Nice post @davfor - I was thinking of doing the same the evening before your post went up just based on how my balanced funds, along with few I don’t own, have done this year. But your colorful and complete graph tells the whole story.
Aside from small amounts in some specialty funds, my equity exposure is thru balanced type funds: PRWCX +24.5%. The other two, RPGAX and DODBX are up close to 20%. My benchmark, 40/60 TRRIX, is a real surprise. Up nearly 16%. I’ll refrain from posting personal performance data, other than to restate as said previously, that most years I tend to track TRRIX quite closely. Those who are into tech and equity-centric funds have done better. But I won’t look a gift-horse in the mouth either.
Last year was a downer for most of us. As far as 2020? Might as well throw darts blindfolded. Who really knows? What is a bit uncommon, I think, is that bonds have held up reasonably well in this still very low rate environment. Nat. resources also seem to be coming around at long last. I guess I agree with Stanley Druckenmiller that equities are in some sort of bubble, but that this could last for years or even decades more - so he stays invested. Good Druckenmiller interview on Bloomberg last week. Tried to link the clip but couldn’t make it work.
:) @Mark has just posted the Druckenmiller article & video below. The cool thing about Stanley is that his dead-pan delivery would easily qualify him for a slot on late-night comedy TV should he decide some day to get out of the investment business.
Thanks @Mark

Hello dtconroe. I have similar thoughts to your investing style. But I have a 50% allocation to equities so my bond OEF allocation may be a little more "conservative". 50% of my bonds are in DBLSX and MWCIX and 50% is in what I call "higher yield". My higher yield contains SEMMX, IISIX, VCFAX. I am not as structured as you. I plan to hold these long term (hopefully years) unless the bond market crashes as some people are expecting.

Hi dtconroe
I find your posts informative and helpful on another site. I am 63 recently retired and not collecting social security or any pension. I have moved to a very conservative portfolio with the definite emphasis on principal preservation also. I will probably take a small pension and my social security at 65 or 66. I am at approx 21% Cash,cds...,20% balanced funds(vwiax,fbalx,vbiax...), 20% equities (fskax,vcsax,vimax...),20% bond funds mostly with pimco (pttrx,pigix,pmzix...)12% Pimix, 7% short term (vfsux). I am willing to forego larger gains and am content with the lower yields and less principal risk. I am mostly in taxable accounts and not tax efficient . I don't feel very knowledgeable when I read posts by others and have and will continue to plod along. I have done pretty well by just being in the market, knowing I have not maximized returns. I am looking to invest some from the cash account and was looking at IISIX also. I know it has been talked about on the other site I follow that you post on also . I am trying to get where a market downturn won't effect anything I do. Worse case scenario I will just put more in vwiax or vwiux.

Looks like INVESCO produces a lot of junk. Wonder how much of a haircut the investors in these funds is going to get. That's the story I am interested in. Bet it doesn't make print!!!

Haircut? I’d rather doubt that. Reason for the closings is duplication of offerings with Oppenheimer, with whom they’ve recently merged. In addition, they’re being squeezed by larger better players in the market, and so looking to cut costs.
A lot of junk? Some have suggested that. I really don’t know. I’ve long clung to a few A shares at Oppenheimer I purchased directly for an IRA at a much less experienced age (around 1995). There were things to like and things to dislike at Oppenheimer. But I always found something to invest in there that provoked my interest. In particular, there were some niche funds (like a gold fund) that TRP has yet to offer.
I’m staggered by how much larger the selection is at Invesco. Who needs 50-100 new funds to digest at my age? There is a lot of duplication with Oppenheimer - a reason for the shuttering of many funds. At a glance they have a similarity high fee structure to what Oppenheimer had. I’ve been under the impression they are London based, but a quick check tonight revealed that they are headquartered in Atlanta GA. Part of my invested assets will be coming out of there in 2020 (wherever they are).

”I took a sneak peak (TMSRX) at Marketwatch ... Looking at 4/th Qter. 2018 shows app. 7% drop.”

