Even with u/d symmetry, things can go well (obviously; in a rising market).
SP500 capture = 1, u/d 100/100.
CAPE (whose index is SP500) u/d likewise = 1, 103/103. In its 7+y, it adds (to a $10k startpoint) ~$7k above SP500, ~$30k vs ~$23k. That seems a lot of added value.
DSENX even more than that, with its 1.12 capture. Special bond sauce is the difference from CAPE.
Is CAPE's automatic monthly operating principle marketing timing, or defensive? Or both? Must reread the P&I article @msf cites. By RGoldsticker (great name) of ABiller & Assoc.

Morn'in @Mark
Kinda strange many times where these folks (in this case, your Greg Carlson notation) obtain their take or bias or whatever helps them form an opinion. I don't understand his statement about Fidelity management of this fund, FBALX. Perhaps Greg should look at the chart below. You, I and many here do the grain of salt thing when reading where we should or should not be investing our monies, eh? Continuing edumacation, yes?
Anyway, just for the heck of it; I picked a few balanced funds to chart back to Nov. 2008 (this limit because of etf, AOM inception). This is a random selection of funds, most well known, that popped into my head. I have not done any analysis as to how these match up; but are generally in the 70-50% allocation for equity to the best of my knowledge. Eight are active managed, one etf and one index.
For those I've known over the years and don't want to make things worse from their own meddling, I always suggest a look at these type of funds.
Charts below are total return for the period.
First chart is 5 listings with the names at the fop of the chart.
This chart is a bit busy, with the first 5; and another 5 added.
Have a good remainder............back to me chores.
Catch

Interesting take on FBALX from M*:
This fund lacks a competitive advantage. Summary by Greg Carlson Nov 14, 2019
"An unstable manager lineup and an undistinguished process earn a downgrade of the Morningstar Analyst Rating of Fidelity Balanced to Neutral across its share classes.
This fund is led by Robert Stansky, who can make shifts of 10 percentage points to its neutral allocation of 60% stocks/40% bonds. The equity portfolio maintains a sector-neutral position...."
(this is all I can access without a premium membership)
As catch 22 noted above the fund has returned 5.35% over the past year, 9.53% over the past 3 years, 7.97% over the past 5 years and 10.34% over the past 10 years. Feelin' lucky punk? I would like to read more just to see what this guys issues are with the fund and what he proposes as better substitutes. I'm almost willing to bet that it begins with 'Vanguard'. I'll forgive him a bit if it's PRWCX but only a bit because it's closed. This is why we (I) tune out analyst noise for the most part.

PRNEX up +116% in 2019. Holy gazoochkees, Batman!

Darn! I've been positively cheated and swindled with a measly 45% increase from JAGTX!

Hmmm, I have JABAX at Fidelity and is NTF. Also had it at Schwab for several years. Maybe the rules have changed since I added shares last year but you should try. It has done very well the last several years compared to other like funds. I just tried JABAX at Schwab as well and no problem there.
https://cdn.janushenderson.com/webdocs/Fact+Sheet_Balanced+Fund+(Multi-Share)_3Q19_exp+01-15-20.pdf

@Crash
Fidelity minimum is $500.
Are you trying to buy this through your brokerage where your IRA or taxable accounts are held? Have you tried a test purchase there? OR is it stated at your brokerage that $100K is the minimum?
There are a number of funds such as this that have similar long term results. Is there a particular reason you chose this fund?

"Gary1952">dtconroe, I did purchase NVHAX with proceeds from an equity fund that had doubled. This is in my taxable account so I wanted to get some muni exposure and protect my profit. I was considering BTMIX but decided to go a little more aggressive. I read the your objection to the 2015 drawdown. But I have decided to pick funds with good potential and stick with them for a period long enough to prove me wrong. I will not need that money for a few years for monthly spending. I will review the performance at end of this year to see if it makes the grade for next year.
Hey Gary, I understand your reasoning. NVHAX performance since 2015/2016 is excellent. Hope it works out well for you.

