Historical 60-40 (150+ Years)
A historical view is presented for allocation 60-40 over 150+ years (real returns; +5.56% for 60-40 vs +6.98% for 100-0; the cumulative return differences appear more dramatic) & 5 years (nominal returns?). The 2022-24 period (post-pandemic & Russia-Ukraine war) was among the worst periods for 60-40 & its drawdown was comparable to 100-0 (i.e. bonds offered no help) - it had never happened before.
For drawdowns, both the max & recovery period are important. A "Lake Volume" measure is used that seems to be the area of the drawdown (precise methodology isn't provided, but it could just be proportional to the average decline for the drawdown). Then, there are 2 ways to look at this in a Table shown:
(i) the worst 1929 era lake-vol was used as 100% (max "pain"), & then all others are shown as relative % or relative "pain" measure,
(ii) in each drawdown, the difference in normalized lake-vol % for 60-40 & 100-0 as reduction in pain with 60-40.
Of course, compared to the 1929 era, 2022-24 was a nonevent (but unique in its own way).

Morningstar Article https://www.morningstar.com/economy/6040-portfolio-150-year-markets-stress-test

Thanks @Old_Joe / Will run some tests on an unregistered device before sharing more. 5 monthly allowed. So only 1 remaining this month.
Re the discussion - I’ve held a Real Assets fund (big holding) for several years. Mine is only 5% in gold bullion. They are all different in their allocations. Right now it holds 25% in real estate. Also, I opened small “token” positions in Swiss Franc / JP Yen last week as a counter to dollar assets. If they rise they will mitigate downside a small bit. Very low allocation to equities in general. As article may note, longer dated bonds / bond funds aren’t a good choice if higher inflation accompanies the weaker dollar (likely). 1-5 year part of the curve may be appealing.
RAPAX is my real assets fund. Not as successful longer term as Price’s PRAFX. But it’s much less volatile than Price’s offering. I also have a lot of respect for this non-mainstream asset manager.

Tom Russo explains PM in his portfolio this way:

Philip Morris International (PM) as one of the most remarkable examples in the author's portfolio of a company with the capacity to reinvest and transform itself. Over the past 14 years, PM has invested aggressively into developing Reduced Risk Products (RRPs) like IQOS, VEEV ONE, and ZYN. IQOS, its flagship heat-not-burn product, is now a major success in Japan and expanding in Western Europe.

https://wealthtrack.com/how-to-make-the-cut-in-semper-vic-partners-private-funds-portfolio/

OP link has interviews with several advisors. Suggestions are typical - foreign stocks and bonds, US multinationals with overseas revenues and alternatives.
When dollar is weak, foreign investments and profits get a boost on currency conversions. Some of that has been going on already.
BTW, this also why foreign diversification hasn't worked for years as strong dollar imposed a penalty on currency conversion.

@rforno- Interesting to see American Funds EuroPacific and Washington Mutual again after all these years. We used both of them (but class A) fairly heavily when we were in our accumulation phase. American Funds was really good about allowing us to group all of our various IRAs and non-retirement accounts to meet their minimum for no-load purchases.

Thanks @yogibearbull.
A subscriber. Pulled up the article which bears out what I expected.
”Workers across nearly all age groups are investing record portions of their 401(k) accounts in equities. After years of relentless market gains, they are either allocating more to stocks or having it done for them by money managers.”
Historically flows into these plans have increased when markets are hot but have fallen off during bear markets. Going from recollection. Perhaps someone will prove me wrong. But if correct … they’re doing it backwards. Ought to invest more in down markets.

