Always hard to spot mistakes while you are making them. Sometimes your "mistakes" can make you rich. It is not a mistake unless you don't sell :-)
I wish there was a way to tell 10 years from now if Vanguard Growth Index returned X% and Vanguard Value Index returned Y%, what will Vanguard Total Market Index return - Z%. If we knew that, we can make decision to by Vanguard Total Market Index *today*.
I think the author is beating himself up too much.

I suspect your math is a bit skewed. Just a hunch on the figures you used:
VWINX average return over life (since 7/1/1970): 9.81%
FCNTX average return over life (since 5/17/1967): 12.39%
FBNDX average return over life (since 8/6/1971): 6.94%
To see how $10K did each way, my guess is that for VWINX, you took something like:
$10K x (1 + 0.0981) ^ 45 ~= $670K (45 years)
For Contra you may have used: $5K x (1 + 0.1239) ^ 45 ~= $960K
For IG Bond you may have used: $5K x (1 + 0.0694) ^ 45 ~= $100K
So the "50/50" starting amount grew to around $1.06M, not quite double $670K, but not that far off.
The problem with this back of the envelope calculation is that you've now got an investment that's 90%+ equity. You've not mirrored the asset allocation of VWINX. To do that, you'd need to rebalance periodically. To do that accurately, you'd need to know how much each fund returned each year, since bonds would outperform equities from time to time and you'd have to sell bonds, not equities to rebalance.
Nevertheless, since we're doing really crude calculations, we can simply assume that the returns each year are the same. So each year, the 50/50 blend would return the average of the two returns: (12.39% + 6.94%) / 2 = 9.665%, or a tad less than VWINX.
Don't forget to check on the loads. I believe all three of these funds had loads back in 1971.

VWINX highlighted here:
Long-Term Growing Income From An Open-End Mutual Fund: Is This Possible?

Criteria:
The Retirement Income withdrawal will be 4% of the beginning investment value with each successive year's withdrawal increasing by 3% to allow for inflation. Any dividends collected in excess of this will be accumulated in a money market account (MMA) until the year the mutual fund produces less in dividend income than is required and the difference between the next year's household income need and the dividend collected is taken from the MMF. I'm assuming the interest rate on the MMA is zero. If the collective cash reserve is not sufficient…or non-existent…and the dividend collected that year is not sufficient to meet household income need, then sufficient shares will be sold at the end of the year to provide the required cash. This is repeated each December at the end of the month (last trading day).
VWINX is the clear winner. Providing 25 years of inflation adjusted 4% annual distributions with a residual value over 89% greater than its beginning value.

long-term-growing-income-open-end-mutual-fund-possible

VWINX has had 40 calendar years of positive returns and only 6 negative years. Its worst year by far was 2008 (-9.8%), which was top quintile of the class.
Since inception, VWINX has averaged 9.8% annual return. Quite impressive.
Looking at the bond portion (approx. 60% of portfolio), I see only 17% in govt bonds (I assume these are Treasuries), with Corporate bonds at 72% of the bond total. For some reason, I thought this fund held more Treasuries.
Effective duration 6.5 yrs
Effective maturity 9.5 yrs
Are there any concerns about VWINX's bonds being a drag in the next few years, as they are not really short-duration overall? Or better to side with the solid long-term return history of VWINX and just ride things out in this "conservative" vehicle?
I'd be extremely happy with 5% or 6% per annum, with no major heart attacks along the way. Just looking for devil's advocate here. WHY SHOULDN'T I BUY THIS FUND assuming those are my goals?
Any input appreciated.
-Joe

Many Mutual Funds mentioned in this story that I thought was worth sharing:

...as an exercise in reality and humility, I’m going to explore some of my notable investment failures, and lessons learned. As you will see, there have been plenty of them over the years….

Article:
my-biggest-investing-mistakes
Author of Article (his Blogs):
darrowkirkpatrick.com/
and,
caniretireyet.com/

Trump may not like how many people choose to buy German cars and he would like to slow the imports, but 2 out of his 3 wives were imports.
All he is doing is trying to appease the people that voted for him, to hell with everyone else. I turned away from American cars since 1976 when I bought my first Toyota. I have two now, one is 10 years old and drives like the day I bought it.

I have 1990 Miata (first year) with over 200,000 miles and after 27 years it is still extremely reliable. Not even an oil leak! From time to time I look at the new ones, but I always conclude I have no compelling reason to buy one.

That's nice. A gal I worked with came to the employees' summer party one time in a Miata convert. Long time ago now. But I remember. Very sexy looking.
Now - I have a 2005 Silverado 1500 pickup. 44,000 miles. Leaks oil all the time. All the coolant blew out driving recently and was no warning on the dash. But there's an orange warning light that's always on signaling a loose gas cap. Nobody can figure how to turn it off. Bumper rusted off and was replaced years ago. Spare tire carrier rusted off. Mice built a nest under the hood in the fuse box and ate the wiring one time. Tail gate's falling off, etc, etc. Would I buy another GM truck?

