@davidrmoran I don't quite get the debt-to-GDP fixation. To me, as a country matures as first a developing, then a developed nation, it makes sense that GDP slows and more of its citizens financial wherewithal is in assets like stocks, bonds and real estate as opposed to income from GDP production. Developed nations are starting from a high GDP production base--the law of large numbers applies to their growth--and they generally have older populations who are less productive as they retire. The older populations stem from better healthcare as well as the fact that education comes with development and women have less children as a result. Thus, the workforce ages and GDP growth slows. So, I don't understand why the debt-to-GDP ratio is so significant when the wealthiest Americans have so much accumulated non-GDP producing wealth that is largely untaxed or taxed at a much lower rate than income. In short, America needs a real wealth tax to pay down its debt. Yet there are obvious political problems with getting such a tax passed: https://npr.org/2021/11/13/1054711913/progressives-wealth-tax-super-rich-elon-musk-jeff-bezos What could work is some sort of tax treaty that bars any sort of tax shelters between trading partners globally so there can be no skipping town once a wealth tax is imposed.

@LewisBraham,
Several Morningstar articles had mentioned the use of quantitative research for DODEX.
"Dodge & Cox isn’t normally associated with quantitative work, but quant analysis can serve fundamental strategies just as well as tactical trading strategies. Robert Turley, who holds a doctorate in business economics, has had a big impact on the firm’s quantitative and risk management work. He’s one of six named managers on Dodge & Cox Emerging Markets Stock (DODEX). This fund has made quantitative research more central to the process than it is at other funds."
Link
"Unlike the firm’s other offerings, however, this one relies on a quantitative model—developed by committee member Robert Turley—to find attractive stocks. The firm’s vaunted analyst team doesn’t dive deeply into the model’s recommendations; it simply checks if those stocks meet the team’s expectations for valuation, management, and business prospects."
Link
Dodge & Cox communications emphasize the use of fundamental research for DODEX.
I did not find quantitative research explicitly mentioned.
"Dodge & Cox relies on fundamental research to select investments for the Fund’s portfolio, supplemented by financial screening models that help identify companies from within the Fund’s investment universe for further consideration by research analysts."
Summary Prospectus
"The Fund is constructed based on Dodge & Cox’s strict valuation discipline and fundamental approach to stock selection, with a portfolio built on the expertise of our global industry analysts. In the years we have spent investing in emerging market companies for other Dodge & Cox mutual funds, we have built tools to enhance our analysts’ ability to identify risks and opportunities in emerging markets."
Link

And so the game of chicken has begun. Who blinks first? The mainstream politicians in both parties or the financial terrorists holding the government and our economy hostage?
https://usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/01/13/treasury-department-us-debt-ceiling-republicans/11047076002/

I think a serious debate needs to occur with regulators as to whether crypto is or is not really an asset class that should be legal to invest in. They've been dodging this question for too long and because of that the financial services industry has created investment products around a thing that produces no cash flow, has no operating business, is not a tangible physical asset and its origins remain unknown. The question in 2023 isn't who is John Galt? It's who is Satoshi Nakamoto? And why should we trust that this anonymous inventor of a virtual thing has the world's and investors' best interests at heart?

IIRC, back when I held it, Josh Spencer ran the fund fairly aggressively, too ... but he managed it quite well. I always liked PRGTX but think it got a bit reckless and IMO became addicted to Hopium(tm) in recent years (like Cathie Wood), so perhaps the manager change is deserved.
A 55% loss is inexcusable, in my view. Growth was rapidly falling out of favor as rates rose, yet I guess Tu stuck to his plan and rode it all the way down instead of trimming or moving more into safer holdings and/or cash. Reminds me of DODFX sticking to financial stocks during the GFC because it was "the plan" ... or Arnott holding a 20% short S&P position in his fund during years of a bull market because it was "his model."

When the situation changes, what would you do?

"I made my money selling too soon" has been attributed to how many famous investors besides Bernard Baruch?
"But don't try to time the markets!" Sez, a lot of people.
"Where does dry powder come from anyway after you have retired?" The children ask. Who will tell them?
I remember writing on this site about selling all the bond funds in my IRA because they were up a silly amount for bonds. And I don't like bonds much anyway. So out they went.
That worked out OK in some ways. But I can't promise that I squeezed the last ounce out of those investments.
Some of the money went into growth, which has been hammered. Some of the money went into value, which has done ok. Utilities and staples have done OK. Some went into greens that have tread water. And some is still dry powder.
But I'm happier holding this stuff than I was the bonds. So there's a better chance I'll leave it alone until it has a chance to do its thang.
And then I will have to worry about the right way to rebalance. And whether I ought to own bonds because they're financial dental floss.

