There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the yield from any bond-based MMKT fund will continue to decrease as the Fed lowers interest rates. The only protection against that is a bond/CD ladder stretching out for a reasonable number of years. Right now I'm 60% SUTXX MMKT and 40% interest ladder out to early 2028.
But while that works for us, in our 80s, it definitely may not be optimal for younger investors.

"My wild guess is that there will be a serious correction coming"
Yes, sir- and that's exactly what I'm worried about. Having survived for 85 years I'm a true believer in the old adage "If anything can go wrong it will, and at exactly the worst time and place".
If a serious correction should start in the next 100 days all bets are off on the election.

- Try DRRAX (Rated neutral by Morningstar) 10 YR Return +3.4% Mentioned in Barron’s favorably in 2020 as a “go anywhere” fund. But I am unable to pull up the article.
- Also try QAI (Hedge fund tracker etf) 10 YR Return 1.8% (Not Rated at Morningstar).
Personally I probably wouldn’t buy such a fund. Hedge funds have the advantage of being able to lock-up an investor’s assets for a set number of years. Allows higher level of risk taking. Mutual funds do not have that advantage. Lose 10% in a year and $$ rushes out the door.
- One (approximation) I’ve owned for short periods in the past (without fully comprehending) is the CEF GUG.
I’d term it “Go anywhere with an emphasis on fixed income”. Quite volatile as CEFs tend to be.
- BCAT (CEF) managed by Rick Rieder might fit your bill. I bailed after it jumped 10 or 15% a year or so ago. Heights bother me. Rieder has a lot of discretion in what to buy.
- You might look at GAA. Globally diversified fund of funds. Risk averse high (media) profile manager some would rather avoid. Spreads the risk around. Seems to have a lot of personal discretion which Morningstar loathes. Exposure to gold / EM. But not billed as “go anywhere.” Morningstar Neutral Rating. 5 YR +5.64% (Disclosure: I own this one.)
-

Hey thanks very much for sharing this @Catch22… really appreciate it. I’m starting to look at bonds again for the first time in years. But the moves have been so fast here I’m hesitant to take a position…I’m curious what funds you and others hold.

I have a highly diversified stable of investments/income producing vehicles. More bearish lately and have been taking profits/building cash (and cash like) investments. My question…
I’m looking for a fund that goes anywhere/does anything to produce gains. It has the discretion to do that and does it. A hedge fund like mutual fund. Think Oceanstone or CGM Focus. I’m not concerned about risk just something that I can slowly build a position in, in the next 3-4 years. I was really interested in MRFOX but the hoops I would have to jump through to buy and sell are too much. Signature guarantees to sell a large amount? No thanks.
Any suggestions where I should be looking? Thank you.

Hynes was a disaster. Couldn't beat Vanguard's own index!
Vanguard Independent Advisors identified this problem many years ago

Japan reached its all-time high in mid-July after 35 years. It's now down -17.5% from that high.

A fund that has had amazing risk/reward over the years (minus recent years). Linked here is a MFO/Fund Alarm discussion regarding VGHCX. A fund that is hopefully on the "mend":
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/search?Search=vghcx

There is now a standard construct for newer term-structure CEFs with the life of 12.0-13.5 years that several CEFs follow. Examples are from Nuveen, Pimco, Thornburg, etc. Variations are also possible but may take longer for SEC approval.

Perhaps 80% of OEFs / ETFs are "unnecessary" and their disappearance wouldn't impact most investors.
The number of publicly listed companies has decreased significantly from the 1996 peak.
"The count of publicly listed companies traded on US exchanges has fallen substantially from its peak in 1996. Back then, the number exceeded 8,000 companies. Today that count has dropped by more than 50% to just 3700, according to data from the Center for Research in Security Prices."
"It’s not that America has half as many companies as 30 years ago – it’s that companies are increasingly staying private, largely outside the scrutiny of the public eye. Publicly listed companies are subject to regulatory oversight and disclosure requirements, which help ensure transparency and maintain investor confidence. With fewer companies listed, there may be a decrease in overall transparency and investor trust in the market, said Matthew Kennedy, head of data and content at Renaissance Capital."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/09/investing/premarket-stocks-trading/index.html

I swapped out VHCOX for FPURX. I've held Capital Opportunity for over 20 years, but it just seems to have lost its edge (Similar to why I sold out of POAGX earlier in the year). I think in the current environment FPURX will provide a steadier ride over the next 2 years. At this stage in my investing life steady is good.

I'm not sure a heavy LCG is super prudent but its understandable why someone wants it. Return isn't everything but I'm kind of the mind that if people are tilting LCG its largely return related. therefore prefer a LCG index compared to products like contrafund or whatever bluechip fund you chuck at it. But all in all this could be a worse portfolio.
Diversification: I would probably suggest barbelling your LCG tilt with something small/mid cappy and maybe a bit more value'y. And I do believe most should have a smattering of international investing in their portfolio. Only because we don't know the future.
Growth Potential: There are a few gotcha's here. continued mutual fund management over long periods of time is like chasing unicorns around. Sure we have documented success stories but a few things are real. 1. People age/philosophies change and 2. the black swan event of tomorrow will require different decisions than the BS events of yesteryear.
The other Gotcha here is "what to do in the next 5-10 years" way of thinking. These are the types of strategies that most often lead one to underperformance. I believe it was Oshaunnessy who said the best portfolios at Fidelity are the ones that people forgot existed or the owners were dead. Build a portfolio today that you feel can last a very long time. obviously circumstances change and decisions will have to be made here or there but don't go into an investment because "this is how i think the next decade will look" . Some people succeed at this but most do not.
Risk Control: If you want returns you are going to have to take risks. Can we control risk with the types of stocks we pick or how many we pick? yeah probably. Nothing is set in stone and there are ebbs in flows but the easiest way to control Risk in equities is diversification.
Costs and Fees:
per morningstar as it pertains to large cap equities, 18% of active funds that are in the lower half of expenses outperformed their index over a 10 year period. only 6% of the more expensive ones could say they did. So expenses do matter. Now that study isn't perfect. if .50 is placed in the cheaper half and .51 is considered the more expensive half it doesn't give us all that info but its gives us a snapshot that costs do matter. Once again also noting that returns aren't always all that matters (while also noting observably in most other places, it is all that matters to the avg investor)

