By March of 2009, Miller's flagship had drawn down about 80 percent. He only drew down half that 11 years later. How does he get the new capital to take advantage?
Oh, but this, gotta love: He cited economist John Maynard Keynes who once said it was “the duty of every serious investor to suffer grievous losses with great equanimity.”

Howdy,
I won't talk about the metals as you've covered it. One of the oldest and most important (to me) quotes I've ever read was from the Elder Baron Rothschild. He said to guard against economic downturns, one should have 1/3 of their wealth in securities, 1/3 in real estate and 1/3 in rare art. Note that he's talking Wealth, not your asset allocation for your 401K. Also, you can substitute many things for Rare Art but in ain't Beanie Babies.
Take a few minutes and run your own numbers. Now wipe off your computer screen. Most people will be something like 80/15/5 . . . or worse.
I've been working at it for years now and still have never gotten to 33/33/33. That said, I'm better today than when I first looked at it.
I know it doesn't answer your question but it may serve as some strategic guidance.
Good luck,
rono

Question for the board...where would you invest in an inflationary environment?
I'm of a certain age where I remember investing my earnings from pumping gas and changing oil at the local Texaco in CDs that were paying over 12% in the early 80s...very tough environment, lot of inflation, high unemployment, attorney's driving taxi cabs...no job was beneath anyone...
fast forward to about 10 years ago when still attending a corporate torture chamber on a daily basis when during a water cooler stop I asked one of the gray beards what was it really like during the late 70's early 80's with the high inflation, I was to young to really understand it...he told me that "there was absolutely no where to hide pertaining to your investments"...you got chewed up no matter what you did
What is the thinking now? You could argue that there will be reduced demand for goods and labor so how can we have inflation but with all the money being put into the system by the gov't, I anticipate we will have a situation where we switch between severe deflation and severe inflation...where would you invest?
I wouldn't touch any Gold ETF...I can see that going poof as what do you really own there..can't get bullion at a decent price without large mark up...real estate...too many folks unable to pay rent....
Ideas/thoughts?
Everyone stay healthy!
Baseball Fan

I gotta tell you, for the cheapest go-to, "shareholder first" fund company out there, Vanguard is sure the most bureaucratic fund company out there. Trying to do a simple XFER by mail is a complete nightmare.
And...speaking of transfer nightmares, Dodge & Cox has a pretty miserable record here as well. Yet again, my wife tried to move money into D&C from another fund family and...wait for it...D&C got the transaction all spun around and mixed up. You think that for money coming in, they'd be all over themselves trying to get it right the first time. This is about the third time in the past year or two that they've messed something up.
Please, Vanguard, D&C, Royce, others -- get this right.

Not a rant when it's correct.
I had a long discussion about D&C a few weeks ago, investors can't distinguish between D&C as a great company to lagging performance with higher volatility.
I had an account at Vanguard in the 90". One day I placed an order to buy their index fund at 9 AM. At 10 AM I decided to cancel it but I couldn't, so I called a VG rep and he said that you can't cancel it by design. In 2 days I liquidated my account and transferred it to Fidelity. Several years ago I transferred most of it to Schwab because they are better. VG lower expenses are meaningless or don't exist compared to Schwab and if companies realized that Schwab Target funds at ER=0.08% are cheaper than VG at 0.09 maybe they will start switching their 401K to Schwab.
VG is a dinosaur.

Curious why you think Schwab is better than Fidelity?

I gotta tell you, for the cheapest go-to, "shareholder first" fund company out there, Vanguard is sure the most bureaucratic fund company out there. Trying to do a simple XFER by mail is a complete nightmare.
And...speaking of transfer nightmares, Dodge & Cox has a pretty miserable record here as well. Yet again, my wife tried to move money into D&C from another fund family and...wait for it...D&C got the transaction all spun around and mixed up. You think that for money coming in, they'd be all over themselves trying to get it right the first time. This is about the third time in the past year or two that they've messed something up.
Please, Vanguard, D&C, Royce, others -- get this right.

Not a rant when it's correct.
I had a long discussion about D&C a few weeks ago, investors can't distinguish between D&C as a great company to lagging performance with higher volatility.
I had an account at Vanguard in the 90". One day I placed an order to buy their index fund at 9 AM. At 10 AM I decided to cancel it but I couldn't, so I called a VG rep and he said that you can't cancel it by design. In 2 days I liquidated my account and transferred it to Fidelity. Several years ago I transferred most of it to Schwab because they are better. VG lower expenses are meaningless or don't exist compared to Schwab and if companies realized that Schwab Target funds at ER=0.08% are cheaper than VG at 0.09 maybe they will start switching their 401K to Schwab.
VG is a dinosaur.

