I'm thinking like some others that have expressed their thoughts that a good balanced fund over time will do just as well if not better than advertised bear market funds. I charted American Funds ABALX against a couple of them using BEARX & PSSAX and over a full market cycle of ten years it was the better performer. In fact over this ten year period the two bear market funds that I used actually had negative returns while ABALX was up better than an average of eight percent per year for the period. Being mostly a long term investor who at times trades around the edges this is important to me being able to keep positions for the long term.
So, with the market being at all time highs with some saying a major pull back might be coming I'm staying with my hybrid funds and will not be moving into bear market funds. Should some ballast be needed in my portfolio during a market down draft I'll raise cash by reducing my exposure in some of my equity funds.

@bee, great stuff on max drawdown and recovery time. I'm a believer in having a cash bucket in retirement to ride out a recession. I've thought 3-4 years expenses would be good, but you are using actual data that suggests 2 years expenses in a cash bucket is likely sufficient. More real data that suggests bear market funds are not needed or even detrimental to a portfolio.

I have owned this fund for several years as my main large cap growth fund (I own institutional share class PGFIX). I am surprised and pleased to see an article written about it, as this fund gets no attention. I would call it somewhere between an above average to a very good fund, but not the level of a "great" fund. I have been pleased with it and will continue to hold.
Thanks for the link.

I own ETIHX which I purchased at a bad time in 2015, right before the bio's dipped. I was going to sell, but didn't. Now I'm up 50%. With a relatively concentrated position of 70 or so stocks, they look to be good analysts in this space.
No leverage, but it does go into small bio's and is definitely a "risk-on" trade. Paring this with a combination of VGHCX could make a reasonable barbell position in healthcare as relates to risk. When the overall market takes a dive in the next 2 years or so, I'll be adding to this fund to make it a full position. Not for the squeamish though.
FWIW, I agree with the comments above on leverage. I make enough bad decisions without magnifying them.

@Hank, what alternative funds are you invested in? Were they around in 2008-early 9 for the great recession so that they have a performance tract record during the worst of economic times? Just curious how they performed over that stretch compared to a conservative balanced fund. Again, just my opinion, but alternative funds offer nothing that a good equity/bond balanced fund can offer, including safe-guarding your down side risk in retirement. Compare your alternatives for risk-return to a couple pretty conservative balanced funds like GLRBX or BERIX. These 2 funds lost only 5.5 and 10.2% in 2008 respectively, while averaging returns over the last 10 years of close to 6 and 7%.
Not trying to change your mind or comfort zone, just saying, in my opinion alternative is more a marketing gimmick than a useful portfolio add at any stage of life. Bear market funds being the worst choice of the group.

@catch22: you said, "protection of assets from the "nasties". We've gone almost nine and a half years without the nasties, and I for one am not going to look over my shoulder for them because their no where in sight !
Regards,
Ted
P.S. I have 000,000 in MVRXX earning 1.83%

Hi Folks - I’m willing to allocate a small amount to alternative funds in the current exuberant market (currently 10%). And an even smaller amount to a gold fund (1-2%), which is another form of alternative investment. But please understand (1) I’m deep into the retirement / draw-down years and (2) I probably have accumulated enough $$ to last my remaining lifetime.
What some don’t grasp is that at a very advanced age it takes just 1 devastating year to wipe out 25-50% of one’s lifetime savings. While (as many like to point out) the odds of such an event are relatively small (you odds-makers can calculate the likelihood), if it happens to someone 75 or older it’s unlikely they’ll recover that sum in their lifetime. So you need to understand that some old farts here are being extra cautious in the prevailing climate. Going to all-cash doesn’t sound like any fun. And I think one can still pull 2, 3 or even 4% a year better than a money market or CD over shorter periods - even conservatively positioned. As I’ve often pointed out, those under 60 (and @Ted still thinks he is) probably should be investing in good plain vanilla low-fee growth funds.
The funds in JohnN’s post appear to be bear market funds. That’s 1 type of alternative - but by no means the entire domain. And a bear-fund to me is suicidal unless you really can foresee the future. Hussman is the best advertisement for an alternative fund which attempted to foresee the future and fell into the bear trap. HSGFX has sported dismal returns since inception. John H’s crystal ball clearly was defective. Maybe Amazon will take it back.