@mskursh.
"... the surviving focus/select funds that exist today or have long track records are standing on the corpses of many that have gone extinct..."
ouch.
"Standing on the shoulders of giants" is a metaphor I've embraced for years.
But corpses?
Never heard that before.
But maybe I should have.

not really a saying (I don't think) just something I typed as it came to me. what I find fascinating is that the industry does a fantastic job of making it seem like the mutual funds that are dead never existed in the first place.

Half cash and half balanced? For a young worker? Just no

An optimal portfolio for many young workers (early 20s to mid 30s)
would be allocated predominantly, if not entirely, to equities.
After all, young workers' risk capacity is great and equities
generate the highest long-term returns.
But what if an inexperienced investor has never encountered
a nasty bear market like the Global Financial Crisis?
It's possible some investors may panic and sell equities when prices are extremely depressed.
Then they may decide to remain out of the "market" for years failing to capture tremendous gains.
Would it be beneficial for certain investors to start with a lower equity allocation (maybe 50% - 60%)
which can be increased after they gain experience and discover their true risk tolerance?

+1
It’s difficult to draw a line in the sand (or concrete). But if you’re under 40, dollar-cost averaging in and planning to work at least 20 more years … put it in a good low cost growth fund and let it rip. No more than 3 funds I’d say. You can withstand the +35% and -35% market whipsaws with that kind of time horizon.
I get the feeling from our friend @Joyes that his situation is different - probably an older investor.

Not sure it's nuts going forward...looking backwards sure after the fact I could see your point... you're not getting mine.. it's that if the less experienced or younger investor sees a drawdown that has legs they will bail and lose the compounding effect.
Compounding positive returns is what creates wealth.
While we're dancing and seeing how most of us are old enough to collect social security..what day you about a younger investor allocating say 10 to 20% to Bitcoin?
Note that many younger investors are much more open to the concept. I guess you could argue it's done a better job keeping up with inflation the last couple of years

Half cash and half balanced? For a young worker? Just no

An optimal portfolio for many young workers (early 20s to mid 30s)
would be allocated predominantly, if not entirely, to equities.
After all, young workers' risk capacity is great and equities
generate the highest long-term returns.
But what if an inexperienced investor has never encountered
a nasty bear market like the Global Financial Crisis?
It's possible some investors may panic and sell equities when prices are extremely depressed.
Then they may decide to remain out of the "market" for years failing to capture tremendous gains.
Would it be beneficial for certain investors to start with a lower equity allocation (maybe 50% - 60%)
which can be increased after they gain experience and discover their true risk tolerance?

Thank you for the summary, @Observant1. In more recent years, we found ourselves using more ETFs (mainly passive funds). The new active managed stocks and bonds are attractive vehicles with lower expensive ratios without minimum investment, and we have added them too.

Until @Joyes replies to the MFO board's inquiry, we are all guessing.

True. There is a big difference between being 25 years old and 75 or 80 in investing posture. Sounds like @Joyes has little experience. Maybe he / she is quite young and new at the process. Or possibly an older individual seeking to invest a recent windfall like an inheritance or cash-out from an employer.
@BaseballFan - One guru I actually pay for monthly market analysis has had his readers at 58% equity and 42% T-Bills most of the year. I don't want to say who because it would violate my terms of use. But obviously that call has not been optimum YTD. Yet ISTM it’s hard to criticize someone wanting to make 5%+ in cash instruments. I recently upped my allocation to 44% equity from 37% when an opportunity came along. But like you I remain cautious.
If the FOMC should cut rates next week I think it would juice the markets. Most of the experts don’t expect a cut that soon. But my view is more sanguine.

what no one has mentioned yet is what kind of career track/profession is @joyes in?
If they are a physician, plumber, electrician etc..their work path is more "somewhat guaranteed in the future" so they might be more aggressive in their portfolio. If they are a real estate agent, programmer, where their future earnings might be lumpy or impacted negatively by AI, they might consider being way less aggressive in their portfolio.
I have personally worked with many young(er) colleagues, many starting out their careers, in their early to mid-20's and have found without a doubt (and I am more certain of this as anything I have ever posted on this site, political views included (Ha!) as I've seen it first hand many times) is that if you suggest to them "oh, you are young and have many years to invest, be aggressive, 90-100% in stocks", at the first draw down of over 15% they will bail and go all to cash. To someone without a lot of money, $20k going down to $13k is not something they are going to just watch happen.
Therefore, my suggestion for consideration and NOT ADVICE, would be to stay 50/50 in cash/Tbills and the other half in something like FPACX FPA Crescent..a fund that has been around a long time and is not super aggressive.
Don't gamble, don't overdo the booze, stay away from the floozies/bar flies, go home after work, don't go to the bars, stay fit, think for yourself, don't smoke, save at least 15% of your paycheck every pay day, don't care what others think or post on social media.
Good Luck and Good Health to ALL,
Baseball Fan

FD said, “… in the last 10 years.”
To quote Regan, ”There you go again!”

dunno who Regan is, but is anything FD1k said untrue? BND sucks and has sucked majorly.
never bought the notion of diversification past a point.
an old and very tired argument. details, as he says.