https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-05/etfs-show-balance-is-shifting-in-favor-of-emerging-market-stocks
ETF Buyers Prefer Emerging Stocks Over U.S. Shares, Gold, Bonds
**Fund buying EM stocks heads for biggest inflows in two years
Earnings outlook, relative valuation back case for EM stocks
If capital flows into U.S. exchange-traded funds are any indication, investors have begun to favor emerging-market stocks over almost every other asset class -- including U.S. equities...
Another interesting idea, EM could be good vehicle to invest med long term

I agree with @Stillers in that “conservative allocation fund” might dictate something more conservative than many suggestions here for @sma3’s sister.
I’d begin by asking her how big a drawdown she’d be comfortable with over a 1-3-year period. If inclined to pull the money out after a 10% downdraft, than funds like PRWCX wouldn’t be a good choice. I think Giroux is a bit optimistic in his recent annual report when he states his fund’s second goal: “Preserve shareholder capital over the intermediate term (i.e., three years)” - But hats-off to a manager willing to be that specific. Not many are.
In looking forward to the day when I may no longer want to monitor, or even think about, my investments, I have my eyes set on PRSIX. Recently opened a small position in the fund. Yes - bond holdings in any fund are concerning. The good managers, however, diversify those into varying durations, varying credit risk and EM markets. Some employ hedging tactics as well. So don’t judge the book by its cover.

Hi Jon. Nope. But that's a good one. For example, new GOs, old GOs. Ditto with Three Alarm. Perhaps last month's MFO Rating? Will noodle.
In this month's update, I notice DODIX is back as a GO, after a short hiatus.
There is a lot of historical info, like Calendar Year ratings, back to 1960, as applicable. And, some unique evaluation period, like listed below, which may provide some insight.
Another subscriber recently asked about a metric that evaluated near-term (like 3 month trend) versus long term (like 5-10 years), which I find interesting.
Thank you though for the suggestion ... subscribers get a month free each time they offer a good suggestion or catch something amiss.
c
Some unique evalation period on MFO Premium's MultiSearch tool:
Full 1 [Vietnam] - 196812 To 197212
Full 2 [OPEC-Reagan] - 197301 To 198708
Full 3 [Black Monday-Clinton] - 198709 To 200008
Full 4 [Dotcom Bubble] - 200009 To 200710
Full 5 [GFC] - 200711 To 201912
Full 6 [CV-19] - 202001 To 202101
QE 1 - 200812 To 201003
QE 2 - 201206 To 201312
Normalization - 201601 To 201812
ZIRP - 200812 To 201512
Obama Bull - 200903 To 201612
Trump Bump - 201701 To 201912
Dec '18 Selloff - 201812 To 201812
CV-19 Bear - 202001 To 202003
QE Inf - 202004 To 202101
Irrational - 200003 To 202101

Not trying to have innuendo in my writing, sorry. I mean that I don’t think the invention of nuclear weapons was as beneficial for humanity as that of penicillin, yet the free market tends to treat these innovations equally or, worse, favors whichever one is more profitable to sell. The subtext to the notion that more regulation is bad for innovation is that all technological advancement is good and the government should just get out of the way. Also embedded is the idea that unregulated businesses themselves don’t try to stifle innovation when it hurts their bottom lines. We probably would’ve had the electric car fifty years ago were it not for the big auto and fossil fuel companies. Government officials in the U.S. are ostensibly elected by the people who may or may not want more regulation of certain technologies. CEOs are not elected by the people and often do as they please regarding technology so long as it makes them and shareholders money. If that means developing technology that manipulates you into buying certain products, voting for certain candidates and invading your privacy so be it. If it means creating technology that stifles innovation by smaller competitors also so be it.

@WABAC- I'd be surprised. Judging by his posting here for a number of years John is just a sucker for come-ons. If it's too good to be true, John will be among the first to bite.

“Many believe that the recent rise in US treasury yields has crept up on the Fed policy radar and that the natural next step for the Fed is to hint at and eventually deliver a yield curve control (YCC) policy ...”
Thanks @bee - I’m guessing that the government’s capping, controlling or limiting long term rates would work about as well as capping wages and prices did some years back. Inflation was at only 9% in ‘73 when the caps were imposed. Later in the decade it soared to well over 12%.
Nixon’s Wage & Price Freeze - 1973
The Fed and other central banks might achieve some control over longer rates by buying up large quantities of long dated bonds. That would push rates down temporarily. But how long could they keep it up?