It's an interesting idea, but I have my doubts about whether it would work. In order to make a QCD, the money goes directly from the IRA to the charity. It's something like a direct rollover where the IRA sends you a check, but one made payable to the new IRA.
Since you never have possession of the money (either with a QCD or a direct rollover), ISTM there's nothing for you to put back into an IRA. I've not researched this, so this is purely speculation. If you find out anything more encouraging, please let us know.
FWIW, the CARES act allows one to take up to three years to do a "60 day rollover", if the cash was withdrawn because of a COVID-19-created need. This is "limited" to $100K.

"...I can say that if you are not a buy and hold forever (Bogle style) then you are not an investor...."
I come here to learn. Reading many of the interchanges between others here and FD1000, it's clear that he/she has an unreasonable need to win all the time. Reminds me of conversations with my nephew. Reminds me of the Orange Abortion in the White House.
....... When I was a younger man and doing comunity organizing, our leader reminded us very early about a Cardinal Rule: if you control the terminology and definitions and can get the ones on the other side of the issue to start believing and using your definitions and terminology, then you've all but WON the issue.
********************************************
I'm not interested in embroidery nor competition in here. You've got info worth sharing? Share it, by all means.

My main point is that you can't make your assumption on others. If an investor meets their goals then it's that simple. I know a guy that sold his company for millions of dollars years ago and wants low volatility and invested over 90% in Munis and it worked great for him over 20 years. Another one retired with a pension + his SS covers his expenses and all his money is in stocks. Another guy uses only CEFs and trade them with good results. They all met their needs, there is no right or wrong answer, the problem is trying to put someone in a box that you don't like.
Over the years I shared my thoughts and actually helped hundreds who contacted me privately. I never tell them to use my style, never, I helped them using their style. This is what many can't grasp.
Example: An older relative retired around 2001-2 and told me he saw several financial advisors and thinks that 1% is too high and he really doesn't trust them while markets got volatile and he wants a stable LT simple portfolio and all his money is at Vanguard. Based on his portfolio, he needed about 3-3.5% yearly withdrawal. I told him he can be in just 35-40% stocks and the rest bonds and to invest in just 2 funds VWIAX+VSCGX. Every 2-3 years this guy calls me and thank me how I saved him so much money and how it works.
I knew VWIAX would be better but I wanted to diversify a bit more. Below are the results(link)

I employ the ones that give me the best work for the money. If they don't perform, I just switch the

@FD1000, then you are not an investor, you're a trader of the hottest fund of the month club. Most here are investors. So, speaking for myself as an investor, I would not take your short term rear view mirror advice on this one.

You should never take advice from anybody but do your own due diligence. That's what I do.
But, I have held funds for months up to several years. As I said, I look for best risk/reward funds first then select the best one. I have held PIMIX(Multi) and PHMIX for years. It's not just the best performer.
There are all kind of investors, I don't put anybody in a box. I can say that if you are not a buy and hold forever (Bogle style) then you are not an investor. The key is to find what works best for you to meet your goals.
How many investors do you know who sold over 99% before the crash this year?
I can tell you from experience that a good fund can do well in the next 1-2 years.

@LewisBraham
What you said is mostly correct BUT index works best for US LC. I have done very nicely by having a list of great risk/reward funds and selecting the one with the best momentum. Basically, I call them my NBA team. I want my team to go to the playoff every year. Even a superstar (like PIMIX) will be out if I can find a better performer (in my case IOFIX). This guarantees my funds to be a top performer. I also care a lot about volatility.
In 2000-2009 I mostly held 3 funds SGENX,FAIRX,OAKBX. After 2010 and preparing for retirement I held PRWCX and PIMIX and then IOFIX.
===============
@MikeM
long term FMIJX looks better but I only care what happened in the last 1-3 years. See my answer above.
I also look at my fund managers as my contractors, I employ the ones that give me the best work for the money. If they don't perform, I just switch them.