For Blue Chip Growth TRBCX, Price has an ETF cousin TCHP and also a CIT version.
Price ETFs https://www.troweprice.com/personal-investing/tools/fund-research/etf
Price CITs (lower-ER; unlisted; regulated by OCC, not SEC) https://www.troweprice.com/financial-intermediary/us/en/investments/collective-investment-trusts.html
Other firms have similar cousins of OEFs too. So, some of the outflows from OEFs are just into their ETF or CIT cousins. This isn't fully captured by fund industry asset tracking.

from
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/09/opinion/election-deniers-recession-inflation.html
Over the year ending in November (the most recent data available), the Consumer Price Index rose 7.1 percent. But inflation ran at an annual rate of only 4.8 percent over the past six months, 3.6 percent over the past three months and 1.2 percent in November.
True, inflation has been held down in part by events that probably won’t be repeated, like the plunge in gasoline prices over the second half of 2022. On the other hand, there’s good reason to believe that housing inflation — which accounts for about a third of the Consumer Price Index — has declined sharply, but that this decline isn’t yet reflected in official statistics.
Add in the latest data on wages, which were seriously encouraging, and a reasonable estimate is that we’ve regained full employment with underlying inflation only a point or two above prepandemic levels. That’s not a perfect situation, and squeezing out the remaining inflation may (or may not!) be hard, but it’s hardly a picture of catastrophe.
For what it’s worth, financial markets have basically declared the inflation threat over: They’re implicitly predicting roughly 2 percent inflation as far as the eye can see. They’re also willing to buy federal debt at interest rates that are up a bit but still low by historical standards, showing no hint of concerns about U.S. solvency.
Still, Republicans are determined to see economic and fiscal disaster, ...

We can have turmoil and crisis but if it will not last for months-years, the global financial system will collapse. If you can't trust MM in Vanguard, Fidelity and Schwab we have a bigger problem. A real crisis would lead to big stock+bond decline, and shutting down trade. We had already
www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/money-market-reserve-fund-meltdown.asp
The most important, what should you do now? I don't see any good solution and the ones you think are good, may hurt you even more.
But, if you insist on being afraid, maybe you should buy gold and fill your basement, or maybe you can build an underground stand alone bunker and get all the power from the sun + fill the bunker with food and guns.
It makes me smile when investors worry about something with low chance of happening, AKA, shut down the global financial system...
But, have no problem holding to stocks and losing 20+% at the bottom, or when bonds lose over 10%...all happened in 2022.

If there is an actual default there will be no safe havens except possibly gold.
I don't anticipate a default although I assume there will be plenty of drama regarding debt ceiling legislation.
I'm not making any tactical portfolio changes in response to the situation.
"If Congress were to ever allow the debt ceiling to lapse and Treasury was forced to default, the consequences would be severe. Interest costs throughout the world would likely increase. Investors would demand higher rates on future Treasury bonds, increasing the interest costs to taxpayers. There would likely be ripple effects throughout the financial system that would increase interest rates on mortgages, student loans, car loans, credit cards, and other debt. A long impasse could prompt a financial crisis and ultimately threaten the US Dollar’s central role in the global financial system. All of this could trigger a severe economic depression, bringing job losses and serious hardship to millions of families in the United States and around the world."
"There is a debate about whether the debt ceiling is useful or needed. Some argue that the debt ceiling is outdated, given the central role that Treasury debt now plays in the global financial system and that we now have a formal congressional budget process that gives Congress a regular opportunity to review and modify overall fiscal policy. Eliminating the debt ceiling would prevent Members of Congress from threatening the full faith and credit of the United States and holding our economy hostage in order to force action on other legislation, and it would allow fiscal debates to take place without the threat of a looming financial crisis. Others argue that Congress should retain control over the debt ceiling as a matter of Congressional prerogative."
Link

If safety is the primary concern, I would see no reason for favoring German Bonds, Exxon or Apple over Treasury bonds and T-Bills in particular. If T-Bills failed because of financial terrorists holding our government hostage, every other securities market will go down with them. There is a reason why T-bill interest is called the “risk-free” rate. The only hedge in such a disastrous environment would probably be physical gold.

"It consists simply of splitting your investment portfolio into 7 equal amounts, and investing one apiece in U.S. large-company stocks (the S&P 500 SPX, +2.28% ), U.S. small-company stocks (the Russell 2000 RUT, +2.26% ), developed international stocks (the Europe, Australasia and Far East or EAFE index), gold GC00, +0.04%, commodities, U.S. real-estate investment trusts or REITS, and 10 year Treasury bonds TMUBMUSD10Y, 3.562%."