at the risk of further exciting certain opportunists who are unable to invest directly in ICE, noted SEC filing forensic analyst Michelle Leder dropped a note on prison profiteer geo group.
geo has been a 'trump trade' for 2 characteristics :
1. long disdain for ESG, where Leder focuses her corp governance expertise.
2. the 'immigration' entertainment catalyst rounding up citizens and non-criminals alike, billed to taxpayers
" ...operate over a dozen prisons (they call them processing centers) under a contract with ICE. Needless to say, business is booming. When it reported second quarter results last week, revenues were up 5% to ~$640million for the quarter. Investors were not impressed, sending the stock down over 20% on the results.
In my adopted hometown of LA, you don’t have to drive too far to see brown-skinned people being rounded up at the Lowes or Home Depot. Today's LA Times had a story about a 15year-old -- the same age as my son -- being approached by ICE agents wielding guns on his way into a local school...
For many people, myself included, this represents an unprecedented attack on people who are just going about their lives. For GEO, it represents “unprecedented business opportunities”. That’s the exact language that the company has used in three separate SEC filings...
In the July 10 8-K, the company extended the contract for founder and Executive Chairman George Zoley. When Zoley transitioned from CEO to Exec Chairman 5 years ago at the age of 71, the company entered into an agreement for him to serve as Exec Chairman through July 1, 2026. Yesterday, the company extended that date to April 2, 2029, citing the “unprecedented business opportunities” as the primary reason.
...Zoley’s target bonus and target stock award will both increase to $1.5million, up from $1million previously. In the same filing, the company also increased CEO J. David Donahue’s target bonus and stock grant to 150%, again citing the “unprecedented business opportunities” [to] $1.5million. ...Donahue only took over as CEO on Jan. 1, that seems as if he’s being rewarded for luck, rather than any type of managerial skill. GEO stock rose sharply after Trump won on Nov, 5, GEO Group stock has been falling since he took office January 20.
Rewarding executives when business is booming makes a lot of sense. But what if the reason that it’s booming is due to highly questionable legal tactics and misery for all sorts of people? Much of LA has been living under a pall for the past 2 months, where people are afraid to drop their kids off at summer camp or go grocery shopping. Is that really worth a hefty reward for two executives? If nothing else, the optics behind these awards are pretty dreadful..."
linkedin.com

Always playing both ends off the middle here. We will celebrate surviving 25 years together in 2026. Married, even! A big deal expensive trip is in the offing. Stashing cash in MMkt to grow it and keep it away from the ravages of the Stock Market. Otherwise, reinvesting divvies.

@PRESSmUP,
From the VTMFX fact sheet (dated June 30, 2025):
"The fund invests approximately 50% to 55% of its assets in municipal securities
and the balance in common stocks. The fixed income portion of the fund is concentrated
in high-quality municipal securities with a dollar-weighted average maturity expected
to be between 6 and 12 years."
"The fund’s stock holdings are chosen from the stocks that pay lower dividends
within the Russell 1000 Index—an index that is made up of stocks of large- and
mid-capitalization U.S. companies. The fund uses statistical methods to 'sample'
the index, aiming to minimize taxable dividends while approximating the other
characteristics of the index."
https://institutional.vanguard.com/assets/corp/fund_communications/pdf_publish/us-products/fact-sheet/F0103.pdf
According to M*, the equity sleeve mirrors Vanguard Tax-Managed Capital Appreciation,
while the muni sleeve is similar to Vanguard Intermediate-Term Tax-Exempt.
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/vtmfx/analysis

@Hank. I am so impressed that you hung on to PRPFX for nearly 25 years. We haven’t owned anything for 25 years except our house (37 years ) and our last boat, sold recently after almost 25 years.

@hank,
Do you consider PRPFX a permanent portfolio hedge?
For example, it's LT Bonds holdings should appreciate if ST rates are cuts.
It is ranked #1 in its category YTD, 1 YR, 3 YR, & 5 YR. Impressive.

Good question @bee
Yes and no!
It’s a fund with many different types of assets which do tend to hedge themselves. Over 25 year periods if I had to own just one fund PRPFX would be the one. It’s designed to “endure” many different market cycles. But nearer term the fund is prone to multi-year periods of outperformance and underperformance. Not that you’ll loose a lot of money. You won’t. But as good as it is, I’ve seen periods when investors piled in when the fund was soaring, but became disenchanted a year or two later when it lost a bit and entered the doldrums - and they sold out. Last ones in might even have lost a little.
Will the fund effectively “hedge” the remainder of your portfolio against big losses? No. I wouldn’t think so. Owned it nearly 25 years. Sold a year ago. No longer fits my needs. Everyone here probably knows a Troy Ounce of gold has doubled in 2 years from around $1600 to $3400.
I”ve linked the chart on holdings. The fund has caught several strong winds of late. Gold has more than doubled in price over 2 years - maybe a bit longer. Silver’s hot too. The portion in the Swiss franc has benefitted from the weaker dollar this year. And the hold in “Aggressive Growth” (stocks) has benefitted from the likes of NVDA which now comprises 8% of the S&P by weight and is bigger than the entire economies of some countries (like Germany).
In the following:
Gold 20%
Silver 5%
Swiss Franc 10%
Real Estate & Nat Resources 15%
Aggressive Growth 15%
Dollar Assets (Dollar denominated bonds) 35%

@bee… thanks for raising the question of how to perceive PRPFX. Its raw performance is and has been awesome and seems greater than the sum of its parts. We owned it years ago and now again. I am guessing it’s recent out performance is due to its gold allocation. It’s not cheap and has no yield so some here would pass. I am loving it and I call it my hedge but what do I know?