Let's look at a story of 2 International funds. If we look at total return, the growth of $10,000 invested on 1/1/2011, we have these results:
Both funds A and B start with a $10,000 investment on 1/1/2011.
on 12/31/2011, fund A had $8609 / fund B had $9823
on 12/31/2012, fund A had $10124 / fund B had $11608
on 12/31/2013, fund A had $12391 / fund B had $14969
on 12/31/2014, fund A had $11489 / fund B had $15138
on 12/31/2015, fund A had $11459 / fund B had $15625
on 12/31/2016, fund A had $11018 / fund B had $17188
on 12/31/2017, fund A had $13360 / fund B had $19843
on 12/31/2018, fund A had $11876 / fund B had $17966
on 12/31/2019, fund A had $15456 / fund B had $21034
At the end of 9 years of return history, fund B has returned 36% more than fund A.
on 4/1/2020, fund A had $12663 / fund B had $15693
Even after a misstep in the 1st qtr of 2020 (which every manager goes though) Fund B has still returned ~20% more than fund A for long term investors.
Also:
Fund A's managers have been on board for 3 years, fund B management since inception. Fund A's volatility as measured by STD is 13.5, fund A has been less volatile at 11.3.
Fund A has an expense ration of 1.15%, you'll pay less for fund B, 0.9%.
If you are a long term investor, which fund would you have been happier investing if on 1/1/2011? If you are a long term investor, why would you throw out fund B and replace it with find A? Is there a crystal ball that tells you fund A is immune to manager missteps?
of course:
Fund A = CWVGX
Fund B = FMIJX

@FD1000 The problem with this sort of comparison is the past is gone, and there is little evidence for long-term performance persistence of top performing funds in the future: https://advisorperspectives.com/articles/2020/01/23/december-2019-spiva-persistence-scorecard There is evidence for short-term performance persistence, however. The fund that is hot this year may well be hot the next, but the fund that is hot over the past five years most likely won't be over the next five. That's why other criteria besides peformance should also be used, fees being one, valuation of the portfolio, style consistency, manager tenure and risk control. By the time three or five-years of outperformance have occurred the investments the manager made that have proven successful may be tapped out and he/she is due for some underperformance. The question is then is the manager someone investors can tolerate sitting through the underperformance periods after the strong ones. Evidently for some MFO-ers, this is not the case with FMIJX, despite the explanation management provided for the underperformance. This is a fundamental problem with active management. Even if the strategy makes sense and the management knows how to execute it many investors buy and sell at the wrong times, leading to a poor overall investor experience. There are a number of MFO-ers I think therefore who would be better off indexing as they can't take these bouts of underperformance. This is not meant to be a criticism. It is a reality of investing.
Then again, FMIJX marketed itself as a defensive fund that is good at losing less during downturns. In this regard, it has failed at a fundamental objective during this period, although it hasn't in past ones. Therefore, a review is in order and a consideration of management's explanation of the suprising downside in this case. The question becomes, do investors believe management's rationale or not?

Several comments
1) FMIJX ranks in M* in its category for YTD and 1-3 years at 92-94 which is at the bottom 6-8%. In the last 5 years it ranked in the top 10% in 3 years but at the bottom 2 years. That should tell you its inconsistency. Up to 2016 it was a much better performer.
2) From their 3/31/2020 outlook "At this early stage, COVID-19 has hurt value investors much more than their growth counterparts. Many sectors and industries in the value camp, such as financials, energy, industrials, travel and hospitality, have been the hardest hit by the virus. Intensifying the market pressure, Saudi Arabia’s unexpected move to open the spigots has crushed the price of oil. Nearly all energy-related companies, including businesses that only have moderate energy exposure, have seen their stocks decline precipitously. Year-to-date, value has underperformed growth by 10.69%, as the MSCI EAFE Value Index has declined 8.20%,"
3) You can switch to CWVGX with better performance + risk. See PV(link)
4) I have been avoiding international for years now. The SP500 gets about 40% of its earnings from abroad and QQQ about 50%.

