Large Blend, both, IRA and Taxable accounts.
That helps. I didn't know whether you were looking for a core fund or a good esoteric fund.
For the past several years, the more growthy a large cap international fund has been, the better it is likely to have done. This difference is not small, the margin is huge. The average category returns (per M*) over the past five years are: LCG 9.62%, LC Bl 5.28%, LCV 2.36%.
There's no guarantee this will continue, and using a large cap blend fund is a good way to hedge your bets. Even within this category, though, the more the fund leans toward growth, the better its history will look.
With that in mind, a fund worth considering is MDIDX. It's a fund of funds from MFS, a good family for international funds. While M* considers it a blend fund, it has been a bit growthy and Lipper classifies it as a multi-cap growth fund. But it just added MKVHX (LCV) as one of the funds it holds, and adjusted its allocations so that the fund should be an "honest" blend fund going forward. Part of that adjustment was to increase its EM component weight to 17.5% which is reasonable for a core fund unless you want to have a separate EM fund and control that allocation yourself.
It has a somewhat smaller than average market cap, which is why Lipper considers it multi-cap rather than large cap. IMHO that's another plus for the fund, especially if one is looking for more of an all-in-one fund.
It is fairly tax efficient, so it can be used both inside and outside of an IRA. The ER of the fund is 1.11%, which includes the expenses of the underlying funds it invests in. That's a bit higher than I'd like for a large cap fund, but it's not outrageous.
If you want a more growthy fund, SCIEX is a fund that M* calls blend and Lipper calls large cap growth. It's managed by Schroeder, which is one of the two firms submanaging VWIGX, a fine large cap growth fund suggested by Lewis above. (However, SCIEX isn't great on tax efficiency.)
If you want a more value leaning fund, TROSX suggested by Mulder420 above, is a good prospect.
Virtually all of the funds suggested in this thread come from families with excellent reputations for international investing.

Leon Cooperman is a 70+ years old hedge fund manager. Lately he has appearing in CNBC and Bloomberg. Interesting quotes from him.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/billionaire-investor-leon-cooperman-12-best-quotes-2020-6-1029330190#

My favorite fund is MIOPX which is managed by Kristen Heugh. This is a strong international fund with broad exposure to Europe as well as emerging markets. Ben suggested their global fund which is also excellent. If you run the numbers you'll see that it consistently outperforms all other funds internationally over 3, 5, and 7 years. In a down market it will get hit, but it actually held up well in March this year. A second fund that I think highly of is FSEAX. This is focused exclusively on emerging asia so it provides strong China exposure. I am just watching this one right now because of tensions with China but it also is a strong consistent performer. MATFX from Matthews is also intriguing.

David,
Are you advocating MMT? I don’t think the country should have a balanced budget but if interest rates rise, servicing the debt will take a bigger and bigger slice of the pie. I know you’ll say we are paying ourselves - but that doesn’t include foreign held Treasuries. Additionally, servicing the debt is just another transfer scheme. Tax payers pay in, bond holders take out - the 2 groups probably overlap, but they are not one in the same.
Consider the following:
National debt as a share of the economy will reach a record next year, reaching 108% of gross domestic product — more than the 106% milestone we hit just after World War II. As things stand right now, debt will hit 121% GDP by 2030 and a staggering 220% of GDP by 2050. Deficits of this size will take years to rein in, so the sooner we start thinking about how to change the trajectory of our budget, the better.

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/