My instinctive reaction was that this is not much different from alpha. Since capture ratios (upside capture ratio and downside capture ratio) are just betas over restricted regions (upside and downside), one would expect alpha to be around zero if the upside and downside capture ratios were the same.
That is, it wouldn't matter if a fund were twice as volatile or half as volatile as its benchmark. If it correlated well with its benchmark, it would be adding no value (alpha). The more value it added, the more the upside capture ratio would exceed the downside ratio.
Admittedly there are many paths to a given upside capture ratio. An upside ratio of 100% can be achieved with a beta of 80% and an alpha of 20(%) to get back to 100%. Or you can get there with a beta of 100% and no alpha. Or with a beta of 120% and an alpha of -20.
See the column linked below.
According to that column, it turns out that despite potentially different paths to the same capture ratios, there's a strong correlation between alpha and {upside capture ratio} minus {downside capture ratio}. The column examines the difference rather than the quotient of upside and downside capture ratios. Nevertheless I expect that either way, difference or quotient, the end number will correlate well with alpha. (Perhaps quotient might correlate better with log alpha? Have to think this through some more.)
https://www.pionline.com/article/20180628/ONLINE/180629854/commentary-up-market-capture-minus-down-market-capture

However, because of the way statistics are calculated, comparing a strategy's up-market capture to its down-market capture provides little, if any, information beyond knowing that the strategy outperformed its benchmark on a risk-adjusted basis. ...
The difference between up-market capture and down-market capture ratios is highly correlated with unconditional alpha, and is not correlated with strategies' market timing performance or defensive properties. Therefore, investors should not consider the difference between up-market and down-market capture as an additional indicator of manager performance.

If you want to calculate your own capture ratios, here's a page that explains the formulas and provides a template spreadsheet. All you have to do is plug in monthly return figures for the fund and benchmark of your choosing.
https://breakingdownfinance.com/trading-strategies/upside-downside-capture/

I think you have the math backwards in the second sentence of the original post. You've written downside/upside which would get you 0.895 for the DSENX example. I think you mean upside capture divided by downside capture (upside/downside = 1.12).

Hi, David.
I simply set the screener using three parameters:
Category - 12 styles (LCV, etc) plus Equity Income, Aggressive Allocation, Flexible
Universe - mutual funds or ETFs
Display - full cycle 5
You get a warning that there are 1400 resulting funds and the list will be truncated to the 1000 with the highest APR unless you add criteria. I just accepted the top 1000.
On the results screen, I scroll over to "Capture SP500" and click. That sorts them by that criterion.
When I shift to a six-year display (because DSENX is 6), it is more or less 70th on the list.
DoubleLine Shiller Enhanced CAPE DSENX
Capture 1.12
Downside capture 102
Upside capture 114
APR 15.0
Does that help?
David

A thickhead query -- where are these data coming from?
I am scrutinizing MFOP and not seeing anything capture when you click a fund and get its individual sheet, and then when you compare three funds and side-scroll to capture metrics I see up cap % sp500 and ditto for down, 80 and 64.9 for YACKX, say, but no
Yacktman (YACKX ... )
Capture 1.22
Downside capture 0.71

visible, and nothing when searching for .71.
(Am trying to see how bad downside for DSEEX is, why it gets to little attention in these respects.)

dtconroe, I did purchase NVHAX with proceeds from an equity fund that had doubled. This is in my taxable account so I wanted to get some muni exposure and protect my profit. I was considering BTMIX but decided to go a little more aggressive. I read the your objection to the 2015 drawdown. But I have decided to pick funds with good potential and stick with them for a period long enough to prove me wrong. I will not need that money for a few years for monthly spending. I will review the performance at end of this year to see if it makes the grade for next year.

I believe all Fidelity's index funds, new and old, are managed by Geode. That company was created by Fidelity and later spun off - a fact not mentioned on its history page.
WSJ, Aug 5, 2003: "Fidelity Investments said it spun off an in-house investment firm ... Fidelity, the nation's largest mutual-fund firm, launched the company, called Geode Investors LLC, two years ago."
There was a thread recently that discussed voting records of fund families. The article cited in that thread said that Fidelity's index funds had a decent record. The reason for that is Geode. Geode has been voting the proxies for the Fidelity funds it manages. As I recall, even back in the 2000's, Geode had a better voting record than Fidelity.