"C shares are going away because they are a bad deal for investors. B shares were a similarly bad deal and they are pretty much, if not completely, extinct."
Good riddance. IMHO for long term investors (even those who moved from fund to fund), C shares were a much worse deal than B shares, which for small investors were little worse than A shares.
B shares convert to A shares after a certain number of years. So depending on growth, you'll wind up with a little more or a little less at the time of conversion than had you purchased A shares instead. No big deal unless you invest enough to get a break on the front end load.
IMHO their bad reputation comes from the fact that brokers misrepresent these as being better, either illegally by saying they are "no load", or legally by saying that they put all your money to work immediately. That's technically true, but their higher ERs gradually erode that advantage until they come out the same as A shares.
C shares, unlike A and B shares, skim money off for the broker in perpetuity. That makes them more costly in the long run and thus worse for investors. In addition, they seem even easier than B shares to sell as "no load". Search MFO, and you'll find more than one poster writing about specific C shares (not identifying the share class), acknowledging the high ER but disregarding the fact that these are in fact high, very high, load funds.
The selling point for C shares is that they are supposedly better for people who only want to own the shares for a year or two. Then what? If they buy other C shares, they continue to pay the same load, year in, year out.
In contrast, once you pay a front end load on an A share, those dollars are good for life. You can transfer between funds of the same family without paying a new load. And until a couple of decades ago, when the industry got even more greedy, you could exchange those shares for A shares at different fund families without paying a new load.
It's called NAV transfer:
https://www.wealthmanagement.com/archive/several-major-fund-companies-end-nav-transfer-programs

FYI: When you're looking for investment ideas — whether individual stocks or mutual fund investment prospects — it makes sense to check the holdings of top dogs. One such pack leader is $1.1 billion AllianzGI Focused Growth (PGWAX), which has the best average annual gain of any U.S. diversified stock fund in its Allianz Global Investors group over the past three years.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/mutual-funds/allianz-global-investors-mutual-fund-investment/
M* Snapshot PGWAX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/PGWAX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot PGWAX:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/pgwax
PGWAX Is Ranked #74 In The (LCG) fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-growth/allianzgi-focused-growth-fund/pgwax

One way to address bear market risk is to first study the history of bear markets:
Here's a graphic:

source Image:
History of U.S. Bear & Bull Markets
Here's the narrative:
historic-bear-markets/
There are two term known as "Max Draw Down" and "Recovery Time" which loosely means the number of months it takes to complete the bear cycle from the start of the bear (when the bear arrives in camp) and until he leaves. For example, if you owned VWINX over the last 33 years (1985-2018) , this fund experienced a Max Draw Down of (-18.82%) starting in Nov of 2007. This fund bottomed in March 2009 and the began its recovery which continued until September 2009. Therefore, its "Recovery Time" took a little less than 2 years (November 2007- September 2009). This information is readily available on Portfolio Visualizer's website. Here's a snapshot of the chart with the Max Draw Down and Recovery Time highlighted.

For a long term investors these draw-downs are opportunities to buy less expensive shares. For retirees who are in the withdrawal phase these draw-downs create "sequence of return" risk especially if a retiree is locking in these losses with withdrawals (selling low).
There are many ways to deal with sequence of return risk. I do not think owning a bear market fund is one of them.
What might be?
1. Withdrawing from a "cash like" funding source - In the scenario above one would need two years of income (2 years of withdrawals) since VWINX needed almost 2 years to recover. A retiree would instead withdraw from the cash-like source until VWINX recovered. Today these cash like accounts can earn almost 2% which helps offset inflation.
2. Use your home's equity - either in the form of a HELOC or a Reverse Mortgage- as a temporary funding source for income. Both would need to be set up in advance. Remember HELOCs were being called in by banks during the very time that VWINX was floundering. A Reverse Mortgage has set up expenses associated with it, but it can not be called in by the bank. The younger you set it up (age 62) the longer the "equity value" grows independent of the "market value".