Hope my light-hearted remarks above didn’t offend. I’ve owned TMSRX nearly from the start. You’ll do better in a low cost equity fund over a longer time period. But for those with shorter time horizons or who are skeptical of current equity valuations it’s a decent alternative. If you read the prospectus you’ll realize the fund pursues 5 (or more) different investing styles. Last time I checked, each approach was being managed by a different person. The fund’s goal is to make money in any kind of equity market. Up, down, sideways.
Derivatives? Of course. Shorts? Yes. Higher fees? Yes - but reasonable compared to peers. This is an area of investing where more funds fail than succeed. My modest investment rests partially on years of experience with T. Rowe and a belief that if anyone can make this approach work, they can. Notwithstanding the above - I fully expect the fund to experience some 5-10% down years.

Bee's "Ignoring Energy Transition Realities as We Greenify" discussion is important, and addresses quite a number of aspects which I will not discuss here.
I've taken the unusual step of opening a separate "chapter" on this subject, so to speak, because it seems to me that we, as a nation, are blithely stepping off a cliff without a whole lot of contemplation of the rocky landscape below.
Bee's discussion, like most others on this subject, makes some assumptions that I seriously question. Those assumptions go to the very heart of the issue: is it even realistically possible to have this electric "Greenification"?

***************************************************************************
As I write this, the last post in Bee's discussion is from kings53man, who contemplates a comforting scene of "thousands/M of electric vehicles [charging] in the night". This is absolutely not to poke fun at kings53man, because his scene is actually a pretty common picture promoted by the Green folks.
Now, before the bricks start flying, let's establish this: I fully understand the climate dilemma, agree that humans likely are major contributors to the problem, and that "something" major needs to be done, and soon.
What I have a great problem with are some of the blithe assumptions seemingly thrown out as "solutions", with little or no challenge from the standpoint of practicality. To keep things reasonably easy to contemplate, let's confine our picture to the United States.
OK, postulate that in "x" number of years no more internal engine vehicles are going to be produced. Anyone wanting a vehicle will need to be driving electrics. Fine... one problem solved.
Energy. It comes in lots of different packages. To list just four: coal, natural/synthetic gas, gasoline/diesel, electricity. To help visualize the issue, consider each energy package as a number of boxes- that number being relative to the amount of each being currently used. The total amount of energy needed is equal to the volume of all of the various boxes.
Keeping things simple, lets assume that one box of energy is equal to any other box of energy, and that any kind of box may be transported over any kind of energy distribution network: a mental picture of boxes being transported across the country through trucks and tankers, or more weirdly, shoving their way through pipelines and thin electric grid wires.
Now, the reality is that all of the presently existing energy transportation networks are pretty close to operational capacity. There's simply not a huge amount of extra room just waiting to be used on the existing electric grids or fuel pipelines.
***************************************************************************
OK, coal is obviously a loser, and can be replaced for the most part by natural gas. So that means more boxes of natural gas, fewer of coal. This is actually under way, and seems pretty easy.
BUT: natural gas is now deemed unacceptable also, and the proposed premise is to substitute boxes of electricity. Now things are getting a bit more complicated. First of all, the electrical distribution grids of the United States do not have the capacity to transmit a significant additional number of energy boxes.
Let's step back for a moment and try to visualize a couple of huge mountains of energy boxes. First, those boxes needed to support our national vehicle fleets. Second, the boxes needed to supply heating and cooking for homes and workplaces. It's being proposed that all of those boxes are to be transported somehow over our already stressed electric grids. To me, this is a typical picture of political operators who haven't the faintest idea of the actual practical realities of electrical transmission. Very much like the politicians who are responsible for the Texas power grid network.
Let's think for a moment about the actual efficiency of various energy types. Yes, electricity can certainly be used to generate heat, and fairly easily too. Unfortunately, it takes significantly more than one box of electricity to equal the heat energy in one box of natural gas energy. In other words, electricity is simply less efficient than natural gas to transport or generate heat.
Well, that's something that obviously needs more thought, so let's look instead at vehicles. Again, to keep things fairly simple, let's ignore large trucks and similar equipment, and just consider the average automotive vehicle.
OK, first, lets look at the mountain of energy boxes now supplied by gasoline or diesel fuels, and try to visualize those boxes also being stuffed through the national electric energy distribution systems. H'mmm- that's quite a puzzler also. Existing grids were largely built when the country was less populated, and it was a lot easier to construct major infrastructure without lawsuits and protests. Not suggesting that situation was ideal- simply stating a fact.
When pundits and promoters talk about the "electric grid system", most of us compose a mental picture of huge steel pylons with heavy electric wires marching across the land. We think something like "well, those really aren't all that pretty, but then the odds of having one of those in my backyard are pretty slim, and most of that stuff is someplace else anyway".
Really? The next time you're out and about take a moment and look at the wiring on any overhead electric distribution system. Try to imagine having to either replace most of those wires with much thicker wires, or alternately, to double or triple the number of wires. Take a close look at some of those power poles, and note the large metal enclosures which are mounted there. Those are transformers, and they will also need to be either much larger, or have many more of them. Speaking of the power poles themselves- do you notice that many of them are already pretty full of stuff, and that there really isn't a lot of room for more stuff?
Well, perhaps you're fortunate, and live in a nice middle-class area where everything is neatly underground and out of sight. Sorry- get prepared for a lot of digging and streetwork- all of those systems will need substantial upgrades also.
Wow! And how exactly is all of this going to be paid for?
***************************************************************************
Well, let's assume some sort of miracle on that, and consider how each new electric vehicle is actually going to receive it's energy packages via the grid.
Right! We're back to looking at "thousands/M of electric vehicles will charge in the night". Sounds easy enough. It's not too difficult to image a cozy scene of middle-class detached homes with one or two electric vehicles happily guzzling boxes of electric energy while their owners sleep away the night. OK, that's under control.
But what about the huge number of Americans who live in apartments, multi-family housing, or who need to park their vehicles on the street because they don't have suitable garage space?
And, thinking about this a little more, exactly what kind of plugs and extension cords will all of this need? The present vehicle charging systems don't just plug into the nearest 120 volt outlet with a #14 extension cord from Home Depot. No, each charging station needs to be installed with a power source that is pretty heavy-duty and able to handle the increased load.
Has anyone, anywhere, even begun to think through the financial implications of any of this? We have a substantial percentage of Americans who even now can barely keep food on the table. And they are going to have to install an expensive charging system in older homes which would need significant wiring upgrades to even accommodate this?
So now we are telling those people "sorry- but having a vehicle is just for the better-off folks"?
***************************************************************************
I've deliberately only touched on a few of the aspects of this whole thing. Having spent much of my career in electronics, I naturally tend to look at things from a somewhat technical point of view, and fully understand that others may not do so. But, as demonstrated here in California, and also so very recently in Texas, placing ignorant political activists of any persuasion in charge of problems requiring some degree of interest in and understanding of technical reality is not particularly helpful.