Would love to consider a Miata, but that's even more impractical (no spare, no front trunk, no glove compartment), and I am now living where it snows occasionally (rear wheel drive and snow tires).

I have 1990 Miata (first year) with over 200,000 miles and after 27 years it is still extremely reliable. Not even an oil leak! From time to time I look at the new ones, but I always conclude I have no compelling reason to buy one.
However, you are correct that it is not the most practical car.

To each his own. Best car I ever owned was also a Toyota - an MR2 that I drove for almost 200K miles.
Would love to consider a Miata, but that's even more impractical (no spare, no front trunk, no glove compartment), and I am now living where it snows occasionally (rear wheel drive and snow tires).
The higher projected BMW maintenance costs should be somewhat offset by manufacturer coverage for the first four years. (Audi provides only one year and VW none; something to think about.)

There are a variety of reasons why I don't look at used cars. As noted in the article, most cars with high discounts are not great cars to begin with. Take a look at a list of most highly discounted used cars; not one that's appealing. (The Fiat 500 is cute, but is still a lousy car by all reports.)
https://blog.iseecars.com/top-12-cars-to-buy-used-not-new/
Regarding the A3, Consumer Reports buying service suggests I can get already get about a 12-13% discount on a new car.
What I get for a few thousand dollars is an extra year's life out of the car, and in the case of the BMW, an extra year of free maintenance. Rather than having to take catch as catch can, I can have a car built to spec, including color and features. Thus I can effect additional cost savings by not paying for features that have little value to me.
It's a matter of preference. I'm aware of the economics. Amortized over 15 years, I'm willing to pay up to get exactly what I want.

On a tangential note, I've started researching cars (after 15 years, and needing a clutch job, it's about time). It's time for a little indulgence, so I've focused on three cars, all German: A3 (base model), 230i xDrive, and VW GTI DSG SE (sunroof). Trump will not appreciate me.
Thoughts (and other suggestions) appreciated. My priorities are a good balance of handling (not raw power) and comfort, efficiency, value, practicality.
Most of BMW's cars can be picked up in Europe. I'd guess that the ones built in the US are the ones not available there: i3, X3, X4, X5 and X6.
https://www.bmwusa.com/european-delivery.html

MJG may be like the permabears he describes. If one hits all the bears and many bulls as well, one will cut one's losses during market slides as he described. That doesn't mean one can time the market.
Taken to the extreme, just keep most of your portfolio out of the market. You'll "suffer a loss in a Bear, but typically not as much as the market itself experiences."
Unless you get back into the market at the right time, your "round trip" (through the bear and the subsequent bull market) can underperform simple buy-and-hold. Though by cutting one's losses (and gains) one may sleep better.
Then there are the bull markets one may hit inadvertently. Lightening up through those create sure losses relative to buy-and-hold, no matter how fast one reenters the market. How many people have tried timing the bond market for years, going shorter and shorter on duration as long bonds have continued to do well?

Sorry VF. Just messing with your brain. :)
I don't think there's any legal definition of long, short or intermediate term bond. So, there isn't any "correct" answer to the question you raised earlier. Manager spells out his/her definition of what constitutes each category for purpose of defining the fund's investment practices. And, of course, there's common practice, on which something like Investopedia would probably offer up a definition.
Problems with bonds? Tell me about it. Rates s*** on investment grade stuff. So investors have for years been fleeing into riskier assets like equities and high yield. A bit like jumping from the teapot onto the fire. Your point about slicing, dicing and than re-stacking the bond deck isn't missed either (Which nicely obscures the underlying risk for most of mere mortals.) I see that in spades in some hybrid income funds.
FWIW (totally unrelated) Commentators on Bloomberg are now speculating that the daily multi-billion dollar flow into large cap index funds is what''s keeping equity markets afloat. Just a thought.

FYI: One of my friends is from Thailand. She earned a King’s Scholarship to study finance at a prestigious U.S. college. She currently lives in Bangkok where she works for McKinsey & Company, a global business consulting firm.
She’s smart…really smart. A few years ago, she told me that index fund investing doesn’t work well in emerging markets like Thailand. She says it’s more of a stock picker’s market. Many people agree. They say it’s easy to beat an emerging market index with carefully selected stocks.
Regards,
Ted
https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/is-there-such-a-thing-as-a-stock-pickers-market

Word play on The Ghost and The Darkness I believe. I really liked this movie...20 years back I think.

