Hi, guys.
Sorry about the delayed response. I was trying to learn a bit more. As far as I can tell, we're sort of at a confluence of three sets of changes that were mostly unrelated but overlapped in time. I'm still working on getting details that I can share.
Some of the changes at Matthews are sort of "clean up" operations that have been in the pipeline for a bit; that includes some manager reassignments and additions of analysts as Matthews tries to skate to where the puck is going to be. Some of it is "coincidencee," in the sense that at the five-year mark, Matthews Asia Value is not financially viable (at $14 million) and is not growing (money has been sort of dribbling away) although its been an exceptionally solid performer (up 9% in 2019 which was its only year with sub-par performance). Mr. Zhou is passionate about his vision of value investing; it was foreseeable that a decision to close the fund would occasion his departure. So while the three manager departures were announced together, I suspect they were two separate events overlapping in time.
The "consequential" change is Ms. Hsiao's departure for parts (as yet) unknown. China Small Companies is five-star, $500 million and a top 1-2% performer since inception. Asia Innovators is five-star and $1 billion; though she's not the lead manager there, it's been vastly stronger during the two years she's worked with it. I have no idea of her next steps but she certainly has the credentials to leave the public investing sphere altogether. Too, several larger firms are on the hunt for star management teams, so she might eventually resurface. Matthews has a deep bench and a healthy internal culture, so far as I can tell. The folks rotating into the funds are successful in their own right, both at Matthews and in the years before.
I'll continue asking around and I'll share what I can.
David

MPEGX - that's a blast from the past. I owned it in my 401(k) years ago when it was called MAS (Miller Anderson & Sherrerd) Mid Cap Growth, and managed by Arden C Armstrong. Pure rocket fuel on the way up and on the way down.
Glancing at its performance the past several years, it seems that's still a good way to describe the fund.

Possibly Overvalued: Hard question. I’m a bottom grubber, so high valuations normally drive me away. But probably my g/s mining fund OPGSX is due for a correction. May not occur for several months. And PRPFX may be overvalued as both the precious metals and bonds it holds are at lofty (ridiculous?) levels. And I always worry about PRWCX simply because it’s done so well for so long.
I’d agree with Leon Cooperman that today “bonds represent returnless risk.” But I still own them in funds - chiefly the non-U.S. issues.
Possibly Undervalued: In the undervalued camp, I still like PIEQX which is in developed markets of Europe, Australia and Japan just because those markets in aggregate have lagged for so many years. I think DODBX is likely undervalued due to value lagging for so long. At last check it had only 28% in bonds and my understanding is those tend to be short and intermediate duration which shouldn’t get hammered too badly when rates rise. As I’ve noted before, D&C has positioned their domestic funds (I can’t speak for their international) in anticipation of rising interest rates. So they’ve been underweight funds that benefit from lower rates and overweight those that do better in a rising rate environment. This - for at least the past 5 years. I’ll leave it for the pundits to decide whether they’ve been wrong or just early.

Well he does say bonds are return free risk & now is the time you should want to get into a hedge fund. He claims he knew in 2008 you did not want to be hedged, you wanted to be balls out (a steam engine reference). I’ll tell ya though, I have bought into the debt and deficit scare for 40 years - I’m beginning to think no one’s ever paying the piper.

DHHIX was @davfor 's suggestion. It looks like you're restricting max drawdown to the past five years, else (I believe) VWINX's max drawdown would be -21.77%, between 10/29/07 and 3/9/09.
On the one hand, limiting your time frame to five years does add a bit of consistency to your criteria. On the other hand, as you observed, funds have different personalities. They should be stress tested more than once. We've had only one bear market since VWINX dropped nearly 22%; that was this past March.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/business/bear-market-stocks-dow.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/27/heres-how-long-stock-market-corrections-last-and-how-bad-they-can-get.html
Any fund that lucked out in March could meet your criteria but still have a good chance of dropping 20%. Something else to consider is the possibility that a fund changed its strategy in the past 2-3 years.
If neither of these is of concern you, Skeet (at least I think it's Skeet) has owned a fund for many years that meets your criteria. I believe he's looking for a substitute because it's changed focus recently. Also, though it hasn't had any huge drawdowns since the 2007-2009 bear market, it did drop 47.6% between 5/18/08 and 3/9/09. The fund is CTFAX.
That huge drop was almost exactly the same drop as VPMAX (47.66%) had over the same dates. Yet, while VPMAX dropped 32.42% between 2/19 and 3/23 of this year, CTFAX fund dropped "just" 10.43% (almost 7% better than VWINX).