I’m not sure what the above is a reference to. If @Derf means TMSRX lost 7% from its inception 2/23/18 to year’s end, that sounds about right. ‘18 was nasty for most everything. And right out of the gate a fund’s liable to do anything. But if he means the fund fell 7% in the 4th quarter, I’ve checked with M* and found that it fell only 3.34% during Quarter 4, 2018. It’s hard to get reliable performance data on such a new fund. So I plotted its course from 10/1/18 until 12/31/18 using M*’s on-site tool. A $10,000 investment in TMSRX on 10/1 was worth slightly less than $9700 at year’s end. I was able to obtain more easily the Quarter 4 performance data (from Zack’s) for OAKBX, a balanced fund I owned up until the end of 2018. During Quarter 4, 2018, OAKBX fell 9.25%.
I don’t think this makes the case either way as to whether someone should own the fund. Just wanted to make sure Derf and I were looking at the same figures and time-frame for TMSRX. Glad some folks found @bee’s thread interesting or helpful.

By far PRWCX which ranks for performance at M* for 1-3-5-10-15 years at 1-3% top funds.
Instead of POAGX you can own QQQ which made more money + better risk attributes. See (link).

This has been a very nice exchange of ideas and facts. Thanks to Bee for initiating it and to everybody who added to it. This kind of conversation is one of the major strengths of MFO.
It made me curious about how Fidelity (where I do almost all of my business) handles fees on TRP funds, so I checked.
Most, but not all, charge no fee.
PRWCX is NTF (but closed to new investors).
TMSRX has a 49.95 fee
PRSCX (one of my favorites since I owned it for years in my 403b) is NTF. I think I prefer FSCFX now.
PRHSX is NTF
PRDGX is NTF
PRFRX is NTF.
There are many more ...
David

Hi Hank,
Wow! Did not look at returns.....and, you're right. Saying that, here's what I see:
PGTAX - 5G all across Asia......now, more to come next year. China stimulating.....helping tech. The want to be No. 1.
FSDAX - have owned it for years. Added many times. It's worked out well. See no difference now. New U.S. military budget out.....no surprise it increased. But bought this last time because of Boeing.
FEMKX - Central banks across the world are all cutting. If I remember, there were 60 rate cuts this year. So next year, they should really kick in as it takes 6 to 9 months to show up.
SO, those are my reasons for what they're worth. Also, did you see WealthTrack this weekend? Ed Hyman was on. He said a lot of good things that I agree with.
God bless
the Pudd
p.s. SVEN + 1

Did not expect a stellar return this yr, so many pundits from ... expect flat line and depressions discussions, stocking loosing 25%+ beginning 2019 and economy crashes down early 2019.
That why it's good have a plan and stay diversed and shut out all noises

>>NAESX is investor class with a minimum of $3000 but it is closed.
And yet this is the share class that appears in the US News article. Makes one wonder if this is yet another column that was just phoned in.
>> So VSCPX with ER 0.03, VSCIX with ER 0.04, or a bargain VSMAX with ER 0.05 are the open choices if you are interested in the Vanguard index mutual fund in that space.
There's also the ETF share class VB, with the same ER (0.05%) as the Admiral class, though with a bid/ask spread on trading and a minute SEC fee on sale.
---
Generally when I consider an index fund (which I do on occasion), the first thing I look at is the choice of index. Only then do I look at the particular fund offerings, under the assumption that there's going to be some fund company offering a tracking fund for the index with good management and low fees.
In the small cap space, I would be inclined to avoid R2K funds, simply because R2K is the most susceptible index to front running. The S&P 600 is a somewhat actively managed index (selected by committee, not algorithm), and operates with the restriction that it includes only profitable companies.
Here's a column comparing attributes of those two indexes:
https://tradingsim.com/blog/sp600-index/
The Vanguard fund you're looking at follows a CRSP index. A distinguishing feature of this index is that it doesn't reach as far down into smaller cap stocks as the others, with an average market cap over $4B as opposed to less than $2B for the two others.
There are a variety of other indexes in the space as well. BSMAX tracks the Rusell 2500, which is the R2K plus 500 mid caps. Its average market cap is similar to VSMAX's. SFSNX follows the Russell RAFI US Small Co. Index (see RAFI indexes/Rob Arnott). $3B market cap.

PRDSX. +32.96% ytd.
+15.58% over 10 years.
+10.83 over 15 years.
I'm keeping it. Although I've cut back on the small-cap allocation in the portfolio, overall.