yes, the consumer spending thing is going to be brutal for many of the obvious venues, restaurants, dentists, summer camps and the like, orthopedists and dermatologists and similar, and on and on and on.
So no one knows how it will play out; some informed guesses are smarter surely than others.
In 02 I was laid off as a manager from a successfully but then suddenly failing SW startup of many years, and talked right away w an old tech writer friend from an earlier gig who said I think this is going to be a long haul for you (he was employed), and I said, hmm, huh, oh, well.
And so it turned out. I had good contracting work for several years, or good enough, but it was 3y of moderate misery and anxiety, 05, before I got a staff job again, in the same editorial area, though this time DoD proposal work.
My adult kids now, it is interesting, and fearful.
The one who works at a mid-high level for a huge family-owned business centered on international travel and education is still employed but fears for the future, not surprisingly, as the company's business and model are stalling.
Her husband, who works for a local construction PM consulting firm, still has work, onsite at local university, which is closed but proceeding w repairs and rebuilds and such, even some new construction planning.
My other child is a new consultant at the biggest of management consulting firms, and so far he plenty of work, but there are freezes all round.
Finally his wife is a part-time pedi (school) nurse, now repurposed to public-health nurse, so gets to talk to, you know, parents whose kids are CV-positive and ill-ish, but who themselves are asymptomatic --- but test positive, and had been out and about at grocery and pharmacy for the past month. What lies ahead for her is unknown, though perhaps this will prove a lasting slight career shift from pedi to public if schools do not reopen for a year-plus.
And these are all highly fortunate and privileged and count-our-blessings situations. Imagine those for whom little of this applies.
Since income is spending and vice-versa, it will be a long trauma as that cycle grinds down.

Have been using ETFs such as MINT & NEAR for cash substitutes for years though after this past Monday, I'm not so sure. They have always been fairly stable. At one point Monday, NEAR fell by over 4%. It was down for over several hours by over 2%. Though by the end of the day, things evened out & was only down by about .24%. Not sure what computer algorithm had that jumping like that. Maybe this has happened before though I'm not typically around my computer watching intra-daily pricing.
Fortunately I was already in the process of moving money over to Navy Federal into this IRA CD. It's a 37 month CD with a 3% APY. $50 minimum to open. $150,000 maximum which you can fund at any time in that period. You do have to be a Navy Federal Credit union member. Talking to a representative, their board typically meets at the end of the month & sets their rates in the first week of the month though they can potentially change things at any time. This time period works well for myself & when I'll need the money. Schwab at this time has 3 yr CDs at 1%. It took about a week & a half to transfer assets from Schwab to Navy Federal. The downside- totally boring. No drama.
https://www.navyfederal.org/products-services/checking-savings/certificates-rates.php

********************************
...Just noticed: the listing which shows each of these two particular "featured" products each carry a footnote. #1 and #2. But the explanation for #2 does not exist, at least it does not exist right THERE, where it might do someone some good. ;)

@FD1000 What in your view do the last ten years of data have to do with the 1929 - 1954 period return? I already stated twice that dividends matter, although those numbers for large blend from the Depression are almost certainly wrong and subject to survivor bias. Also, while dividends do matter, the reinvestment of dividends was not automatic in 1929 and I suspect most did not or could not or would not reinvest those dividends while the Dow was falling over 80%. Try calling a bankrupt broker in the 1930s to reinvest them. Total returns as normally calculated do not exist without dividend reinvestment. And even a 14% dividend reinvestment would not bring the Dow’s Depression decline anywhere close to what Morningstar is reporting for large blend funds’ total return for that period if they were 100% pure stock portfolios.

@Old_Skeet
You pretty much covered everything I mentioned already

In your analysis you reference CTFAX's inception date being 2012. This is wrong.

In your previous post you mentioned 2 funds CFTAX + CTFAX.

CTFAX's investment strategy is entirely different than VWINX. My point in using it was to reflect during the recent market volatility that CTFAX was the better performer and a way for a retail investor like myself could play market volatility.

I know that and why I mentioned numbers since inception but also the last 5 years + YTD

Below is my performance findings using Morningstar's performance numbers as of 4/14/2020

Correct, M* is up to date on performance BUT I look deeper at SD, Sharp,Max Draw,Sortino and these numbers are monthly one. I can easily find funds with better performance which is one criterion, what about the rest? I also look longer term because a fund can be great for 1-3-6 months but not 3-5-10 years. An investor who wants to hold long term these numbers are important.
When I checked CTFAX long term, it handled YTD amazingly and did a pretty good job for 3 years. If you look further VWIAX had better volatility, in 2008 Max draw for VWIAX was -18.7 while CTFAX -42.55
So, I'm guessing they changed the formula which is great because it's a good option.
BTW, COTZX is not available at Fidelity and Schwab which are 2 major discount brokers.
Here is my bottom line: CTFAX risk-adjusted performance for YTD and for 3 years are very good.

The numbers DO NOT represent TOTAL RETURN which includes distributions. The only thing that matters is total return.
I also proved the last 10 years and we have all the data for it.
So, which is accurate, the Dow numbers or DIA(+SP500 which is close)?
Can you please answer this simple question?
I bet you won't answer it. I let other posters decide which one is accurate.