What's the point of the experiment? This mixes figures over spans of five years (annualized returns) and three years (Sharpe ratio); this mixes daily volatility (max drawdown day-to-day) with monthly volatility (Sharpe ratio based on monthly returns). Numerically one can do this; the question is why?
VSCGX 3 year Sharpe ratio of 0.69% is barely ¾ that of VWINX. What does "similar" mean? VGCIX has only been around since mid-November, 2018. So with this fund you're comparing a Sharpe ratio over (at most) 20 months with VWINX's 36 month Sharpe ratio.
This "experiment" is fuzzy with some criteria and rigid with others ("I want to eliminate any fund with greater than -17.43% Max Drawdown"). This rigid requirement eliminates DHHIX, which has a max drawdown of -17.91% Other than that (and the same Sharpe ratio issue as with VSCGX), DHIIX looks like a good pick.

For me, the 60/40 is not dead. Since I retired a little over five years ago instead of being 60% in stocks and 40% in bonds and cash ... I'm 60% bonds and cash and 40% in stocks in what I call my all weather asset allocation which is also configured to generate a good income stream.

For domestic stock funds: David Giroux of PRWCX. Don't have one for international funds due to lack of consistency.
BTW, CalPERS has not been effective in managing their retirement fund for a number of years comparing to David Swanson of Yale University. Swanson uses sizable private equities and alternative strategies in additional the broader index funds. Other institutions including Harvard tried to replicate Yale's approach but none was nearly as successful.

There is still commission for trading stocks at Fidelity while Vanguard is free once the total asset reaches the Flagship level. We are not frequent traders so this is a mute point.

Still, at least one perk remains for customers at these levels: ATM fee reimbusements for all brokerage accounts (not just CMA accounts).

In recent years debit cards have replaced cash at least for us. Now with COVID I avoid using cash. We started using Apple Pay so to avoid physical contact. ingThe situation may change in oversea travel when situation improves.

These days, all ETFs are free at many brokerages, including Vanguard and Fidelity.
An exception is that Vanguard will not let you buy leveraged or inverse ETFs, and will charge you a commission to sell those ETFs you already hold there.
https://investor.vanguard.com/investing/leveraged-inverse-etf-etn
While Fidelity prominently features its own ETFs and those of Blackrock (iShares), it lets you buy and sell all ETFs without commissions.
https://screener.fidelity.com/ftgw/etf/evaluator/gotoBL/research#/home
Given that stock and ETF trades are already free, ISTM the major benefit of free trades at Vanguard is for TF mutual funds. (At Fidelity, you may be charged a transaction fee to buy a fund, but selling is free - subject to a possible short term trading fee for NTF funds.)
Vanguard counts only Vanguard funds (including ETF share class) when adding up the assets you hold there for free trades. Free trades come at the Flagship ($1M) level or above. (T. Rowe Price likewise counts only TRP funds when determining which perks it will give you.)
Fidelity counts all assets you hold there toward its customer levels - Premium ($250K), Private Client ($1M). However, it seems to be quietly phasing these out. A few years ago, it became difficult to find any description of Premium services, and now I can't find a clear Fidelity page on its Private Client services.
Still, at least one perk remains for customers at these levels: ATM fee reimbusements for all brokerage accounts (not just CMA accounts).

