Yes, I have been hearing this for years now; thanks
What do you see as the fuse, or the clock, --- the ticking event?

several comments:
1) I believe and can prove it that in most cases you want to own stock funds + bond funds because bond funds is where you find managers who can add performance + better risk attributes.
2) Stocks are simpler, you must own US LC and VTI/VOO is just a great, very cheap and will beat most managed fund longer term. This index also gets over 40% of its revenues from abroad
3) For about 20 years now my specialty has been to find the exceptions
PRWCX-this is the only allocation fund I would use. The managers use a flexible mandate + use several categories + making the right decisions for many years and why performance is in the top 1-3% for 1-3-5-10-15 years.
DSEEX-First, managers invest in global bonds then, they look at 11 US stock sectors and select 5 undervalued sectors, then take 4 sectors out of 5 with the best momentum. They don't invest directly in the index but in a derivative that is similar to the index.
Basically, you get 200% investments for the price of 100%. You get real bonds + derivative of stock indexes.
To make even simpler, let's assume they invest in just one sector SPY and assume the bond portion makes 3-4% annually. It means, the performance will be SPY + 3-4% - (paying for derivatives).
USMV/SPLV-low volatility funds work. PV(link) shows that you get similar performance with better risk attributes
4) For over 40 years high tech is where you will find the best opportunities and growth and now they own the world and this is the biggest category in the SP5500. So, why not just own QQQ which BTW gets over 50% of its revenue from abroad.
5) If you want to diversify abroad I don't like generic indexes. I like to make a bet that EM is where I want to be but not in Europe.
6) For bond funds, I have many great options and I mentioned many of them at my thread (https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/54803/bond-mutual-funds-analysis#latest)
7) Don't collect funds, the max funds you own should be under 10 and your best ideas.
Putting it all together and I can see VOO,PRWCX,DSEEX,QQQ + IISIX,VCFIX,IOFIX,PUCZX (you may need higher rated bond funds as ballast). Depending on goals I can make adjustments.

The decision to remain on the sidelines- (with a large stash of dry powder in short bond funds and Cd's ) or to dip into some of the more conservative suggestion.
Re: charles review of IOFIX- it shows a 0.17 correlation to SPY - but it is only 4 years old. How would this do in a recession ? And Charles Commented that the strategy had a limited shelf life. Looking for other suggestions to put some cash to work. Currently greater than 60% bonds and cash. I have both 401k and taxable cash to invest. Many thanks for your commentary... it is enlightening.

Morn'in @Mark
Kinda strange many times where these folks (in this case, your Greg Carlson notation) obtain their take or bias or whatever helps them form an opinion. I don't understand his statement about Fidelity management of this fund, FBALX. Perhaps Greg should look at the chart below. You, I and many here do the grain of salt thing when reading where we should or should not be investing our monies, eh? Continuing edumacation, yes?
Anyway, just for the heck of it; I picked a few balanced funds to chart back to Nov. 2008 (this limit because of etf, AOM inception). This is a random selection of funds, most well known, that popped into my head. I have not done any analysis as to how these match up; but are generally in the 70-50% allocation for equity to the best of my knowledge. Eight are active managed, one etf and one index.
For those I've known over the years and don't want to make things worse from their own meddling, I always suggest a look at these type of funds.
Charts below are total return for the period.
First chart is 5 listings with the names at the fop of the chart.
This chart is a bit busy, with the first 5; and another 5 added.
Have a good remainder............back to me chores.
Catch

@jafink63, the category natural resources and energy is what went down hill, not the fund itself. I haven't owned it in over 10 years, but PRNEX is a good fund if you want to be in that space.

Interesting take on FBALX from M*:
This fund lacks a competitive advantage. Summary by Greg Carlson Nov 14, 2019
"An unstable manager lineup and an undistinguished process earn a downgrade of the Morningstar Analyst Rating of Fidelity Balanced to Neutral across its share classes.
This fund is led by Robert Stansky, who can make shifts of 10 percentage points to its neutral allocation of 60% stocks/40% bonds. The equity portfolio maintains a sector-neutral position...."
(this is all I can access without a premium membership)
As catch 22 noted above the fund has returned 5.35% over the past year, 9.53% over the past 3 years, 7.97% over the past 5 years and 10.34% over the past 10 years. Feelin' lucky punk? I would like to read more just to see what this guys issues are with the fund and what he proposes as better substitutes. I'm almost willing to bet that it begins with 'Vanguard'. I'll forgive him a bit if it's PRWCX but only a bit because it's closed. This is why we (I) tune out analyst noise for the most part.

Hmmm, I have JABAX at Fidelity and is NTF. Also had it at Schwab for several years. Maybe the rules have changed since I added shares last year but you should try. It has done very well the last several years compared to other like funds. I just tried JABAX at Schwab as well and no problem there.
https://cdn.janushenderson.com/webdocs/Fact+Sheet_Balanced+Fund+(Multi-Share)_3Q19_exp+01-15-20.pdf

Happy New Years to you too Charles!