Thanks @Sven and @Baseball_Fan for the comments.

” I never quite understand gold as an investment ... “

@Sven - I doubt very many, including myself, understand how it behaves. It’s always had kind of a “doomsday” following (the end of civilization crowd). I think the wild swings are associated with very large holders “playing” the market. Likely these guys (hedge funds, etc.) are making money whether the price rises or falls. They’re loaded with algorithms and smart traders able to predict what we Tom Dick and Harry are likely to do - in the same way professional gamblers know how to game the system and take advantage of the unsophisticated. (Remember we’re talking about a relatively narrow market.)
Personally, I’ve had a mild fascination with the metals since the 80’s when gold shot up from around $100 to $800 in a few years. That was a period of double-digit inflation which I’ve never forgotten. 14% mortgages on new homes were common. The items in your shopping cart sometimes increased in price before you got to the checkout. Of course, it’s said that investors often fight “the last war.”
The best arguments I hear are that the central banks are debasing the currencies and eventually will get caught between “a rock and a hard place” - unable to support the equity and bond markets any longer. Gold may benefit. So might baseball cards, rare art and antique autos. Most of my holdings are pretty mundane. So, a small weighting to a mining fund does add some “sparkle.” Nothing wrong with gambling a bit with a small part of your holdings IMHO - and while doing so you might learn something that helps you longer term.
@Sven - I’m surprised at the recent success of PRPFX. Hard to explain. Of course this one tends to swing up and down, with investors rushing in at the highs and bailing out at the lows. 5-6 years ago you would have had a hard time giving it away on this board. (I’ve long owned the fund).

