price and why are they buying them? In fact, it may even historically have been more than full price for CEF IPOs as the issuer and underwriter would charge commissions. In my experience, anecdotal though it may be, new CEF IPOs are sold to not bought by unsophisticated investors, often senior citizens seeking high income for retirement. The fact that the income could come from a return of capital eludes many of them. The ETF is a far more efficient lower-cost mechanism. And I think there is a reason why in recent years there has been a decline in new CEF issuance and especially permanent-capital CEF issues, as opposed to target date ones with a liquidation date that make more sense. The new CEF is generally a ripoff, and the high payouts they have, which lures income hungry seniors, often an illusion propped up by return of capital and/or leverage, which works well on the way up and cuts badly on the way down. By contrast, the deeply discounted CEF can be a great investment, regardless whether its income comes partially from return of capital or not.
In other words, regarding the aforementioned story this thread began with, UTG maintaining its distribution is far less interesting to me as an investor than what its current discount is to NAV, how well its manager has performed versus its category peers on a total return basis, what its fees are, how much leverage it has, and whether the manager has done shareholder-friendly things like buybacks when the discount is wide. The distribution itself when return of capital is involved becomes a somewhat illusory source of return and shouldn't be the primary selling point.

If a CEF had 95% invested in one security, it would cease to be a CEF and be in violation of the Investment Company Act. ... In other words, I think this isn't a particularly realistic example of a "constructive return of capital."

It's a simplifying assumption, not intended as a realistic example. I make similar simplifying assumptions when posting on bond fund statistics. I often reduce the portfolio to a single bond. One can then reach the same conclusion for the general case by summing the demonstrated effect over N securities in the portfolio.
Side note: I took a quick look through the '40 Act because I wanted to suggest that my example likewise would violate the Act for an RIC. But while Section 5(b)(1) sets min diversification requirements for diversified funds (open- and closed-end), Section 5(b)(2) does not restrict the concentration of nondiversified funds.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1879/pdf/COMPS-1879.pdf
https://www.sec.gov/investment/fast-answers/divisionsinvestmentinvcoreg121504htm.html
Can you give some indication of how a highly concentrated fund would violate the Act? I would have thought that FAIRX was similarly in violation for years. (It currently holds 58% in St. Joe, and 18% in cash.) Real question.

MEASX got off to a good start.
The fund outperformed 98% of its category peers for the trailing three years ending 12-31-16
(10.9% return) while exhibiting low volatility (std. deviation: 8.91).
However, it has mostly disappointed investors since 2017.
MEASX differed from most 'Pacific/Asia ex-Japan Stock' funds.
It had a relatively small average market cap along with hefty stakes in Vietnam, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. M* moved MEASX to the 'US Fund Miscellaneous Region' category sometime in 2020.

I follow this rule over 20 years and I have done great. I never invest based on prediction or pat attention to them, I invest based on what happened lately, and it never disappointed me. The market tells me what works and what doesn't and why I mentioned the funds/index above. When most stocks+bonds don't work+VIX is very high I start selling.
In the last 12 years I was out 12 weeks which is about 2% and avoided the largest meltdowns.
YTD:
Stocks: SPY =6.35% and very close to all-time high
Bonds: Munis + Multi/Non Trad funds are doing great
The above is already working for a year and many still looking, why?
KISS. As long as it works there in nothing to do or prepare.

”... an interview a couple of weeks ago where she responded to direct criticisms from Jim Cramer and it was pretty strong counter.”

I’d love to see Louis Rukeyser interview her. Alas - 15 years too late.
@Bud - Here’s a thread on ARK started by @LewisBrahm in February you might be interested in.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/57784/digging-into-ark-innovation-s-portfolio
Added - Thanks to Bud for the interesting Morningstar story. While I don’t get “good vibes” from this fund or its public profile, I’ll agree some exposure in the ARK companies / style would enhance many portfolios. Not sure if ETF investors are capable of “stampeding out” of an ETF the way those in open end funds can, but that type of rapid exodus would be perhaps my biggest concern.