FYI: The great share-class migration that has been building this year is starting to unfold, representing a significant pay cut for advisers relying on beefy 12b-1 fees for predictable income streams.
Over the next few months, several fund companies plan to start converting C-class share mutual funds that have been held between seven and 10 years into A-class shares that pay advisers smaller 12b-1 fees.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=lwSAW5fLFYjYsQW0s4vIBg&q=Fund+industry+limits+C-share+investing,+cutting+12b-1+fee+income+for+advisers&btnK=Google+Search&oq=Fund+industry+limits+C-share+investing,+cutting+12b-1+fee+income+for+advisers&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3034.3034..4543...0.0..0.63.125.2......0....1j2..gws-wiz.....0.F6FvIhg6u5A

@MikeM: I getting ready to link an interview with Brad Lamensdorf, Manager, Ranger Equity Bear ETF (HDGE) that has lost money for its investors over the last five year. Brad as a bear market manager is going to rationalize any little tidbit he can find to entice you to own his fund. Another bear fund the Grizzly Short Fund (GGRZX) has lost money for its investors for the last fifteen years
Regards,
Ted

I've been with Firstrade for years. Also use Schwab, vanguard, FIDO and TD for various accounts. Firstrade is extremely basic but just fine.

No reason noted, tho fund has not done well for last few years.

I'm totally lost by what this thread is talking about. An awesome fund dropping by a minisclule amount one day is cause for concern? (Puh-lease!) An awesome fund is awesome for years and is a cause for concern?
I'm a happy PRWCX holder and see no reason for concern or controversy related to the fund anytime soon.

Missed in all the brickbats here is that PRWCX is a top-notch fund from a top-notch fund family. I’ve owned it nearly since inception. @Crash has owned it for close to a decade. Many others in the discussion either own it or wish they did.
A penny’s variation in a fund’s NAV on a single day is short-term focus for sure. I don’t know why @Crash singled the fund out for attention on Tuesday. But, considering the number of threads here that often have little / nothing to do with mutual funds, his sin appears slight.
Some of us just enjoy discussing the workings of funds - particularly the ones we own. To me, saying something like “the fund has outperformed every year for 15 years” adds little to an understanding of the fund or of investing. Anyone can go to M*, Lipper, or another data base, list funds by category, and quickly learn how various funds in different categories have performed. And I suspect that’s about all some think there is to investing ... buy those funds that have done better than their peers over time. If that’s all you as an investor want / need, it’s fine with me. But to some of us the game is infinitely more interesting if we dissect the fund - looking for the reasons the fund has worked so well (or, sometimes, why it hasn’t).
No one needed to read this thread. There’s plenty of other options to persue here. Ted, alone, generously initiates more threads most every day than @Crash and many others do over the course of a year. (And I’m sure he doesn’t mean to dismiss this single thread as totally irrelevant as compared to all those he posts.)

Barely down, by just a penny/share. Figure it had to be because of short-covering against its own holdings, on this record day??? Poopy. PRWCX closed to new investors. TRP.

I can't believe how short-term oriented this forum has become. SMFH

Did you mean to say that we are not keeping our eye on the ball? Not even more aware of long-term performance and risk? I don't follow your non-sequitur. I just made an observation: my otherwise splendid holding (PRWCX) was a disappointment on a very good day for the markets. My fund is doing rather well, and has been--- for YEARS. Is that long-term enough for you? On a day when a shareholder would have every reason to anticipate that the fund would RISE, it fell. That's all I said.
.....Sounds like some others don't like the thread I started, too. Well, now..... I think I've just responded in the most appropriate and reasonable way I can. You don't like my thoughts? Move on. I promise that I won't miss you. And what is SMFH? Some of us here prefer actual words, that carry actual meanings.

I probably had it turned around. Must be covered calls they use. From my previous understanding, they do sacrifice upside potential in return for limiting the downside. And they earn income in the process.
I once posted directly from their fund report (several years ago) how they were doing it at the time. But may no longer so doing. At any rate, 68% equity and the rest in bonds and cash. Sure would like to understand the process that allows them to outrun nearly everyone else.

