PRSNX. Bonds in my portfolio = 51% of total. PRSNX = 21.55% of total portfolio. It is below the zero-line so far in 2021 by just a fraction. RELIABLE. Owned it for several years, now. Other bond funds in portfolio are RPSIX, at 22.46% of total. And PTIAX at 7.25% of total. PRWCX and BRUFX hold bonds, too. I have so far, regretted putting money into those three funds not for a moment.

I’ve long been convinced that there is a link between the end of Madoff’s scheme and the overwhelming popularity of index-fund investing in the aftermath of the financial crisis. It’s not simply that, as the Wall Street Journal theorized, people realized pricey money managers hadn’t seen what was coming. Nor was it merely that the regulators’ cursory investigations into Madoff’s fund left many dubious of all sorts of investments (and the officials tasked with overseeing them). Instead, Madoff demonstrated the lie that almost any savvy individual investor could produce steady gains in a way that nothing else could. By destroying the retirements and dreams of so many, he inadvertently performed a much-needed service.

I'm not so convinced. Outside the realm of the ultra-rich, Madoff was hardly known before the scandal because it was an exclusive hedge fund. Meanwhile, Bogle was already practically a household name by the time of the scandal. I would say the growth of no load funds and fee-only/fee-based financial advisers had more to do with the shift to indexing. Instead of selling high cost active management with a commission or load based fund, advisers were charging a percentage of asset fee, typically 1%. Combine that fee with a high cost active fund charging 1.5% and you've got a 2.5% drag on returns each year. A 0.05% index fund combined with the 1% was far more palatable and produced better results. The whole advice model has shifted dramatically.
Any bull market of course will drive investors to index too, and of course Bogle's own presence, his constant evangelizing and having the numbers to back it up. If there was any fund's fall that might have done more harm to active manager's influence on retail investors it would be Bill Miller's Legg Mason Value when it got completely crushed during the 2008-09 crisis after 15 straight years of beating the market. He was one of the last great heroes of active management in the retail world. Who by contrast in retail-land heard of Madoff before everyone who had heard of him lost their shirts?

Kind of a clickbait headline because you can index pretty much anything nowadays and design the index almost any way you like. The author obviously means market cap weighted indexes, but there's no reason an index needs to be market cap weighted. Also, market cap weighted indexes make the least sense near the peak of a bubble as a handful of frothy stocks dominate it, but that isn't true all of the time or even most of the time. Yes, now is a dangerous time though to buy traditional market cap weighted indexes--not really news or original. People have observed this problem with each bubble going back at least twenty years.

@sma3 As I understand, YES, you can create a list using their Portfolio Manager. I've never bothered with a "transaction portfolio" because it's just too much work for my purposes. But that's how you get the most accurate results, using the thing. Through the years, all I've done is use a fictional entry price of $9.99 or often, the actual ORIGINAL price of shares when I first bought-in, and left it that way. Then I had at least something to compare new numbers to. "Free" users can use X-Ray, but not the pre-loaded and easy "Instant X-Ray" which will populate the computer fields with the funds/stocks you want to see analyzed.
You're right: those written fund analyses read like tripe. They have their measuring sticks and gauges, but it all sounds so facile.

Hi Mac, good to hear from you.
So far, RCTIX has met my expectations with a successful and steady risk adjusted performance, especially in this rather difficult interest rate environment. It has a solid asset management firm behind it with a manager who has run the fund for over 6 years. The ER is also quite reasonable.
I recently sold my shares in JASSX because of a bungled reorganization, at least that was my perception, and added the proceeds to my existing shares in RCTIX. The fund now makes up about 20% of my portfolio. My only other non-muni bond fund in my portfolio is TSIIX.
Good luck,
Fred

That's one of the reasons I fled M* a few years ago. Apart from the horrible interface changes on their site, their data often was inconsistent to flat-out wrong or nonexistent.

M*'s at it again. Instant X-ray and Portfolio Manager are failing to identify the style of many funds. I just tested a few (T. Rowe Price seems to be particularly problematic):
PRWCX - 100% unknown
PRIDX - 100% unknown
FLPSX - 100% unknown
TRSGX - 16.39% LCV, 32.74% LCBlend, 29.97% LCG, and a smattering of others
So it's not just T. Rowe Price funds, and it's not all Price funds. Whatever it is could be an overnight problem. Just don't rely on what M* shows you for your portfolio now.