In looking at stocks. Pulling data form a couple of my barometer feeds I'm finding that the blended P/E Ratio for the S&P 500 Index computes to 26.1 along with it's yield being found at 1.76%. For me, this indicates that stock valuations are streached by some of the metrics that my late father used and scores stocks as overbought.
In looking at bonds. I'm finding that the yield on the US10T is 0.64%. I'm wondering what folks are thinking? That is better than what my money market funds are paying but it is still very low by historical standards. By my late father's standards this indicates that US Treasuries are extremely overbought.
With the above in mind I'm wondering where investors are putting new money to work? For me, I have increased the allocation I have in my income funds from 40% to 45%. My income sleeve has a yield of 4.23% and my hybrid income sleeve has a yield of 3.58%. Within my asset allocation model I am aleady overweight my income area by +5% so no more room to expand there.
This leaves 15% of my cash in low to no yield places such as money market mutal funds and cash savings. My highest paying money market mutual fund PCOXX has paid out a measley yield of 0.53%. Carry this out and for the full years it projects to a yield of less than one percent.
With this, I ponder ... What to do in my quest for better returns with some of my cash as it builds?
Option 1) Sit tight and build cash while I await the next stock market dip (or pull back) where I can put an equity special investment position (spiff) into play. Generally, in the past, I'd look to make at least five percent off my spiffs when engaged. For me, this will work.
Option 2) I can buy more of my commodity strategy fund (BCSAX) which has a yield of better than 2% and as inflation rises usually the price of commodities rise. This fund holds some gold and gold mining stocks as well. It should do well if the US Dollar continues to decline and the price of commodities rise. For me, this will work.
Option 3) I can buy more of my real estate income fund (FRINX). As the US Dollar declines generally real estate values increase plus long term this would act as a hedge against inflation. Woops already have a full allocation to real estate and high yield securites. No go here.
Option 4) Buy more of my convertible (FISCX) and preffered (PFANX) securities funds. Hold up ... already have a full allocation there.
Option 5) Buy more in my asset allocation funds and let my fund managers find opportunity. This would also work because it would spread the funds's asset mix among those I'm already invested in thus maintaining my asset allocation. Two funds that I'm thinking of are CFIAX & INPAX.
So, for me, going forward, over the near term, it looks like my better choices are numbers 1, 2, & 5 of the options I covered.
I am also wondering what you might have thought of and where you might be positioning new money in this low yield environment?
Thanks for stopping by and reading.
Take care ... be safe ... and, I wish all "Good Investing."
I am ... Old_Skeet

@hank, I think you make very good sense, but here's another option: continued strong earnings from the tech giants due their monopoly power + unlimited liquidity from the Fed + TINA + big fiscal stimulus from a Biden administration keeps this current market grinding higher for another couple of years -- and only then, when the Fed tries to normalize monetary policy in the face of rising inflation, is when it all comes crashing down.

Yes - The Fed and other central banks loom large. It almost seems as if their unwritten mandate has become to keep equity markets elevated as long as possible - whatever it takes. Not sure anyone has a clue how long that can last in years as it seems to be an untested approach in developed economies like ours, Japan, Western Europe. Has probably been tried in less developed economies, like Latin America, with dire consequences. But even that degree of stimulus, as you allude, must end someday.
There's an alternate cinema now showing. That's the previously tabu (X-rated) pressures now being exerted on the Fed by the Trump administration - mostly arm twisting thru public denigration - but also implicit threats to radically restructure the Fed, perhaps by adding more voting members and by making the Chair recallable at any time. Trump's nomination of maverick Judy Shelton, who would have the U.S. return to the gold standard, for a Fed post is an interesting one. Mainly, I think, he wants to rattle Powell and the others; but it's hard to imagine how anything approaching a gold standard would help the markets keep rising. After all - loose fiscal and monetary policies are "golden" for sustaining asset bubbles. A gold standard, in contrast, would exert just the opposite effect. The bottom line to all this is that if the current regime persists for another four years monetary policy is likely to become more uncertain (perhaps more unstable) than now envisioned.

@hank, I think you make very good sense, but here's another option: continued strong earnings from the tech giants due their monopoly power + unlimited liquidity from the Fed + TINA + big fiscal stimulus from a Biden administration keeps this current market grinding higher for another couple of years -- and only then, when the Fed tries to normalize monetary policy in the face of rising inflation, is when it all comes crashing down.
I don't know if that's likely, and I'd personally prefer your "happy ending" but I feel like the above is what a lot of big investors are currently betting on.
I'd also add one more to your list of what could jolt markets: President Elect Biden says Elizabeth Warren will be Treasury Secretary. I'd personally love it, but I don't think the markets (and the tech giants) would.

I find myself agreeing with Jim Cramer here ... which happens, from time to time.
Remember the irrational exhuberance going into the Dot Com Crash (Pets.Com!), the Housing Bubble (5 houses on NINJA loans!), and now this.
Remember when you start seeing day-trading ads and services on TV and people start buying into the mania thinking they can't ever lose and that markets only go in one direction (up) that it's time to start inching closer toward the fire exit. As Jeremy Irons' character from 'Margin Call' said, "it's not panic if you're the first one out the door."
What is particualrly disturbing is the 'gamification' of investing by platforms like Robinhood that conflate longterm "investing" for wealth-building and retirement planning with "trading".
My investment portfolio is downright boring compared to most people, and I'm fine with that. It's also why I don't believe in the indices or do index-based investing -- because they're so heavily influenced by a single-digit's worth of ultramegacorps and don't reflect broader equity sentiments.