I must have blinked. I don't recall Wellington being reopened after it was closed to third parties in 2019:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/48728/vanguard-wellington-fund-closed-to-third-party-intermediaries

In recent years, fund companies have experimented with various ways of closing funds. One thing I’ve seen more often is funds closing their doors halfway: They close the fund to investors using fund super­markets but leave them open to those who invest directly with the fund company.
This really serves two purposes. First, it slows down the rate of inflows. Second, it leaves more profits for the fund company because it doesn’t have to pay a No Transaction Fee plan provider like Schwab or Fidelity the usual 35 basis points in fees.

https://www.morningstar.com/articles/699524/these-medalists-are-closed-but-left-the-backdoor-open
That was written in mid-2015, and included Wellington as one of the funds that were "halfway" closed at the time.

I’m such a simpleton... with rare exception (bonds for ballast? / which I exited) - I compare all equity funds I’m considering to the S&P 500 benchmark. If that’s what Buffet advises to do with retirement and plans to do for his family...it seems reasonable to me. I think FLPSX is an ok fund. But I did exit from it several years ago when it was no longer a small cap. It’s “not fair” to compare it against SPY but I do... like all my funds. When I do, SPY outperforms most years but not YTD. Joel is having a good year so far.

Assuming arguendo that your claim about Exhibits A-D is correct, they don't refute the statement that "past performance does not guarantee future results." Exceptions do not refute a general statement.
A more convincing argument could be made if one looked at the worst performing funds. Because, unlike good funds, poor funds have a greater tendency to continue performing as they have in the past. See Carhart's landmark paper.
VWELX hasn't been outperforming its benchmark over time: not over 1 year (16.79% vs. 20.70% for its benchmark), not over 3 years (9.80% vs. 11.67%), not over 5 years (11.51% vs. 12.66%) and not over 10 years (9.44% vs. 10.46%). These numbers are as of Feb 28,2021 and come straight from Vanguard using Vanguard's chosen blended benchmark.
https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/performance/vwelx
Let's assume that you're right, that over its lifetime (since July 1, 1929) Wellington did outperform. That would mean that after outperforming for its first 82 years, through Feb 28, 2011, it underperformed its benchmark overall for the next ten years.
Its four score and two year long outperformance didn't serve as a guarantee of future outperformance over time - over the subsequent decade.
FLPSX shows similar underperformance in the past decade, though Fidelity never explicitly names the R2K as its benchmark. Fidelity just displays FLPSX's performance relative to the R2K and bases part of the manager's bonus on how well it does relative to the R2K (see SAI). (Here's a chart showing FLPSX vs. the R2K and the S&P 400; it underperformed both over the past decade through March 30, 2021.)
1 year (33.38% vs 51.00% for R2K), 3 years (9.26% vs. 14.87%), 5 years (12.37% vs. 17.92%), 10 years (10.73% vs 11.86%). These figures through Feb 28, 2021.
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/performance-and-risk/316345305?type=o-NavBar
Unlike Vanguard, Fidelity does compare the fund's lifetime performance with that of its benchmark, so we don't have to make any assumptions. Since its inception on Dec. 27, 1989 through Feb 28, 2021, FLPSX outperformed its benchmark, 13.35% to 10.19%.
Which means that a couple of decades (21 years) of outperformance did not guarantee a future of outperformance over the next decade.

@AndyJ, read several discussion that the 10 years treasury yield will reach 2% by year end. Not sure about holding too much lower quality or junk bonds while trading off the negative correlation to stocks. One can shift some of the bonds to dividend oriented and balanced funds, but this change the overall risk profile. While the Fed is maintaining a near zero interest rate, this low yield environment is challenging for income investors.
@bee et al, REITs are slowly coming back from the depth of drawdown. Shopping malls and hotels were heavily impacted by the lockdown during the pandemic as many tenants cannot pay their rent or low usage. Other sectors of REITs are not as bad. Situation is improving and there is still a way to go before reaching the height prior to March 2020.

Hi @bee and @hank
We've not held FRIFX for several years, but it remains an interesting holding within "its" real estate category.
The fund used to be a mix of equity, HY bonds, preferreds and convertibles.

Agree with the consensus. But looking back to a year ago, the 3 funds I cited had very good years - even starting from a rather low interest rate level. (Price’s GNMA has been a laggard for years - plus they had an incredibly short duration on it when I looked at it around year end, around 4-5 years.)
2020 1-year returns (From Yahoo)
PBDIX +8.15%
DODIX +9.45%
PRGMX +4.21%
Average GMMA fund + 5.65%

“The stock market is rotating ... “

What if instead of rotating the markets were really only levitating? Alan Greenspan infamously remarked that you can’t identify a bubble until after it implodes. So, if Ol’ Al couldn’t tell ahead of time, who are we to know?

