For those who think their FDIC-insured bank accounts/CDs would be safe in the event of a Treasury bond default: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USGSEC
Things would be OK perhaps in the short-term if it's just a missed Treasury payment--a technical default- but not in the long-term for any extended standoff and collapse. The whole system is built on the "risk-free" rate of Treasuries, lives or dies with it. Banks own $4.4 trillion in government debt. And yes, it is a political issue. The extremists' goal of this standoff is to destroy the social safety net, cut Food Stamps, welfare, unemployment benefits, Medicaid and, in the long-term, Social Security and Medicare. And so the fate of T-Bill and Treasury bond holders, the U.S. dollar, and our entire financial system is wrapped up with this debate.
Meanwhile, the idea that the FDIC because it is financed by banks and not the government can save all the banks that would go bust in an extended default is wrong. The FDIC depends on the Deposit Insurance Fund--https://investopedia.com/terms/d/deposit-insurance-fund.asp--to bail out banks. As of the FDIC's last 2021 annual report issued in April of 2022--https://fdic.gov/about/financial-reports/reports/2021annualreport/2021-arfinal.pdf--the insurance fund had $115 billion set aside to bail out banks. That's good for a few banks, not for an entire financial system in disrepair. Even worse, what is the Deposit Insurance Fund invested in? Treasury bonds! See page 133 of the annual report.
If we miss a T-bill/Treasury payment because of our government being held hostage, the world will survive. But going over the edge into a serious government bankruptcy would be end times for the capital markets. Nor am I trying to be alarmist. In fact, this scenario makes me almost positive the situation won't get any further than brinkmanship and everything for wealthy T-Bill/Treasury-bond holders--and every other investor in the financial food chain--will be fine. And even if the extremists kept pushing, the 14th amendment will be invoked: https://newrepublic.com/article/169857/debt-ceiling-law-terminate-constitution A missed payment and the volatility that will result because of it will be a buying opportunity. Meanwhile, some awful concession will be made regarding the safety net for America's poorest most vulnerable citizens--politics in the extreme.

https://www.gmo.com/americas/research-library/after-a-timeout-back-to-the-meat-grinder_viewpoints/
you may have to register to read it but always worthwhile.
" Continued economic and financial problems are likely. I believe they could be dire"
SP500 3200 end of 2023. Will probably dip further sometime this year.
He believes the peak in 2021 was one of the classic bubbles in history like 1929 2000 and 2006 and most of the decline could be after the first rate cut.
There is also a link to his recent interview about Climate Change

This (delete) rhetoric goes back at least to the (delete) beginning 50s or 60s. Subscribed to (the then very excellent) U.S. News & World Report as a teen - always enjoying reading of current events. So, the “can’t run a household this way” refrain goes back at least (delete) to the 50s and 60s. Truth is … A nation that prints its own currency and backs it with full faith and credit is much different than a household. That’s not to say it doesn’t have to practice good financial policies - just to say the two situations are dissimilar.
Now, despite these dire warnings of economic doom (delete) over the past 60 years, the nation has done pretty well over those decades, whether measured by the strength of our corporations and financial giants, scientific achievements or numbers of less fortunate in other countries who would like to live and work here. And, the USD is still the envy of most any other nation that issues a currency. So, let’s cool the rhetoric and get on with governing.
(Delete) Getting back to the “household” analogy. Can households raise armies and go to war? Are they charged with building and maintaining public highways, bridges, airports, seaports and schools? Do they / can they provide subsistence level services for the poor and needy or render emergency relief unto those whose lives have been devastated by fire or flood? The differences are stark - and too numerous to even quantify.