I hate to say it ... but I think crypto acceptance is accelerating for many reasons. My little experiment is up 25% since my first post here. My regret is that I didn’t take it seriously earlier. I’ve dismissed it for years.
A nice primer for new investors in crypto: https://www.marketwatch.com/video/what-you-need-to-know-before-investing-in-crypto/EB6C438A-53F5-4A2F-8055-58D5644CD587.html

I can't link the article because of a paywall. Sorry. Read this on my brokerage account page.
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Market participants this week staked out their positions on how to fix systemic risks in the $4.9 trillion U.S. money market fund industry, in what is shaping up to be the first big fight for U.S. President Joe Biden's financial regulators.
After taxpayers bailed them out for the second time in 12 years during the pandemic-induced turmoil in March 2020, money market funds - a key source of short-term corporate and municipal funding - are facing a regulatory reckoning which could potentially change the industry beyond all recognition."
BY PETE SCHROEDER AND MICHELLE PRICE, REUTERS - 1:23 PM ET 4/13/2021

@Fred TMSRX's have been low, but maximum draw down was only 4.7% during the past three years. One year return is 18% and three year return is 5.4%. Their goal, if I remember correctly, is to make 6% plus the rate of inflation over time.
For me, TMSRX fits in as a low risk fund that will not lose much and will make decent returns. It fits in between bonds and stocks. Below are the funds that I am researching now. During changes in market conditions they do better or worse. I look at mixing and matching to have a consistent performance over time.
CRAAX, TMSRX, FMSDX, CTFAX, ETIMX, GAVIX, MNBAX, RBBAX, VWIAX, VTINX

Thank you for your excellent work! I wonder if there are a handful of truly exceptional funds that are worth spending the commission $ for? We don't know what we don't know....

Here are the funds that I am researching now. They had low draw downs during the past five years and high risk adjusted returns: It is a good starting point.
CLMAX, NTBIX, CRAAX, TMSRX, FMSDX, CTFAX, ETIMX, GAVIX, MNBAX, RBBAX, VWIAX, VTINX

@JonGaltIII
I worry about a 1970's style period of inflation. ...

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/blog/2021/04/12/pandemic-prices-assessing-inflation-in-the-months-and-years-ahead/

I found this very interesting and worth sharing.
...
https://theretirementmanifesto.com/your-bucket-strategy-questions-answered/

A good, common sense piece with a bit of substance to it. A few items there worth highlighting:
- Asset allocation. Rather than work with fixed percentages, the allocation is done by time: so many years in cash, so many years in bonds, and the remainder in equities. In his case, he came up with 63% (not 60%) in equities. He's actually got a pretty conservative cash (3 year) / bond (8 year) allocation. The cash/bond allocation lets you invest the remainder (however much that is) in equities without worrying about sequence of return risk, volatility "risk", etc.
- Annuities. He avoids the question of what bucket this income stream (or pensions, or SS) falls into. If one were targeting a particular asset allocation, then this question would matter. But because he's basing cash and bond allocations on how much extra income he needs, this question never arises.
He touches on annuity strategies, which seems beyond the scope of bucket strategies. But since he went there, it's worth reiterating that for many people, using retirement assets to defer SS until age 70 is the optimal strategy.
In a new paper summarized here, 401(k) assets would be used to automatically provide an income stream until age 70. A temporary life annuity can provide the same income stream while enhancing value with mortality credits. (The downside is that if you die before age 70, you don't get the full value of the temporary annuity.)
https://www.kitces.com/blog/understanding-the-role-of-mortality-credits-why-immediate-annuities-beat-bond-ladders-for-retirement-income/
- HSAs. He keeps his in cash, presumably to spend as expenses are incurred. For investing, he recommends bucket 3 (equities). My take is different - I suggest bucket 2.
HSAs are like Roth IRAs - withdrawals are tax-free - so long as one can pair them with past medical expenses. I would put my slower growing Roth-ish assets into HSAs to limit the risk that the HSAs grow too fast. You don't want more money in the HSAs than you can withdraw tax-free (not enough medical expenses). Keep the faster growing assets in the genuine Roth IRAs.