At a tad more than FD1000’s hypothetical 3% inflation rate, inflation at 3.25% yearly would result in a 10% increase in the cost of living in 3 years (Inflation compounds in a manner similar to compound interest.) Not to say that would be good or bad - just to demonstrate the cumulative effect a seemingly small level of inflation can have over time.
While I’m disappointed at the shallow depth of the T. Rowe Price article I linked, the real news here is that this conservative outfit chose to mention the possibility of significant inflation at all. For a number of years their take was that price inflation would remain subdued (largely correct). So for them to acknowledge the possibility at all is worthy of note.
Always best to think about an issue before it arises - “To the early bird goes the worm ...”

Not to be too incredibly derivative, and this was from a post from the great Chowder, of Seeking Alpha (and the “Chowder Number,” or dividend yield plus growth) fame, and its slightly dated (especially after a run up in utilities over last few weeks) dated 2/28, but its related to discussion:
[Quote] On the dividend front, I have declared tomorrow as Utility Monday. I will be adding to the following utility companies.
AWK .. BEPC .. NEP .. WEC .. RNRG .. XEL.
Most of the focus here is on clean energy.
Utilities seem to be undervalued to me and they can almost be considered growth assets going forward just to achieve new price highs. Although D is a favorite best-in-class at JP Morgan, I already own a large amount of them and would prefer building the other utilities up in size.
A news blurb from Barron's:
Utility company stocks ( XLU, VPU) and funds are a cheap way to plug into the seismic shift away from coal and toward wind and solar power over the next 15 years, providing a potential boon to both the environment and investors, according to the latest Barron's cover feature.
"Utilities are a stealth green energy play, with much lower valuations than most alternative-energy providers and less risk," says Hugh Wynne, co-head of utilities and renewable energy research at SSR.
The conventional view is to buy tech or renewable companies as a way to participate in the energy transition, but the "most efficient and optimal risk-adjusted manner to participate in the energy transition is through well-run electric utilities," says George Bilicic, vice chairman of investment banking at Lazard.
Barron's identifies companies that offer attractive yields and inexpensive valuations, including Alliant Energy (NASDAQ: LNT), American Electric Power (NASDAQ: AEP), CMS Energy (NYSE: CMS), Dominion Energy (NYSE: D), Entergy (NYSE: ETR), Exelon (NASDAQ: EXC), NextEra Energy (NYSE: NEE), Pinnacle West Capital (NYSE: PNW) and Xcel Energy (NASDAQ: XEL).
Morgan Stanley analyst Stephen Byrd favors American Electric Power, which he calls a "coal-heavy company that is moving away from that in a big way" and thinks the stock, which is down 20% in the past year, could rise as its transformation continues.
Reaves Asset Management's John Bartlett says CMS Energy is "cleaning up its emissions, while holding increases in electric bills to around the rate of inflation."J.P. Morgan's Jeremy Tonet likes Dominion as a "best-in-class, pure-play regulated utility with attractive green growth plans," and Entergy, which has one of the best hydrogen logistics networks on the Gulf Coast. [End quote]
BEPC (Brookfield Renewable Resources, not K-1 issuing)....NEP (yieldco like AY)....CWEN/CWEN.A (another yieldco)....NEE (utility sponsor of NEP, and the leader in renewable utilities). Also HASI, a REIT that serves renewable energy projects. These are some other ideas. NEE has a yield around 2%, BEPC and HASI about 2.5-3%, NEP about 3.5%, and CWEN almost 5%. May be getting a little far afield for @Crash :)

But there is good stuff in there - admittedly you have read it before:
“Whereas valuations explain very little of returns over the next one to two years, they have explained 60-90% of subsequent returns over a 10-year time horizon,” the firm noted. “We have yet to find any factor with such strong predictive power for the market over the short term.”
Looking ahead Subramanian envisions more muted returns, or about 2% per year for the S&P 500 over the next decade. Including dividends, returns stand at 4%. The forecast is based on a historical regression looking at today’s price relative to normalized earnings ratio.“