@larryB To me, the Boglehead policy of not alowing any connection to be made between investing/money and politics is the equivalent of don't-ask-don't-tell in the military or don't-say-gay in Florida. There are definitely politics in the investment world, and the investment world is very much in politics--see any number of lobbyists working for financiers/money managers--but there is this pretense that the investment activity itself is apolitical.
Ironically, denying there is any connection between money and politics is intensely political just as denying that there are gay people in the military or Florida whose voices need to be heard is. A Don't-Say-Politics policy is endorsing a belief in the pursuit of financial profit by any means necessary regardless of that pursuit's impact on employees, consumers, nation states such as America, humanity and the planet's ecosystem. It's pretending life is all profit numbers and there aren't flesh-and-blood people--employees and consumers--producing the profits much like an abstract physics problem which pretends anything falling is falling in a frictionless fictional world.

I don't think it will get that bad, but if it did get that bad, that would be the place to hide. I think the irrationalism we are observing in Congress with one party is always like the human equivalent of "other people's money" in the financial world. Only in the case of politics, it's other people's lives. Moaning about critical race theory or the border or zygote's rights in no way affects the pocketbooks of the party leaders. So, for instance undocumented immigrants are easy targets with little to no downside politically, and considerable upside in terms of votes from their base. But putting the country in default will dramatically affect these politicians' pocketbooks. I don't think they will do it, and what seems irrational to us on those other human, i.e., "social issues" is completely rational to them from the perspective of pandering to their base and their financial backers. It is rational irrationality when all you care about is winning and lining your pocketbook even if it is absurd and cruel to everyone else.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/880859/000110465923005890/tm233916d2_497k.htm
SUPPLEMENT DATED JANUARY 23, 2023 TO THE CURRENT
SUMMARY AND STATUTORY PROSPECTUSES AND STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR:
Invesco International Core Equity Fund
(the “Fund”)
This supplement amends the Summary and Statutory Prospectuses and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) of the above referenced Fund and is in addition to any other supplement(s), unless otherwise specified. You should read this supplement in conjunction with the Summary and Statutory Prospectuses and SAI and retain it for future reference.
On January 19, 2023, the Board of Trustees of AIM International Mutual Funds (Invesco International Mutual Funds) (the “Board”) approved a Plan of Liquidation and Dissolution (the “Plan”), which authorizes the termination, liquidation and dissolution of the Fund. In order to effect such liquidation, the Fund will close to investments by new accounts after the close of business on February 24, 2023. Existing shareholders will continue to be able to invest in the Fund until the close of business on or about April 10, 2023 when no further purchases or exchanges into the Fund will be accepted as the Fund prepares for liquidation on or about April 24, 2023 (the “Liquidation Date”) as described below. The liquidation may occur sooner if at any time before the Liquidation Date there are no shares outstanding in the Fund. The liquidation may also be delayed or occur sooner if unforeseen circumstances arise. Shareholders of the Fund may redeem their shares at any time prior to the Liquidation Date. The Fund reserves the right, in its discretion, to modify the extent to which sales of shares are limited prior to the Liquidation Date.
To prepare for the closing and liquidation of the Fund, the Fund’s portfolio managers may increase the Fund’s assets held in cash and similar instruments in order to pay for Fund expenses and meet redemption requests. As a result, the Fund may deviate from its stated investment strategies and policies and may no longer be managed to meet its investment objective. On or promptly after the Liquidation Date, the Fund will make a liquidating distribution to each remaining shareholder equal to the shareholder’s proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund, in complete redemption and cancellation of the Fund’s shares held by the shareholder, and the Fund will be dissolved. If necessary, the Fund will declare and pay a dividend to distribute to its shareholders all of the Fund’s remaining investment company taxable income, if any, and all of the Fund’s net capital gain, if any (after reduction for any capital loss carry-forward) and any additional amounts necessary to avoid any excise tax. Alternatively, the Fund may, if eligible, treat some or all of such amounts distributed to its shareholders as being paid out as dividends as part of the liquidating distributions. The Fund’s liquidation may be a taxable event to its shareholders. Please consult your tax advisor about the potential tax consequences.
At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may redeem their shares of the Fund pursuant to the procedures set forth in the prospectus under “Redeeming Shares,” as it may be supplemented. Contingent deferred sales charges will be waived in connection with any redemptions prior to the Liquidation Date. Shareholders who wish to avoid being liquidated out of the Fund altogether may also exchange their shares prior to the Liquidation Date for shares of another Invesco fund, subject to minimum investment account requirements and other restrictions on exchanges as described in the prospectus under “Exchanging Shares,” as it may be supplemented. Any such redemption or exchange of Fund shares for shares of another Invesco fund, as eligible, will generally be considered a taxable event for federal income tax purposes, except for exchanges in a tax-advantaged retirement plan or account. Shareholders who hold their shares in the Fund through financial intermediaries should contact their financial representatives to discuss their options with respect to the liquidation and the distribution of their redemption proceeds...