@FD1000. In your analysis you reference CTFAX's inception date being 2012. This is wrong. The fund's inception date is 2002. Going back to 2002 takes into account the Great Recession. Why is this important because when stocks are cheap CTFAX loads equities and when they are expensive it holds less of them. CTFAX's investment strategy is entirely different than VWINX. My point in using it was to reflect during the recent market volatility that CTFAX was the better performer and a way for a retail investor like myself could play market volatility. I was pointing out that you had CTFAX's fund inception date wrong in your analysis. Again, the correct date is 2002 rather than 2012 which you used in your analysis. I'm thinking using the correct date will change things a good bit within your analysis. Within the past year its equity allocation has ranged from a low of 15% on upwards, most recently, towards 70%, perhaps more. Morningstar has it currently classified as 15% to 30% equity allocation fund. This could change and I think worth watching.
In addition, if one were to use a different share class COTZX rather than the A share version that I referenced this changes things a good bit performance wise as CTFAX performance since 2002 is 6.85% while it lower er cousin (COTZX) is 7.12%.
My reasons for owning the fund are listed below.
Takes advantage of market shifts. Follows a disciplined approach to adapt to market changes.
Rebalances automatically. Aims to buy low and sell high by adjusting equity exposure based on the price level of the S&P 500 Index. Pursues risk-adjusted returns.
Your analysis is interesting; but, it is not fully reflective of the CTFAX's performance since it's inception date is inaccurate and differs from my own alalysis which is detailed below.
Below is my performance findings using Morningstar's performance numbers as of 4/14/2020. Three month advantage CTFAX +8.02% vs VWIAX -3.31%, YTD advantage CTFAX +8.44% vs. VWIAX -2.99%, 1 Year advantage CTFAX +17.75% vs VWIAX +5.74, 3 Year advantage CTFAX +28.82 vs VWIAX +19.11, 5 Year advantage CTFAX +35.24% vs VWIAX +31.99%, 10 Year advantage CTFAX +108.70% vs VWIAX +105.51%.
Again, what I was communicating in my opening comment was that to play stock market volatility that CTFAX was a better choice over the widely followed, and touted by some, VWIAX. I'm thinking I just now provided the support, through the above analysis, necessary to posture my opening comment even on out through a 10 year period.
I'm still with my plan to increase my position in CTFAX with it soon to become one of my top five holdings due to its strong recent and time tested performance.
One can learn more about CTFAX through the below link.
https://www.columbiathreadneedleus.com/investment-products/mutual-funds/Columbia-Thermostat-Fund/Class-A/details/?cusip=197199755&_n=1
Skeet
Note: CFTAX was a typo error it should have read CTFAX.
In a comparison of CTFAX vs. PRWCX ... CTFAX betters PRWCX up to and through three years but trails in the 5 year and ten year comparison.

Interesting. However, I am finding that CTFAX's inception date is 2OO2. I wonder how this would change things. For me, CTFAX is not a complete investment strategy. I am using it to play stock market swings automatically rather than doing it manually. For me it seems to be the better fit.

In your previous post you mentioned 2 funds CFTAX + CTFAX. I guess we are talking about CTFAX.
PV (link) has data since 2003 and shows that both VWIAX+PRWCX were a better risk-adjusted choices than CTFAX but in the last 5 years (link) CTFAX was the better choice because YTD (chart) was great.
Your manual changes are a personal choice and what works for you.
Most investors can't/won't switch funds and I don't blame them, it's much harder.
VWIAX is a great LT, and low ER fund with a great management for most retirees.
I do trades all the time but I check it too. My LT goals are to make over 6% annually with SD < 3 and never lose more than 3% from any last top. Schwab calculates annual average performance + SD. My portfolio performance is higher than 6% and SD < 2(actually 1.71) and I never lost more than 1% from any last top in about 3 years.

I don't have a direct Dow with distributions but I already proved with M* chart that includes distribution I'm correct.
How about you prove I'm wrong.
Since I know you will not find it I will do my best. This is a 100 years DOW (chart). That chart shows similar numbers as your previous post.
BUT
If you look at the DOW prices (here) 10 years, you will find the DOW went from 11019 to 23949. This means it made 129% in 10 years.
If I look at M* for VFINX+DIA(which is the Dow ETF) for 10 years (chart) you will see that VFINX (SP500) and DIA are close.
In 10 years DIA made 168% which is higher than the above 129%.
Maybe the numbers are not very accurate but enough to make my point and I'm not going to spend more time on that.