I'm usually a bit hesitant to consider two funds clones unless they have the same managers and their portfolios have very similar attributes and holdings. Puritan not only has just a single manager while Balanced has ten, Puritan's manager isn't even one of those ten.
While I agree that there is huge overlap between the portfolios, the mixtures are significantly different. Puritan has an average market cap of $112B, while Balanced's is a smaller $73B. Puritan is a growth-heavy fund (54% growth stocks), while Balanced is a bit more shall we say balanced, with 33% growth, 26% value. Puritan's turnover, at 132% is double that of Balanced's 60%, but that high turnover could just be the result of a new manager having overhauled the portfolio in the past 1.5 years.
On the other hand, management at Balanced turns over frequently enough that even if the two funds are clones today, Balanced will turn into something else tomorrow.
Consider FZIPX which is lauded in the column, and FSMAX. They both are extended market index funds. However, they follow different indexes and have different attributes. Good candidates for substitution, but not clones. In fact, because FZIPX has a cash component 26x as large as FSMAX's, its cash drag alone costs more than any savings that FZIPX offers with a zero ER.
So even index funds where management is much less of an issue may not be clones. And there's more to finding good funds than picking the ones with rock bottom costs. Which is what the author of this column seems to have done.

I have been making a few end of year/beginning of new year portfolio adjustments in my taxable account. I did sell BTMIX--a very good short term, investment grade, municipal bond oef, and I have added AAHMX, a very low risk HY short duration Muni Bond oef. I expect to increase my TR with minimal increased risk, but time will tell how that will play out. I am still considering adding NVHAX from the HY Muni category, but its peak to trough loss in the 2015/2016 period, causes me some pause about this fund, so if I do add it, it would likely be a relatively small portfolio addition. I also sold DBLSX, and I decided to increase my holding in SEMMX--very different kinds of funds, but I think the SEMMX long term history of very consistent TR around 5% with very low SD/volatility is worth the risk.
In my IRA account, I have chosen to take some cash I have built up and distribute it to PIMIX, VCFAX, and IISIX positions I already own.

Capture ratio is a sort of "bang for your buck" summary. It's calculated by dividing a fund's downside capture (a fund that typically falls 1.1% when the market falls 1% has a downside capture of 1.10) by its upside capture (a fund that typically rises 1.1% when the market rises 1% has an upside capture of 1.10). Capture ratios greater than 1.0 reflect funds that produce more gains than losses; all other things being equal, high capture ratio funds are offering you the greatest reward for every unit of risk you've been subjected to.
Capture ratios even the playing field for cautious and aggressive investors. A cautious investor might look for fund with a downside capture of no more than .8. Given that constraint, anything above 1.0 is a winner! Aggressive investors might be willing to accept downside captures of 1.10 as long as they've been duly compensated. So, for them too, anything above 1.0 is a winner.
I screened to equity-oriented domestic funds, which included "flexible portfolios" and "aggressive allocation" funds but excluded global. For this first pass, I excluded closed funds, high-minimum ones and those with a downside capture greater 1.00.
Yacktman Focused (YAFFX)
Capture 1.26
Downside capture 0.7
APR 10.6%
Great Owl
Yacktman (YACKX, $100k minimum with no backdoors that I can find)
Capture 1.22
Downside capture 0.71
APR 10.1
Great Owl
Reynolds Blue Chip (RBCGX)
Capture 12.1
Downside capture 0.80
APR 11.1
The appeal of the Reynolds BCG fund is almost entirely driven by its performance during the 2007-09 crash. It appears to have been almost entirely in cash and simply sailed through it. $10,000 invested in RBCGX at the peak of the last market would be worth $36,000 today, the same investment in the S&P 500 index would be $26,000. Since then it's been entirely uninspiring.
Madison Dividend Income (BHBFX, $25,000 minimum, $500 for an IRA but $100 at Schwab)
Capture 1.20
Downside capture 0.66
APR 8.9
Great Owl
Intrepid Endurance (ICMAX)
Capture 1.18
Downside capture 0.46
APR 6.6
I hesitated to include ICMAX despite its long-term record. I love the absolute-value discipline and willingness to hold cash until the market offers rationally priced stocks. Cash is down to 42% of the portfolio now. That said, it's made about 1% a year over the past 3- and 5-year periods and has undergone three sets of manager turnovers: Cinnamond to Wiggins to the current team, with president Mark Travis in and out, in and out.
Monetta Core Growth (MYIFX)
Capture 1.17
Downside capture 0.89
APR 11.4
Investors consciously looking to keep their downside capture as low as they can would start with the Yacktman and Madison funds but might add
First Trust Value Dividend ETF
Capture 1.17
Downside capture 0.72
APR 9.2
Great Owl
Prospector Opportunity (POPFX)
Capture 1.14
Downside capture 0.75
APR 9.0
Great Owl
The best fund that's fallen between those cracks is Parnassus Equity. It, along with the Yacktman funds, are the only fund in the lower downside capture group to exceed 10% annual returns over the full market cycle. It adds the attraction of a long-standing commitment to an ESG-screened portfolio.
Parnassus Core Equity (PRBLX)
Capture 1.17
Downside capture 0.79
APR 10.6
Great Owl
David's disclosure: I'm playing with possible articles for February and March, with an eye to finding options for indolent investors (that is, those who might shift their portfolios once every year or two) and, possibly, newer investors who have the necessity of starting their portfolios in a market that might well slap them in the face soon.
Is this a useful focus? How might I improve it?
I did update the list following Stillers suggestion to add ticker symbols. At that point I also figured out that Virtus KAR Small-Cap Growth had closed and that I was having trouble finding a way about Yacktman's $100,000 minimum, so I added Intrepid and Monetta since they were the next funds on the list.
David