So .. I think we can all agree without fed stimulus, handouts etc, we'd likely see another great depression. Might see one eventually after fed says no more. Where does this sheet show leave us?
Many think over next 10 years we'll be lucky to see 1% returns in stock market
Do you know of any 10year single A bonds that are paying over 2%?
Hide out there and in tbills, waiting for the cathie Wood tesla stock market crash
Timing market yes, but better than losing 25% in two weeks time
Posting for entertainment purposes only. Due your own due diligence
Good luck to all,
Baseball Fan

Very recently, the 10-year T has been the hot topic. Rising rates, so other stuff gets shuffled around or actually suffers, performance-wise. I like to take a long-term view, for planning purposes. I do my homework, choosing funds. Bond funds I own:
PTIAX 5.03% over the past 5 years, and 5.5% over the past 10 yrs.
PRSNX 6.03% past 5 yrs, and 4.7% = past 10 years.
RPSIX 5.66% = 5 years and 4.6%= 10 years.
********************************************
Bonds are not stocks. Whether up or down, they don't typically roil the portfolio, the way some specialty stock funds do. I like them because they are doing quite nicely even IN a near-zero interest rate environment. I won't ever hold complicated instruments like double-inverse options. I like plain vanilla. The last time I was able to find a simple, plain vanilla bond offering at a rate over 5.5% was in 2003, when I bought a 10-year Israel "zero," purchased and denominated in dollars. Nearly doubled my money, in 2013, when it matured. I won't buy them anymore due to Israeli political policies. And last time I checked, they're not offering those good rates anymore, anyhow.

@JonGaltIII et al
I''m not pushing having bond investments. Too many variables for each individual. The write is about a simple 50/50 of equity and bonds over time.
I offer this real world example starting in 2006, and will provide the past 10 years return.
A 529 educational account was established in 2006 with the state of Utah; using Vanguard funds. One may pick an established blend from aggressive-conservative, as set by choices offered by the 529; or one may "build" there own. Please keep in mind that until a few years ago, one could only change the investments 1 time per year. This limitation is now 2 times per year. So, one is at an almost "set and forget it" mode.
We set our own, being 50/50 with VITPX and VBMPX. The expense ratio for the funds are .02 and .03%. VITPX holds 3,400 equities and VBMPX holds 18,000 bonds. YOW !!!
The 50/50 ratio is required to auto balance once per year. So, the ratio has never traveled to far outside of 50/50.
The 10 year total return for this blend of 2 funds is 8.705%.
I've used FBALX as a benchmark for our own investments to discover how much of a smart arse or dumb arse we may be at any given time. FBALX is high on the list of balanced funds in it's category.
FBALX has a 10 year annualized return of 10.83%.
The overview for us being that the 529 is doing well as a quasi conservative/moderate allocation blend.
Most folks should be very pleased if they can obtain ongoing returns that meet or exceed 8% on an annualized basis. Many trained professionals do not.
Okay. Away soon to have a very small tubular rod placed into the upper arm and move a bit of vaccine into the muscle. #2 it is.

@catch22 I should have qualified it with "compared to the S&P 500 index". Not necessarily a fair comparison - just a competely different strategy. Invest in equity vs. bonds. Appreciate the responses to this thread and learning different rationale. I'll let others provide some chart its.
Someone recently sent me a link to a discussion Dave Ramsey was having on "not holding bond funds" and what he believes about proper allocation. I think it's worth a listen (even as it's simplistic and controversial) - he draws a correlation between average life expectancy and what those bond funds can/can't do for you between retirement 65-90 years of age: htt
ps://youtu.be/yqMCTSnJ6Y4?t=5169 I would argue that his "growth and income fund" does indeed contain some bonds.
Note: I added two spaces between htt and p so that you could copy and paste. When it embeds in this post - it doesn't fast forward to the spot in the clip where he talks about allocation.

Bond funds are essential to most portfolios unless you have the stomach for watching your life savings cut by 50% at any given point in time (as per VTI). Of course as interest rates rise many bond funds won't do well but some will do just fine (e.g., DHHIX, FAGIX). So, in part it depends on what you mean by "bond fund." I like to hold about half in funds (mostly high yield) that will largely follow equities but with less SD, and half with things that will lose as interest rates rise but will likely act as a counterbalance to an equity decline (e.g GIBLX). Also, not to state the obvious, but the idea that interest rates must go up has been a losers bet for years. I saw Minerd on CNBC yesterday who is rather confident interest rates will be going down, a lot. No investment can work in every environment and trying to time which will work best and when has also been a sucker's play for the most part.