FYI and FWIW, below are excerpts from a somewhat confusing, at least to me, recent M* Quantitative Analysis Report.
On the one hand, M* claims that HMEZX has "a weak portfolio-management team" but, on the other hand, it also states that a "sign of strength at Highland is its management team, which boasts an average asset-weighted tenure of 15 years at the firm. This accumulation of experience builds confidence that the group can navigate a variety of market environments adeptly." Which is it? What am I missing?
"NexPoint Merger Arbitrage Z earns a Morningstar Quantitative Rating of Negative because of negative contributors including a weak portfolio-management team and a questionable investment process. [...]
Despite the portfolio managers with industry-standard experience and its longest-tenured manager's experience, the team managing NexPoint Merger Arbitrage Fund has a considerable number of weaknesses, warranting a Low People Pillar rating. The team is led by James D. Dondero, the longest-tenured manager on the strategy, who brings 23 years of industry experience. They’re also the named manager on eight additional funds, a total of $1.30 billion in assets. The funds have an average Morningstar Rating of 2.3 stars, demonstrating disappointing risk-adjusted performance. The team is small, but adequately equipped, with only two other supporting managers. Together, the three boast an average of nine years in the industry. [...]
Highland has a way to go to become an industry-standard steward, resulting in a Low Parent Pillar rating. Highland products are costlier than similarly distributed funds at other highly-rated asset managers, on average in the second most expensive quintile of category peers. The higher expense profile contributes negatively to the firm's overall stewardship rating and creates a larger performance hurdle. The firm has not had a durable fund lineup. Specifically, its five-year risk-adjusted success ratio demonstrates that only 21% of products both survived and beat their respective category average on a risk-adjusted basis,. A low success ratio not only indicates poor performance but also raises flags about a firm’s discipline around investment strategy and product development. A sign of strength at Highland is its management team, which boasts an average asset-weighted tenure of 15 years at the firm. This accumulation of experience builds confidence that the group can navigate a variety of market environments adeptly.
Mar 22, 2021"

The fine is aimed at the monopoly practice that Alibaba is practicing, not the type of business. Alibaba must not discourage or block other BTB companies when offering the same products or services to the consumers. That is considered anti-competitive practices. There must be more details on Alibaba that the public have not seen.
In the past, Microsoft was fine multiple times in Europe and US when they tied the Windows operating system to the Internet Explorer browser while they are other third party browsers, i.e. Netscape and few others. Microsoft went as far as crippling third party browsers and making them inoperable. I personally like Firefox and later Goggle Chrome for their speed and connectivity. After the court ruling, Microsoft has to sell their OS with debundle browser and allow the consumer to choose their preferred browser. Today Windows 10 OS can run multiple browsers including their own new ones, Edge and Blue Edge.
More info:

Beijing wants Alibaba to stop requiring merchants to chose between doing business with it and rival platforms, a practice known as ‘merchant exclusivity’, which critics say helped it become China’s largest e-commerce operation.
Aside from imposing the fine, among the highest ever antitrust penalties globally, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) ordered Alibaba to make “thorough rectifications” to strengthen internal compliance and protect consumer rights.
“The required corrective measures will likely limit Alibaba’s revenue growth as a further expansion in market share will be constrained,” said Lina Choi, Senior Vice President at Moody’s Investors Service.
“Investments to retain merchants and upgrade products and services will also reduce its profit margins.”
SAMR said it had determined Alibaba, which is also listed in New York, had prevented its merchants from using other online e-commerce platforms since 2015.
The practice, which the SAMR has previously spelt out as illegal, violates China’s antimonopoly law by hindering the free circulation of goods and infringing on the business interests of merchants, the regulator said.
The probe comes as China bolsters SAMR with extra staff and a wider jurisdiction amid a crackdown on technology conglomerates, signalling a new era after years of laissez-faire approach.
The agency has taken aim recently at China’s large tech giants in particular, mirroring increased scrutiny of the sector in the United States and Europe.

https://reuters.com/article/us-china-alibaba/alibaba-shrugs-off-2-75-billion-antitrust-fine-shares-rally-idUSKBN2BZ01P
Alibaba's anti-trust practice is no differ than those practices used by Standard Oil and AT&T (MaBell) before the breakup into smaller business units.

har --- read the MFO discussions --- sober and well-reasoned warnings abound for month after month after month after month.
Studz must be shaking his head even more than the rest of us.
MFool articles about this, well, that hed of theirs must be what is called a standing hed.
Shiller p/e has become less meaningful, evidently, I mean forget its history, and is at 37 this weekend, and while I doubt it will stick at 40 for years, the dip strength and buying penchant are just consistently strong. SP500 is now strongly over 4100. Trivial for it to hit a hundred higher per Derf's BMO cite above, eventually, and not far off.
I think the year will end, if we are all really lucky, with it @ 3800. And many of us buying or having bought prior. And Shiller still really, really high.