You’ve identified the storyline here. What remains is how will the story end? With a bang or a whimper? And when? Those who’ve seen the last 15 minutes of this movie aren’t letting on - if they know. It’s tempting to forecast a 50% drubbing of the stock market in short order. The “smart money“ waiting in the wings awakens and moves into stocks at sharply lower prices. A happy ending for the forgotten few who resisted the temptation to own equities and held out long enough. Right out of Disney.
Equally likely are an alternative set of scenarios.
- A very long multi-year (even multi-decade) “rolling” decline to normal valuations with alternating good and bad years. Patient investors can still make money in such an environment - but would require more insight and ingenuity than simply buying the index.
- A rotational correction where the big overvalued names fall while the undervalued equity sectors gain. Financials have lagged. And while one might think the energy, commodity, natural resource sectors overvalued after a recent surge, truth be told those areas are just emerging from the worst decade long bear market in history.
- Correction by stagnation. Equities essentially go nowhere for a decade or longer while the dollar sags, global interest rates rise, and the CPI , real assets, real estate climb in value. Even without a sharp decline, equities would have returned to more normal valuations relative to the dollar and other asset classes over a decade or so.
- Black swans. War, domestic upheaval, shifts in the global balance of power, plagues, environmental catastrophe can all upend an economy and jolt markets leading to different end results than anyone anticipated.
.

Hi guys.
Politics aside.
My perspective (and thinking) on the stock market follow.
A little more on the barometer that will help explain what is now taking place within the S&P 500 Index which it follows. And, why this might be of concern. Over the past couple of weeks the big ten stocks that make up about 28% of the Index (as a group) have increased in their value while a good number of the underlying stocks have decline in their value. As of last week's market close 79% of the stocks wiithin the Index were trading above thier 50 day moving average and at the close of this week the number had declined to 66%. In addition, over the past two weeks there has been money moving out of the Index according to my money flow indicator, which moved from a reading of 84 to 52.
So, explain why the Index has moved upward in price over the past two weeks from 3851 (8/7 market close) to 3397 (8/21 market close) and reached a new high. It is very simple, the top ten stocks (as a group) have done most of the heavy lifting to propell the Index to it's new high while a good number of the underlying stocks have been in decline. The rise in the big ten (as a group) has been more than enough to offset the decine in the underlying (as a group) thus the price of the Index moved upward. After all, this is a cap weighted Index.
In the past, with a decline in money flow along with a good number of stocks moving from above to below their 50 day moving average has often times indicated that a stock market dip (or pull back) is in the making due to a decline in broad based support along with money leaving. This could be because of political convention activity and investors reacting to it by voting with their wallets through the selling of securities. In addition, there was a big increase in short volume in SPY on Friday.
So, what did Old_Skeet do? Absolutely nothing. I am still with my current asset allocation of 15/45/40 (cash/bonds/stocks). For the past five years (since retirement) I have been reconfiguring my portfolio from a growth allocation type which was as high as 10/20/70 down to the present all weather allocation of 20/40/40 which also affords some good income production. If I were to sell I'd be reducing my paycheck. In addition, I've got ample cash to put some into play during a stock market sell off. Presently, due to low cash yields and streached equity valuations I am overweight in bonds by +5%. For now, though, I'm mostly just sitting and watching.
Thanks for stopping by and reading.
Take Care ... Be Safe ... and, Have a Good Weekend!
Old_Skeet

I used to do this all the time, only pulled credit maybe 1 or 2 times, not a super big deal. I did it for a few years, actually used the bonuses to pay my water, sewer, trash...still haven't paid those with my own $$ after like 7 years. Kept a spreadsheet with the websites, logins, terms...
Found a website that tracks all the offers floating around out there, would pick 1 or 2 every 6 months or so, and after closing would circle back & do it over again usually after a year.
https://www.maximizingmoney.com/category/banking-bonus-deals/

Yes, yes,,,those capitalist and trickle down economics... been around for years and years an years... we should all be billionaires by now.