Hi @JonGaltIII

but for the last 10 + years it was a bad mistake

I'll play "chart it". Give me 5 bond fund tickers that you're not happy about over the past 10 years. They don't have to be anything you hold or have held. What would you prefer to be charted as a baseline, the comparative? A balanced fund, a blended equity fund?
And yes indeed, there have been and will be bond funds that are never properly managed or the mandate tended to be out of favor for too long.
Not any different than equity funds that look good as a concept but timing or management get things wrong.
'Course, what one is attempting to do with a bond fund is critical, too; relative to a total portfolio.
Take care,
Catch

Because year after year my bond funds have done well and continue to do well. In some years there have been losses of less than 2%. These losses are more than made up for in the next year with gains of 7 or 8 or 9%. For years now experts are saying bonds will lose money and yet my bond funds and the bond portions of two balanced funds are doing fine. Or they sure seem to be doing fine.

I’m just slow to change. 20 years ago bond funds comprised 30% of my portfolio. Than 10 years ago it went to 25%. This year I cut it to 20%. Oh - I’ll get down to 0 eventually ...
Of course, if you sell those bond funds you need to move the $$ into something else. So those much smarter than me here can comment on where to move that money. I’m not convinced cash today will beat even the very low returns of short duration bonds.
Yes - you can bury your money in a tin can in the back yard. I suppose. Or, on a wing and a prayer , you can throw everything at stocks - even though you’re nearing 80. Stretching out the time horizon is an option. Maybe to 95? Or 110? Doing so would allow you to maintain a higher level of portfolio risk.

With interest rates and yields where they are ... why own them?
With Bonds... are you/we managing for the exception vs. the rule? I'm starting to believe we are. I own several bond funds JIC (just in case) - but for the last 10 + years it was a bad mistake. Perhaps Buffett is correct: "Bonds are not the place to be these days...” in his recent annual letter. So - asking the community here: Why are we smarter than Buffett?
With bonds barely outpacing or not outpacing inflation... even those focused only on income -why would you or do you own them? https://www.theceomagazine.com/business/finance/berkshire-hathaway-warren-buffett/
This is a person I follow and offers somewhat of an explanation why I have a "limited" exposure to bond funds: https://ofdollarsanddata.com/why-buy-bonds-now/ <--- That said, it still begs the question on whether we are managing for the exception vs. the norm. "Returns for the next decade are looking grim" says the author.
Edit: Adding this link: https://www.captrust.com/even-with-low-interest-rates-your-portfolio-still-needs-bonds/
Reading this post promoting diversification with bond funds ... it contains so many caveats "Given our lower-for-longer view on interest rates, our expectation for bond returns over the next few years is muted." + "With interest rates near zero and unlikely to move much in the foreseeable future, performance prospects for high-quality fixed income look unappealing." ... It's enought to confuse even the brightest investor.

There are so many kernels of wisdom in this post. I hope everyone keeps posting and sharing their viewpoint. I hold a few similar funds of @stillers but its so interesting to see peoples approach to choosing funds. Like @WABAC - ER is important to me as well. So - different strokes for different folks. But - starting the post and then the comments are so worthwhile. Plus - they have the added benefit of 3 years from now - someone searches up IQDAX - they will see what people were thinking.

Aside from the environmental waste disposal problem and labor/community radiation exposure problem, the cost advantages of nuclear don't appear to be there. From the previous link:

Existing nuclear plants have relatively low operation, maintenance, and fuel costs compared to many fossil fuel plants; however these routine costs still make nuclear power economically uncompetitive in comparison with natural gas, wind, and solar.
New nuclear plants are another matter altogether; their continuing high construction costs make them uneconomical. Between 2002 and 2008, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists. In reality, even those astronomical projections have been surpassed. The two new units at the Vogtle Plant in Georgia, the only new nuclear construction in the United States, are now years behind schedule and projected to cost more than twice their original budget of $14 billion. Similarly, it was estimated that Duke Energy’s proposed Levy County Nuclear Power Plant in Florida would cost $5 billion, but projections ballooned to $22 billion. The project was canceled in 2017, and Duke Energy decided to focus on solar energy expansion instead.
Reactors also typically require a long period of planning, licensing, and building. The 2019 World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) estimates that since 2009 the average construction time for nuclear reactors worldwide was just under 10 years.
The WSINR report also estimates that the cost of generating nuclear energy ranges between $112 and $189 per megawatt-hour (MWh), while solar power costs between $36 and $44 and onshore wind power comes in at $29 to $56.