The stock market can't just go up forever. Per the Motley Fool's "A Stock Market Crash May Be Imminent" article (bold added by me).....
"Dating back 150 years, there have only been five instances where the S&P 500's Shiller price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio has surpassed and sustained 30. The Shiller P/E ratio measures average inflation-adjusted earnings from the previous 10 years and is also known as the cyclically adjusted P/E ratio, or CAPE. On April 6, the Shiller P/E ratio for the S&P 500 was nearly 36.7, which is well over double its historic average of 16.8.
Furthermore, in the previous four instances where the S&P 500's Shiller P/E hit 30, the index lost anywhere from 20% to as much as 89% of its value. Although we're unlikely to see Great Depression-like losses of 89% ever again, at least a 20% decline has been the recipe when valuations get extended."

Re 7% ... No certainty of course. One reason we enjoy watching markets is the inherent uncertainty day to day. I tossed the 7% figure out only for some perspective on @Crash’s reference to not taking withdrawals after a “down year”. The criticality of Crash’s decision in terms of impact on his portfolio would depend, in part, it seems to me upon the severity of the “down year” as well as the % of savings being withdrawn. And, as I noted, it’s unlikely all the money would be withdrawn at the same time and at exactly at the lowest point in the markets.
I’m 22+ years retired. Don’t subscribe to any particular cardinal rule on how much to pull out yearly. Varies based on needs and, to a lesser extent, on the fortunes of the markets (Crash’s point). I’d guess it’s about 7% yearly on an average basis. It’s worked well for me, If it works as well for the next 22 years I’ll be 96 - likely too old to care or fully comprehend.

PRSIX (a 30-50 allocation fund) was listed as one of the top 12 as FMSDX but when I compare the two, FMSDX appears to be the clear winner. PRSIX does have a longer track record but FMSDX has certainly outperformed PRSIX in the last 5 years. I guess PRSIX has a slightly lower ER, though.
EAPCX - "commodities broad basket" Interesting. I've never owned one of these funds.

@JonGaltIII Thanks for the input. FMSDX is a great fund and one of my larger holdings. The oldest share class of FMSDX is FAYZX which is still only 5.5 years. My concern for FMSDX is that it has 18% in High Yield bonds. I have concerns about how it may perform during a recession.
I worry about a 1970's style period of inflation. Home and stock prices are two examples of inflated prices. Food prices are rising. I bought relatively modest amount VCMDX at Vanguard and FSRRX at Fidelity. FSRRX is less volatile than EAPCX. If signs of inflation increase I will consider EAPCX.

Interesting share. I'm looking forward to reading Charles post further. I'm in a few of those funds. Quick observations on a few of the 12:
PRBLX seems like a fine fund but it tracks so closely to the S&P 500 Index, why not just invest in an S&P index fund?
PRSIX (a 30-50 allocation fund) was listed as one of the top 12 as FMSDX but when I compare the two, FMSDX appears to be the clear winner. PRSIX does have a longer track record but FMSDX has certainly outperformed PRSIX in the last 5 years. I guess PRSIX has a slightly lower ER, though.
PRGSX is a great fund and deserves to be included. It's outpacing my MGGPX this year and with a lower expense ratio. I had a difficult time deciding between the two. Perhaps I should revisit it.
EAPCX - "commodities broad basket" Interesting. I've never owned one of these funds.
Really appreciate reading the methodology that Charles shared and how his choices compare to Fidelity Picks and M*.

"...conservatively diversified portfolio...cash and cash alternatives are pegged at 12% of portfolio..."

I agree with the use of cash or cash alternatives in a portfolio @hank. My point was, and when I hear the term "dry powder", to me that means you are holding cash for "timing" when to buy equities. That is lost opportunity cost.

Hmmm. Quite right. That always made sense to me. With mutual funds. But with single stocks, I just would not want to pay a price at current high-flying levels to get in, initially. I see not many bargains at all. One (and only one,) lately I've found is BancoMacro out of Argentina. Symbol BMA. What I came across says it's selling at a 19% discount at the moment. So, rather than my favorite Canadian banks, BMA may well be my first single-stock purchase in years, soon.