IMO, Fido warning was good for a CEF that trades only about 5,000 shares/day and bid-ask spread is 9c (not that bad). Fido probably has a trigger based on low trading volume.
I haven't run into such situations a lot but I think Schwab did the same few years ago when I wanted to buy a tiny Canada-based CEF.

Are we approaching China’s model on private companies, state-run companies?
The Chip Act was passed in 2022 to encourage domestic investment on semiconductor manufacturing. Results is mixed after 3 years that shows re-sourcing manufacturing is not easy, especially with the complex supply chain involved. It will take lots of investment to turn Intel foundry around and to catch up to the leading foundries. Minor stakes, in my opinion, are too little to move the needle.

Defense sector has done well over the last couple of years, but where is it headed with upcoming Ukraine talks and the prospects for ceasefire? Any specific fund or stock buy/sell ideas?

Just found out that Bessent worked for (protege of) George Soros for many years. Surprising that has not spawned any weird conspiracy theories... yet.
His Wikipedia page is a good read.

Thank you @yogibb for the data. The full impact of tariffs has been delayed due to front-loading of imported goods. In coming months, the full effect will show up in goods price as well as higher CPI. This morning the wholesale prices was reported that rose 0.9% in July, much more than expected.
Just as a side note, we experienced in our travel this year a considerable higher cost in hotels, food, and entertainment than previous years.

I appreciate all that. I guess a good bit of it just does not apply, because (until there is a substantial change) we pay no federal income tax? Haven't, for years....

I recall Forbes' The Honor Roll.
Active Fund Strategies researched funds' subsequent performance
after inclusion on Forbes' list from 1990 through 2010 (highlighted below).
I wonder if anyone has conducted similar research for the M* list?
While the Forbes Honor Roll did produce some stellar fund selections, especially the 1996 list,
Forbes Magazine’s ability to call out top fund performance in advance,
either short-term or longterm, was not much better than that of a coin toss!
1. Over the 23 years studied, Forbes had 1,491 opportunities to demonstrate its fund selection prowess.
The annual in-category performance of its recommendations is as follows:
top quartile__2nd quartile__3rd quartile__bottom quartile
27%________ 24%________ 22%________ 27%
408_________365_________326_________392
That’s a first/worst ratio of 51/49, which, once again, has all the success of a coin flip!
2. Three years after inclusion on the list, 27% of the honorees made it to the top quartile of their category,
while 25% landed at the bottom.
A small majority (54%) finished in the top half and a large minority (46%) finished in the bottom half.
3. Five years after inclusion on the list, 27% of the honorees made it to the top quartile of their category,
while 26% landed at the bottom.
The 5-year post performance produced a dismal top half/bottom half ratio of 50/50.
PDF

"It’s time once again for our popular thrilling funds feature.
As you may recall, this is a list I generate with simple, strict screens to narrow a universe
of 15,000 fund share classes down to a short list ranging between 25 and 50.
It’s purely a screen; I don’t make any additions or subtractions."
Here are the tests:
• Expense ratio in the Morningstar Category’s cheapest quintile. (I use the prospectus adjusted expense ratio,
which includes underlying fund fees but does not include leverage and shorting costs.)
• Manager investment of more than $1 million in the fund (the top rung of the investment ranges reported in SEC filings).
• Morningstar Risk rating lower than High.
• Morningstar Medalist Rating of Bronze or higher.
• Parent Pillar rating better than Average.
• Returns greater than the fund’s category benchmark over the manager’s tenure for a minimum of five years.
In the case of allocation funds, I also used category averages because benchmarks are often pure equity
or bond, and therefore not good tests.
• Must be a share class accessible to individual investors with a minimum investment of no greater than $50,000.
• No funds of funds.
• Funds must be rated by Morningstar analysts.

https://www.morningstar.com/funds/thrilling-33