Hi @lrwilliams: (sigh) This likely explains why neither Charles nor Chip trusts me to do math any more complicated than figuring out the tip.
@msf: we might ask Charles. Part of what I was searching for was to find a way to help investors who do not want to assume market like risk. Many long short funds, for example, are premised on a 60% net market exposure. I was trying to imagine equity funds whose downside risk simulated that. That is, funds whose downside was equivalent to an 80% market exposure or a 60% market exposure.
@MikeM: The Steelers suffered 20 years of futility in between their two great quarterbacks, Bradshaw and Roethlisberger. Not sure that I have 20 years to wait for the next great rotation. Might become a KC Chiefs fan.
@newgirl: no reason for paralysis, though certainly prudence is always in order. What sort of guidance would you find most useful as you tried to get comfortable with taking some level of risk? I'd be happy to work from there, since I'm sure that your experience reflects that of many, many other people.
David

"Gary1952">dtconroe, I did purchase NVHAX with proceeds from an equity fund that had doubled. This is in my taxable account so I wanted to get some muni exposure and protect my profit. I was considering BTMIX but decided to go a little more aggressive. I read the your objection to the 2015 drawdown. But I have decided to pick funds with good potential and stick with them for a period long enough to prove me wrong. I will not need that money for a few years for monthly spending. I will review the performance at end of this year to see if it makes the grade for next year.
Hey Gary, I understand your reasoning. NVHAX performance since 2015/2016 is excellent. Hope it works out well for you.

dtconroe, I did purchase NVHAX with proceeds from an equity fund that had doubled. This is in my taxable account so I wanted to get some muni exposure and protect my profit. I was considering BTMIX but decided to go a little more aggressive. I read the your objection to the 2015 drawdown. But I have decided to pick funds with good potential and stick with them for a period long enough to prove me wrong. I will not need that money for a few years for monthly spending. I will review the performance at end of this year to see if it makes the grade for next year.

I believe all Fidelity's index funds, new and old, are managed by Geode. That company was created by Fidelity and later spun off - a fact not mentioned on its history page.
WSJ, Aug 5, 2003: "Fidelity Investments said it spun off an in-house investment firm ... Fidelity, the nation's largest mutual-fund firm, launched the company, called Geode Investors LLC, two years ago."
There was a thread recently that discussed voting records of fund families. The article cited in that thread said that Fidelity's index funds had a decent record. The reason for that is Geode. Geode has been voting the proxies for the Fidelity funds it manages. As I recall, even back in the 2000's, Geode had a better voting record than Fidelity.

@msf noted these indexes and there are other "new" indexes Fidelity has introduced during the past few years..........these are managed by GEODE.

I agree with others about FBALX. it’s been the core holding in my IRA for about 20 years.

Interesting. I had opened a position in YACKX about 10 years ago for the reasons listed above, with the intention of moving more of my IRA into it as I approached retirement. However, Fidelity or Yacktman placed a hard close on the fund, preventing me from buying any more shares. So, I settled on PRBLX as a suitable replacement and it has far exceeded my expectations. I’m actually glad that YACKX closed because I’ve done better in PRBLX and their investment philosophy is more aligned with my preferences.

I'm usually a bit hesitant to consider two funds clones unless they have the same managers and their portfolios have very similar attributes and holdings. Puritan not only has just a single manager while Balanced has ten, Puritan's manager isn't even one of those ten.
While I agree that there is huge overlap between the portfolios, the mixtures are significantly different. Puritan has an average market cap of $112B, while Balanced's is a smaller $73B. Puritan is a growth-heavy fund (54% growth stocks), while Balanced is a bit more shall we say balanced, with 33% growth, 26% value. Puritan's turnover, at 132% is double that of Balanced's 60%, but that high turnover could just be the result of a new manager having overhauled the portfolio in the past 1.5 years.
On the other hand, management at Balanced turns over frequently enough that even if the two funds are clones today, Balanced will turn into something else tomorrow.
Consider FZIPX which is lauded in the column, and FSMAX. They both are extended market index funds. However, they follow different indexes and have different attributes. Good candidates for substitution, but not clones. In fact, because FZIPX has a cash component 26x as large as FSMAX's, its cash drag alone costs more than any savings that FZIPX offers with a zero ER.
So even index funds where management is much less of an issue may not be clones. And there's more to finding good funds than picking the ones with rock bottom costs. Which is what the author of this column seems to have done.

@stillers
I agree with your observation of FBALX....
Disclosure: A Fidelity customer for more than 40 years and biased to the favorable side of investing with them.

Great post, and ditto on your last comment.

FCPGX-Fidelity Small Cap Growth, About 2 years ago my investment advisor added it. I don't know specifically how it has performed except It's OK.

@stillers
I agree with your observation of FBALX. At .53% E.R. and a since inception (1986) annualized return of about 9.3%; well, if one is doing better than this, then stick with your plan. If one wants to retire from meddling with their portfolio; this fund, as well as whatever moderate allocation funds one has access to, may provide your managed account choice without the need of an advisor.
I read through the article, and perhaps some folks have or still do consider Fidelity to be pricey. If so, they have not done their homework and also do not understand or know the history of Fidelity and its positive impact upon the investing marketplace helping provide the diverse and inexpensive investments available to the small, individual investor today.
Fidelity, along with Vanguard and Schwab placed enormous pressure into the diversity and pricing of mutual funds, especially during the 1980's. Their actions then (forcing the high loads on mutual funds of companies as Merrill Lynch and the rest to have to re-do these fees or lose customers) and today; with their continued pricing and offerings pressures still to the benefit of the small, individual investor.
As to the choices in the article, well; as usual, everyone will make their appropriate choices.
Disclosure: A Fidelity customer for more than 40 years and biased to the favorable side of investing with them.

Crash - I’m not following you either. Why remove money from IRA accounts and pay taxes on it prematurely, if it’s not needed for five years? Couldn’t you just move the money to safer funds within your IRA? Or, alternatively, convert it to a safer fund in a Roth IRA?