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/49905/000119312523012796/d440160d497.htm
497 1 d440160d497.htm HARTFORD MUTUAL FUNDS II INC
JANUARY 23, 2023
SUPPLEMENT TO THE FOLLOWING PROSPECTUSES:
HARTFORD SCHRODERS SECURITIZED INCOME FUND SUMMARY PROSPECTUS
DATED MARCH 1, 2022
HARTFORD SCHRODERS FUNDS PROSPECTUS
DATED MARCH 1, 2022, AS SUPPLEMENTED TO DATE
This Supplement contains new and additional information regarding Hartford Schroders Securitized Income Fund and should be read in connection with your Summary Prospectus and Statutory Prospectus.
On or about February 28, 2023 (the “Liquidation Date”), Hartford Schroders Securitized Income Fund (the “Fund”), a series of The Hartford Mutual Funds II, Inc. (the “Company”), will be liquidated (the “Liquidation”).
SUSPENSION OF SALES. The Fund is instructing its transfer agent, other service providers, and financial intermediaries to no longer accept any account applications or purchase orders from new investors effective no later than the close of business on January 31, 2023. Accordingly, the Fund will be closed to all new investors on or before that date.
Until the close of business on February 21, 2023, the Fund will remain open to retirement plans and shareholders currently invested in the Fund. After that date, the Fund will no longer accept any purchase orders and will no longer be available for automatic investments (other than dividend reinvestments). Prior to the Liquidation Date, retirement plans and shareholders currently invested in the Fund may continue to reinvest dividends and capital gain distributions in the Fund.
At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, the Fund may, in the Fund’s discretion, reject any purchase orders for any reason, including for operational reasons relating to the Liquidation of the Fund.
LIQUIDATION OF ASSETS. To prepare for the Liquidation, it is anticipated that the Fund will depart from its stated investment objective and policies as it prepares to distribute its assets to investors. It is anticipated that the Fund’s sub-adviser will increase the portion of the Fund’s assets held in cash and similar investments and reduce maturities of non-cash investments in order to prepare for orderly liquidation and to meet anticipated redemption requests. As a result, the Fund’s portfolio may consist of all or substantially all cash or cash equivalents prior to the Liquidation Date, which may adversely affect the Fund’s performance. From the date of this Supplement, the Fund may invest all or a substantial portion of its assets in cash or cash equivalents. The impending liquidation of the Fund may result in large redemptions, which could adversely affect the Fund’s expense ratios, although existing expense limitations are expected to be maintained.
In connection with the Liquidation, any shares of the Fund outstanding on the Liquidation Date will automatically be redeemed by the Fund as of the Liquidation Date (except as noted below for qualified accounts that were opened directly with the Hartford Funds). The proceeds of any such redemption will be equal to the net asset value of such shares after all charges, taxes, expenses and liabilities of the Fund have been paid or provided for. The distribution to shareholders of the Liquidation proceeds will occur on the Liquidation Date, and will be made to all shareholders of record as of the close of business on the business day preceding the Liquidation Date, other than as disclosed below. The Fund’s investment manager, Hartford Funds Management Company, LLC (“HFMC”), will bear all expenses associated with the Liquidation to the extent such expenses exceed the amount of the Fund’s normal and customary fees and operating expenses. However, the Fund and its shareholders will bear transaction costs associated with the sale of the Fund’s holdings prior to Liquidation...

@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.