Absolutely not taking any particular "side" here, but the way that I read the substance of the above is that by dividing a portfolio into seven specific groups of dissimilar securities, one can achieve a good return over a long period of time.
What specific vehicle is used (etfs, etc.) to represent each group may change over time- the main thrust of the article is to observe those seven groups, not any specific vehicles.
Added note- not having followed this thread previous to this post, I just took a look at the page generated by the original link... it certainly looks like a financial article, not an advertisement, to me.

good grief, reading comp
It is NOT an ad.
Brett Arends has been a v smart financial writer for decades
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Arends
The article:
Brett Arends's ROI
This ‘crazy’ retirement portfolio has just beaten Wall Street for 50 years
by Brett Arends
This strategy beats the market with less risk, fewer upsets and no ‘lost’ decades
You could call it crazy.
You could call it genius.
Or maybe you could call it a little of both.
We’re talking about a simple portfolio that absolutely anyone could follow in their own 401(k) or IRA or retirement account. Low cost, no muss, no fuss. And it’s managed to do two powerful things simultaneously.
It’s beaten the standard Wall Street portfolio of 60% U.S. stocks and 40% bonds. Not just last year, when it beat them by an astonishing 7 percentage points, but for half a century.
And it’s done so with way less risk. Fewer upsets. Fewer disasters. And no “lost” decades.
Last year, 2022, marked the 50th year of this unheralded portfolio, which is termed “All Asset No Authority,” and which we’ve written about here before.
It’s the brainchild of Doug Ramsey. He’s the chief investment officer of Leuthold & Co., a long-established fund management company that has sensibly located itself in Minneapolis, a long, long way away from Wall Street.
AANA is amazingly simple, surprisingly complex, and has been astonishingly durable. It consists simply of splitting your investment portfolio into 7 equal amounts, and investing one apiece in U.S. large-company stocks (the S&P 500 SPX, +2.28% ), U.S. small-company stocks (the Russell 2000 RUT, +2.26% ), developed international stocks (the Europe, Australasia and Far East or EAFE index), gold GC00, +0.04%, commodities, U.S. real-estate investment trusts or REITS, and 10 year Treasury bonds TMUBMUSD10Y, 3.562%.
It was Ramsey’s answer to the question: How would you allocate your long-term investments if you wanted to give your money manager no discretion at all, but wanted to maximize diversification?
AANA covers an array of asset classes, including real estate, commodities and gold, so it’s durable in periods of inflation as well as disinflation or deflation. And it’s a fixed allocation. You spread the money equally across the 7 assets, rebalancing once a year to put them back to equal weights. And that’s it. The manager — you, me, or Fredo — doesn’t have to do anything else. They not allowed to do anything else. They have no authority.
AANA did way better than the more usual Wall Street investments during 2022’s veil of tears. While it ended the year down 9.6%, that was far better than the S&P 500 (which plunged 18%), or a balanced portfolio of 60% U.S. stocks and 40% U.S. bonds, which fell 17%.
Crypto? Er, let’s not talk about that.
Last year’s success of AANA is due to two things, and them alone: Its exposure to commodities, which were up by about a fifth, and gold, which was level in dollars (and up 6% in euros, 12% in British pounds, and 14% when measured in Japanese yen).
Ramsey’s AANA portfolio has underperformed the usual U.S. stocks and bonds over the past decade, but that’s mainly because the latter have gone through a massive — and, it seems, unsustainable — boom. The key thing about AANA is that in 50 years it has never had a lost decade. Whether the 1970s or the 2000s, while Wall Street floundered, AANA has earned respectable returns.
Since the start of 1973, according to Ramsey’s calculations, it has earned an average annual return of 9.8% a year. That’s about half a percentage point a year less than the S&P 500, but of course AANA isn’t a high risk portfolio entirely tied to the stock market. The better comparison is against the standard “balanced” benchmark portfolio of 60% U.S. stocks and 40% Treasury bonds.
Since the start of 1973, according to data from New York University’s Stern business school, that 60/40 portfolio has earned an average compound return of 9.1% a year. That’s less than AANA. Oh, and this supposedly “balanced” portfolio fared very badly in the 1970s, and badly again last year.
You can (if you want) build AANA for yourself using just 7 low-cost ETFs: For example, the SPDR S&P 500 SPY, +2.29%, iShares Russell 2000 IWM, +2.25%, Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets VEA, +2.76%, abrdn Physical Gold Shares SGOL, +1.94%, a commodity fund such as the iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust ETF GSG, +0.55%, the iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond ETF IEF, +1.29%, and the Vanguard Real Estate ETF VNQ, +2.69%.
The list is illustrative only. There are competing ETFs in each category, and in some — such as with commodities and REITs — they vary quite a lot. GSG happens to follow the particular commodity index that Ramsey uses in his calculations.
There are many worse investment portfolios out there, and it’s a question how many are better. AANA will underperform regular stocks and bonds in a booming bull market, but do better in a lost decade.
For those interested, Ramsey also offers a twist. His calculations also show that over the past 50 years the smart move to make at the start of each year was to invest in the asset class in the portfolio that performed second best in the previous 12 months. He calls that the “bridesmaid” investment. Since 1973 the bridesmaid has earned you on average 13.1% a year — a staggering record that trounces the S&P 500. Last year’s bridesmaid, incidentally, was terrible (it was REITs, which tanked). But most years it wins, and wins big.
If someone wants to take advantage of this simple twist, you could split the portfolio into 8 units, not 7, and use the eighth to double your investment in the bridesmaid asset. For 2023 that would be gold, which trailed commodities last year but broke even.
Crazy? Genius? For anyone creating a longterm portfolio for their retirement there are certainly many worse ideas — including many embraced by highly paid professionals, and marketed to the rest of us.