The five — Ford, Honda, BMW, Volkswagen and Volvo — sealed a binding agreement with California to follow the state’s stricter tailpipe emissions rules.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/climate/california-automakers-pollution.html
One highly placed person feels that auto makers outside of these five will “produce far less expensive cars for the consumer, while at the same time making the cars substantially SAFER.” OTOH, "Stanley Young, a spokesman for California’s Air Resources Board, said the agreement achieved “continuous annual reductions in greenhouse gas emissions while saving consumers money.”
So which is it? Should someone looking at the auto industry invest in companies that make cars that may be less expensive off the shelf, or companies that make cars with potentially lower TCO, depending on miles driven, price of gas, etc.? (I ask this as someone who has put 3500 miles on our car since purchasing it three years ago.)
One benefit of the agreement is certainty for the five companies. Usually that's something the stock market likes.

“This represents consistency from a policy point of view,” said Bob Holycross, vice president for sustainability, environment and safety engineering with Ford.
“Whether it is from one political party to another or the changes from elections or what the makeup of Congress is, we have to have regulatory certainty beyond just political cycles governing the investments we make,” he said.

Thank you for your reply, msf, especially the information on the Africa ETF and the excellent references on PFICs.
I won't be circumventing any restrictions on making a purchase, and will answer all eligibility-to-invest questions honestly. This will limit me to funds set up to be offered to US persons. I have been finding out that that does reduce what is available to me substantially. Many funds have separate structures set up for selling to US and non-US persons, and some just don't sell to US persons at all, probably because of the draconian reporting requirements, which the IRS has managed to push non-US companies into complying with.
The language in the Sturgeon disclaimer is unclear, and I don't think they have that regional restriction, mostly because they know I'm in the US and they're talking with me. The disclaimer seems to say that they won't sell where selling is illegal, and they especially won't sell in the UK or US if selling is illegal there. I doubt that means to say that selling is illegal to US persons, or they wouldn't be talking with me. It's a website disclaimer, and I suspect that what it's getting at is that they can't sell on the basis of anything on the website, meaning that if I'm interested they'll send me a 100+ pages of more legalese to read before investing.
I don't think Sovereign Man (nor I for the purpose of choosing investments) cares about the historian's distinction between empire and nation state. What matters in this context is whether the US economy is sustainable for another ten to 20 years, and if it isn't, how that will affect my finances before I die. I agree that it is likely that the collapse of our economy will drag down the rest of the world. In that case, we're all cooked. But it's also possible that some other regions may be less affected, and if that happens, then one may benefit from owning something in those other regions.
I'm thinking that my new portfolio may come out looking something like:

• 17% US-based funds of US businesses (mutual/ETF)
  
• 17% Europe-based funds of Western European businesses (domiciled in Europe, denominated in euros/Swiss francs)
  
• 17% Asia-based funds of developed-market Asian businesses (domiciled in Asia, denominated in yen/yuan)
  
• 25% Emerging market funds (domiciled outside the US)
  
• 25% Frontier market funds (domiciled outside the US)

This is a strategy of diversification by both region and level of economic development. It's interesting that we can talk about the risk of investing in frontier markets because of the potential for political and economic instability and war. But is the US really still a bastion of security? It seems to me that there are some ways in which an investment in Tanzania or Uzbekistan may be safer that one in the United States.
When I look at the above list, I get scared. What if I make the wrong choices in the last two categories and lose half my nest egg? But when I ask that, the converse fear comes to mind. What if I keep my diversification entirely within the US and our system crashes under the weight of debt, disease, or war? Then I lose everything. That's scary too.
I think I may have found some partial answers to my third question, which was asking for websites that profile non-US mutual funds. I'm still reviewing these sites to see how much useful information I can find without paying exorbitant fees. From what I see so far, they mainly focus on "alternative" investments, which means private placements, hedge funds, etc., but also include emerging and frontier market funds.

• CitywireSelector
  
• Asia Asset Management
  
• Preqin
  
• BarclayHedge Awards
  
• HFM
  
• Investors Choice Awards

I'm interested in hearing from more people with information that supports or refutes what I'm saying, or that answers the three questions in my original post. Thanks guys, and thanks David for this great forum.

WABAC, I've always liked BRLIX as a cheap eq-wt proxy for the Dow and have held it off and on over the years. Also held GLFOX at times; I need to revisit that one and see how it's currently positioned.