Hi Josh!
Good to see you posting. Just my 2c or your port in the tax sheltered account. Use the S&P 500. You're young.....use that to your advantage. In the taxable area, it gets tougher. You need to put a percentage in and divulge how long you have had your holdings. It's a tax thing....
You say you will buy a house in a few years. Are you sure? FPACX I would cut; MANKX also. You want to make money, they don't. They're for when you're old. If you look at the port, POGRX and OAKIX is where I would put money for the future. As far as small and mid caps, I think this way trouble is coming. But long term looks good. I would say indexes, but with taxes and house coming soon, stay the course. As far as bonds, you're too young. Just my 2c.......
God bless
the Pudd

Hi @bee. Don't know about it being a tedduplicate since the sources and experts cited are different. But yes, the theme seems to be the same. Unfortunately, I hadn't followed the thread you referenced. We're still getting all our horse & buggy internet (rural area) over 4G and pay by the GBs consumed. Sometimes, especially late in the billing cycle, I skip the videos to conserve data.
Regarding the article itself ... Since I don't subscribe to the S-I-M or other systematic timing strategies, linked the article more to show there are contrasting points of view on this - rather than as a serious macroeconomic viewpoint. However, as an aside, I do continue to think valuations are rich among many (possibly all) risk assets, so have been holding an elevated amount of cash and short duration bonds for a number of months (not related to its being May). Just one fella's humble opinion. And, I'm well aware that periods of overvaluation can persist for many years.

FWIW, the number three holding according to Bloomberg is Sberbank.
The fund began just three years ago, Jan 1, 2014. The inception date reported by Bloomberg appears to be the "strategy" inception date of Jan 1, 1990 (also reported on the fact sheets).
https://www.orbisaccess.co.uk/our-funds/global-equity-fund/
I've been reading through the prospectus, and while the 50,000 foot level description by Bloomberg is okay, the details seem significantly different from what's in the article. For example, the performance fee (or refund) is assessed daily, not semimonthly as Bloomberg writes. The amount is 50% of the excess (shortfall), not 33%. And so on.
I suspect that the fund would have problems registering in the US because the performance fee structure is not perfectly symmetric. Given that the fund's base fee is zero, I think it would be required to return fees in case of underperformance. The fund does not return performance fees if the reserve set aside is depleted, i.e. the management company does not make up this shortfall. Unlike Bridgeway, which actually paid into one of its funds for underpeformance at one point.

I have a question.
...
So my problem is this. Maturity, and more specifically how does it matter if I'm purchasing a 30-year bond, but it was issued 29 years back. What is difference between buying this bond which has 1 year left to mature vs buying a brand new 1-year bond? ...

There isn't any difference. They are both 1-year bonds in today's market. The loss or gain on the old 30-year bond doesn't have anything to do with the next 12 months. The previous owner made or lost money, but its current value is determined by the current 1 yr rate.

@VinetageFreak,

Supply and demand should work for bonds just like it is for stocks. So simply saying the inverse relationship exists is IMO not good enough. There needs to be substantial availability of higher yielding bonds of same maturity out there to meaningfully depress the prices of the lower yielding bonds.

Great point!
Some additional 'gurgitation.
An Individual 30-yr bonds doesn't act any differently in year 29 than they did in year 1. You still get your coupon...and, you eventually get your principal back (in year 30). A bond fund is a mix of 30-yr bonds which were bought at different times with a variety of yields and are blended together to provide a coupon at a relative share price. Its the movement of this bond fund share price comparison that is made with other blended bond fund that has some concerned. If rates drop, yesterdays 30-yr bond fund is more valuable in price (if you were to sell). If rates rise, yesterdays 30-yr bond fund is less valuable (again, if you sell).
If you don't sell and just live off the dividends (yesterday it was 4%...tomorrow it may move to 5%), irregardless to the bond fund's share price you have less concern about the direction of interest rates. I believe the typical fix income investor is spending down shares of their bond fund as well as spending the coupon. This may be what AJC is concerned about. If you never sell your bond shares the individual securities will eventually mature out of the 4% yields and it will be replaced with new, potentially higher yielding contracts. Selling shares is what 'fixes the price" and obviously you don't have control over other investor's selling. This could be at a loss compared to what the shares were first bought at.
This is the price of admission to get at the bond coupon in a bond fund. Price appreciation and coupon yield are what we have enjoyed for the last thirty years with bond funds. A Bond fund share price can rise and fall significantly even when interest rate move just a small amount.
I wonder if it might be easier to think of a bond fund like an annuity. If you invest in an immediate annuity you give up principal for a stream of income. Think of a 30 year bond fund or any other bond fund the same way. If you discipline yourself to only collect the coupon from the bond fund you have "an annuity" that will always have a cash value. The 'cash value" (share price) changes as a result of its comparative value to other bond funds (and their underlying coupon).
Also, if you reinvest your dividends you are nudging your cost basis lower (buying additional shares at lower share price) if that share price did indeed dropped.