>> Do you have account with Merrill Lynch? You HAVE to call.
?? one can do a lot of stuff online, including all trading
did I miss a particular transaction or operation?

Apparently you did miss the memo:

Merrill Lynch said it will stop automatically sweeping customers’ uninvested cash into money market funds starting in September and instead move it into lower-yielding deposits at affiliated banks. Brokers will still be able to manually move the funds into money market accounts.”

https://www.americanbanker.com/morning-scan/jpm-breaks-free-merrill-to-sweep-uninvested-funds-away-from-mmfs
That's part of a summary of Jason Zweig's Aug 21 WSJ article, Merrill Lynch Joins Brigade Downplaying Money-Market Mutual Funds:

Merrill’s brokers will still be able to place their customers’ cash in higher-yielding money-market funds, but only by purchasing them manually.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/merrill-lynch-joins-brigade-downplaying-money-market-mutual-funds-1534880179 (google search or subscription required)
Vanguard is currently paying 1.9% (7 day yield) on VMFXX, which is the settlement account for VBS accounts. So unlike most brokerages, there isn't the need to move money to a higher yielding MMF. Though VMMXX is yielding about 1/4% more.
https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/list?filterAllAssetClasses=false&filterMoneyMarket=true&filterFiftyThousandAndUp=true&filterLowCostInvestor=true#/mutual-funds/asset-class/month-end-returns
At Fidelity, the default core account is SPAXX, currently yielding 1.53%. You can boost that by about 1/3% by moving the money into SPRXX/FZDXX. While you have to explicitly move the money into the higher yielding fund, Fidelity will automatically pull from that fund to cover purchases/withdrawals if there isn't enough in your core account.
https://www.fidelity.com/fund-screener/evaluator.shtml#!&ft=MM_all&mgdBy=F&ntf=Y&expand=$FundType&tab=ic
Chuck doesn't give you the option of a MMF for your settlement account:

Schwab no longer allows new enrollments into sweep money market funds (MMFs), with the exception of international accounts, Schwab Managed Accounts, Schwab Charitable accounts, and certain existing ERISA plans. Existing accounts with sweep MMFs will be migrated to the Bank Sweep feature over a period of years

So you have to move the money yourself into one of its "purchased" MMFs to get a decent yield:
https://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/accounts_products/investment/money_markets_funds/purchased_money_funds
Getting back to Merrill Lynch. Here's their list of bank deposit accounts and MMFs available as "Cash management solutions". (When I download it, it gives me a date of 8/21/18).
https://olui2.fs.ml.com/Publish/Content/application/pdf/GWMOL/ICCRateSheet.pdf
As it notes, not all funds are available for all Merrill investors. Some of the "tickers" don't end in XX, and the Merrill Edge quote box doesn't recognize them. While the trade form does recognize standard symbols like GOFXX, when I enter one of them I get the message: "The symbol you entered is invalid. Please try again."
It looks like the only funds on Merrill's list that would be available to someone not investing through a managed account (that might be able to get an institutional share class) are the Blackrock Money Funds (BBIF). Tier 1 is paying 0.53%. Still I can't see how to buy that without calling a broker. Are there any MMFs you can buy online at Merrill Lynch or Merrill Edge?
https://www.blackrock.com/cash/en-us/products/282859/bbif-money-fund-1-usd
This exercise is confirming my expectations: Vanguard lowest cost/highest yield, Fidelity good yield, a bit easier to use, Schwab sticking you with low paying bank sweeps but offering options; Merrill Lynch sticking you with low paying sweeps and hiding alternatives if they even exist.

FYI: Seth Alexander, who runs the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s endowment, has produced long-term returns that beat many of his rivals. Yet, he was compensated less.
Among the 10 wealthiest private schools, MIT bested eight of nine endowments in the five years through June 2017. Alexander received a $2.1 million pay package in 2016, ranking him at the bottom. The 10 had an average $4.3 million package, according to data compiled by Bloomberg using the schools’ most recent tax filings. The schools either declined to comment or didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/mit-s-endowment-chief-delivers-better-returns-for-lower-pay-40428.html?print