So, All Asset No Authority Allocation is a fixed allocation model for your portfolio? Paul Farrell at Marketwatch tracks a few Lazy Portfolios:
https://www.marketwatch.com/lazyportfolio
Coffeehouse, for example, suggests you can ignore the whims of Wall Street and turn your creative energy towards things in your life that matter like financial planning, your career, family, and community.
https://coffeehouseinvestor.com/resources/portfolio

There seem to be several "mostly closed" funds that are listed as open at E*Trade. Closed funds often have a loophole - that you can open a new account if you are investing through an advisor who already has money with the fund. (Another common exception is investing directly with the fund.)
So I'm wondering whether these funds are really open to DIY investors, or whether you need to be working with a Morgan Stanley Financial Advisor, or whether a personal rep as @fundly mentioned suffices, or ...
Here are some (semi) closed funds that E*Trade shows as open:
ARTJX - investor class (1.31% ER), $1K min
APDJX - advisor class (1.15% ER), $0 min
(Other closed Artisan funds, e.g. ARTFX, ARTKX are closed at E*Trade.)
RPHYX - retail class (1.14% ER), $100 min
RPHIX - inst class (0.89% ER), $100K min
CIPNX - inst class (1.01% ER), $0 min
(The more expensive advisor class CIPSX is closed to new investors.)
DHMAX - inv class (1.21% ER), $2.5K min
(Another closed DH fund, DHLAX, is closed at E*Trade.)
Franklin Templeton - cheaper Advisor shares of some funds are open (e.g. FGADX, FRDAX); most brokerages sell more expensive A shares NTF. Also open are institutional shares of some Salomon Bros/Smith Barney legacy funds (now branded Clearbridge), such as SAIFX and SBLYX.
Invesco - older, cheaper Investor shares of some funds are open (e.g. LCEIX, FSTEX); most brokerages sell more expensive A shares NTF
PEMGX - A shares, NTF (0.93% ER), $1K min
PCBIX - inst class (0.67% ER), $0 min

I had an investment with Dodge a number of years ago, but left when they carried a heavy load of financial & got toasted in 07-08 .

Yes @Derf. I remember it well.
The last thing I would ever do is try to steer anyone into any particular fund. But I like to note that DODBX’s track record extends clear back to the 1930s. Longevity - if not consistent performance!
Thanks for the comments.

Thanks for the reply @hank . I had an investment with Dodge a number of years ago, but left when they carried a heavy load of financial & got toasted in 07-08 .

RPHYX / RPHIX just paid a whopping monthly interest dividend - over 5x the next largest monthly dividend in 2022. For RPHIX, it was 14.11¢ per share vs. 2.5*¢ per share in Aug, Sept, and Oct.
This pattern of larger (but not this large!) December divs seems to have started in 2020, when the Dec div was about 10% higher than the next highest monthly div, and accelerated in 2021, when the Dec div was double that of the next highest monthly div.
http://riverparkfunds.com/assets/pdfs/rpsthyf/RiverPark_Short_Term_High_Yield_Institutional.pdf
http://riverparkfunds.com/assets/pdfs/rpsthyf/RiverPark_Short_Term_High_Yield_Retail.pdf
Any guesses as to what's happening? This fund does not invest internationally so currency hedging cannot be the cause, which is what Yogi speculated could explain FMIJX 's large div.
All I've turned up so far is Russell Investment's generic explanation for variable December income divs:

The last distribution of the year in mid-December may vary from other monthly distributions more significantly. This distribution reflects actual income received by the fund for part of the month of December plus an estimate for the remainder of the month of December. Also included in these distributions are tax adjustments and adjustments required as a result of the audit of financial statements, reflecting the full year of operations of a fund. Therefore, these adjustments may significantly increase or decrease the mid-December distributions relative to other monthly distribution

https://russellinvestments.com/-/media/files/us/funds/income-dividend-distributions-004519958.pdf
Setting aside mid-month estimates (Riverpark distributes at end of month), that leaves tax adjustments and financial statement adjustments. Whatever those mean.
---
This fund is mostly closed to new investors. The only investors who may open new accounts are those who already hold an existing account with the fund, or invest directly through Riverpark, or "are clients of any financial adviser or planner who has client assets invested in the Fund.”
http://riverparkfunds.com/assets/pdfs/RiverPark_STHYF_Summary_Prospectus.pdf
This is why the fund is closed through intermediaries like Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard. But RPHYX does seem to be open at Firstrade and at E*Trade. Even more interesting is that RPHIX seems to be open to new investors at E*Trade with no transaction fee, albeit with a $100K min.

LINK1
COVER STORY, ”The Best INCOME Ideas for 2023”. (I have arranged the orders as OEFs, ETFs, CEFs, individual securities)
Energy Pipelines: AMLP, NTG, EPD, ET, KMI, WMB
US Dividend Stocks: SCHD, NOBL, VYM, KBWB, C, INTC, JPM, PNC, USB
Foreign Dividend Stocks: IDV, SCHY
Real Estate: VNQ, RQI
Convertibles: MCIFX, CWB, AVK, busted convertibles
HY: HYG, HYT, JQC
Munis: PHMIX, VWITX, NEA
Preferreds: PFF, PFFR, JPM-M, T-C, WFC-Z, REITs-preferreds
Telecom: T, TMUS, VZ
Cash Alternatives: VMFXX, VUBFX, BIL, SHV, 3-mo T-Bills, T-Bill ladders
Treasuries: SHY, TLT, STIP, TIP
Utilities: XLU, UTG, DUK, ED, NEE, SO, XEL
UP AND DOWN WALL STREET. The Fed RATE hikes and yearend tax-loss harvesting (TLH) have depressed bond CEFs including the MUNI CEFs. As there isn’t any systemic problem looming in the muni market, these may be good for trade with small amounts: NEA, NAD, BTT, NVG; unleveraged NUV.
LINK2
CRYPTO ice age or not, FIDELITY is pushing ahead with its crypto initiatives (institutional, retirement, retail). It says that it wants to provide its clients with choices. Its digital assets unit has 500+ people and hiring continues. It will offer Bitcoin within its 401k and more cryptos on its regular platform. Lawmakers, the SEC and DOL have been warning firms and investors. Critics point to FOMO; despite an early start, Fido missed the train on ETFs. Fido is counting on first-mover advantage by lending its reputable name in a devasted, washed-out and scandal-ridden industry. It has urged the SEC to approve “physical” crypto ETFs; its own application was rejected by the SEC (like many others), but Fido is moving ahead with ETFs in crypto-related areas (FDIG, etc). It sees its competitors as HOOD, COIN, PAYPL, SQ, etc. Although financial risks are small for Fido, it risks regulatory risks and reputational damage if things go wrong. Other major brokers (SCHW, IBKR) are watching.
FR/BL funds offer attractive yields (SOFR + 400-500 bps spreads; SOFR is a LIBOR alternative) from lower-quality credits. That is a big risk in recession, especially when many such loans are covenant-lite. Beware of (unmanaged) index funds in specialized and illiquid areas. Hybrid PRWCX manager GIROUX has 15% in FR/BL. Also mentioned are OEFs BFRAX, FFRHX, FRFAX, PRFRX, etc and ETFs BLKN, SRLN, etc. By @LewisBraham
Brian DEMAIN of mid-cap growth JDMAX (ER 1.12%; load 5.75%) watches upside/downside capture ratio (U/D CR); discounted cash flows; sustainable growth; GARP. Fund has low turnover due to its longer-term horizon. In 2023, the cost of capital will be higher due to Fed rate hikes; some growth multiples are still too high; inflation should moderate; the economy will slowdown. His current themes include EVs; semis; renewables; sport franchises.

Thanks, @hank- I'm hoping that one of our real financial gurus (which I sure as hell ain't) can help on this.