Do your 401k plans have any special requirements to withdraw the money? This question could apply to whomever is receiving the rollover.
One of our rollovers to an existing T-IRA required that Fidelity provide a "letter of acceptance" to the 401k custodian.............basically, a YES you are loosing your customer and Fidelity is and will accept the money. DUH ??? So, this transaction took 2 weeks because of postal mail time.
On the other hand, I rolled a 401k operated by Vanguard to move the money to Fidelity; and Fidelity called "their" Vanguard contact, with myself and the 2 of them on the phone. I provided security information that satisfied Vanguard's requirements and the rollover took place electronically between the two parties. I received paper confirmation about 5 days later from both.
I can't provide help with concerns for market place happenings during the transfer idle times. At best, this means nothing; at the very least this is not more than a coin toss for any 2 week period of the markets, yes?

@stillers
I agree with your observation of FBALX. At .53% E.R. and a since inception (1986) annualized return of about 9.3%; well, if one is doing better than this, then stick with your plan. If one wants to retire from meddling with their portfolio; this fund, as well as whatever moderate allocation funds one has access to, may provide your managed account choice without the need of an advisor.
I read through the article, and perhaps some folks have or still do consider Fidelity to be pricey. If so, they have not done their homework and also do not understand or know the history of Fidelity and its positive impact upon the investing marketplace helping provide the diverse and inexpensive investments available to the small, individual investor today.
Fidelity, along with Vanguard and Schwab placed enormous pressure into the diversity and pricing of mutual funds, especially during the 1980's. Their actions then (forcing the high loads on mutual funds of companies as Merrill Lynch and the rest to have to re-do these fees or lose customers) and today; with their continued pricing and offerings pressures still to the benefit of the small, individual investor.
As to the choices in the article, well; as usual, everyone will make their appropriate choices.
Disclosure: A Fidelity customer for more than 40 years and biased to the favorable side of investing with them.

About half of our retirement savings is still sitting in the 401K accounts for my wife’s and my former employer. It’s a good 401K plan with a range of index funds, low expenses and a decent stable value fund. We’ve been rolling over some of the funds each year to Roth IRAs, at a rate that doesn’t bump us up to a higher tax bracket. Eventually, I would also like to transfer the remaining funds to our existing Rollover and Roth IRAs.
Here’s the rub. Every time we do a transfer or rollover, the money is out of the market for up to two weeks. The markets often make big moves in two weeks time, and I prefer to stay invested. In almost every case in which I moved funds, the markets went up, so I essentially lost money by being out of the markets. So far, the amounts haven’t been huge because I’ve transferred amounts ranging from $5,000 to $20,000. However, if I decided to move my entire 401K accounts, the amounts could be sizable.
Of course, the transfers could work in my favor if the markets dropped during the time that my 401K funds are sold and reinvested two weeks later — but it never seems to work that way.
Does anyone have any ideas for speeding up the rollover/transfer process or hedging the potential losses?

https://www.businessinsider.com/retirement-saving-advice-2020-from-blackrock-bond-cio-rick-rieder-2019-12
BlackRock’s $1.7 trillion bond chief explains why it’s about to become much harder to save for retirement — and shares his best advice for doing it successfully
Safe, high-yielding investments are shrinking in availability at a time when retirement savers need them the most, according to Rick Rieder, the global chief investment officer of BlackRock’s $1.9 trillion fixed income business.
He estimates that 1.8 million people in the US will hit the retirement age of 65 every six months — double the pace from 20 years ago.