VintageFreak said:
Only one Mutual Fund in the list.
Can someone please tell me why one should by NAESX over VSCPX? I was looking to start an investment in VSCPX in 2020.
Unless I'm doing this wrong, VSCPX outperforms NAESX.
= = = = = =
NAESX ,the investor class with the expense ratio of 0.17, is closed because Vanguard has VSMAX ,the admiral class, now available with an ER of 0.05 for the same $3,000.
So VSCPX with ER 0.03, VSCIX with ER 0.04, or a bargain VSMAX with ER 0.05 are the open choices if you are interested in the Vanguard index mutual fund in that space.
VSCPX $100 million ER .03, VSCIX $5 million ER .04, VSMAX $3,000 ER .05

Expense ratios for alternatives and long/short strategy funds are quite high, 1.5 -2% and up. So TMSRX is interesting and reasonable on the ER. Providing that TRP's strategy plays out in their favor, this would be a decent vehicle.

@MikeM,
The concern about China is that they are more than a low cost manufacturer for consumer products. China is on the path taken by Japan (after WWII) and South Korea (in the 90's) to develop their high tech manufacturing capabilities. They want to move up the value chain and to produce high value products on par with western countries. The fight for G5 infrastructures across the globe is a good example. In my opinion China is progressing on a rapid pace and there is still a way to go in many areas.
Andy Foster of Seafarer funds have several thoughtful annual reports on investing in China.
https://seafarerfunds.com/letters-to-shareholders/2018/10/semi-annual/

The shorting strategy is similar to what Pimco does with their bond funds. The fund is still fairly new. Will keep track on this strategy.
funds also hold high cash position and they are lagging their peers.

It’s hard for folks to get their head around a fund like this. It’s not intended to be a growth fund.
It can’t keep pace with stocks or bonds when those markets are advancing. One willl probably never produce a M* “Manager of the Year.” Their best use, I’d think, is with an older and very conservative investor who would like to earn a couple % more with an investment than cash or short term bonds are likely to provide without assuming a lot of additional market risk.
We tend to think mainly of equities as risky. However, under some circumstances, all but the very shortest duration bonds can entail quite a bit of risk. We’ve become somewhat immune to the potential risk in bonds because interest rates have been generally falling or stable for the past 25 years or longer. These alternative type funds carry a lot of baggage of their own as well. More fail than succeed. A lot depends on the manager getting the timing right. The markets / market sentiment have been running against them for quite a while as well. And they carry higher expenses and fees, somewhat justifiably because of the short selling and other derivatives they invest in. Just one ingredient to consider as part of a broader portfolio if one is highly risk averse either by nature or by age and circumstance.

Master Stockpicker Peter Lynch: If You Only Invest in an Index, You’ll Never Beat It
https://www.barrons.com/articles/master-stockpicker-peter-lynch-if-you-only-invest-in-an-index-youll-never-beat-it-51576874071
By Leslie P. Norton
Updated Dec. 20, 2019 4:24 pm ET / Original Dec. 20, 2019 3:34 pm ET
Photograph by Heather Sten
“Invest in what you know.” Those five simple words from Peter Lynch helped launch a nation of stockpickers.
His advice—along with his 13 years running the Fidelity Magellan fund (ticker: FMAGX) with great success—led to investment banter at cocktail parties, cab drivers doling out stock tips, and the rise of the star fund manager. Lynch still holds one of the greatest track records—an astonishing 29% annualized return from 1977 until 1990—nearly double what the S&P 500 index produced in the same period.

Title likes that qualify as "click-bait". It is a joke at best.

No disrespect intended, but titles like that are well received by inexperienced investors who may not have been around the block a few times. I recall grabbing an occasional copy of “Money” off the supermarket racks - Oh, some 25 years ago - and eagerly devouring those type stories.
We really haven’t experienced a serious market hiccup or burp since early ‘09 (and 10% either way hardly qualifies as anything to get excited about). I think it was Justice Potter Stewart who, after having difficulty defining pornography, simply stated: “I know it when I see it.” Likewise, rather than reading frightening magazine articles, everyone will recognize the next 25% one-day plunge or 40-50% yearly decline when they see it.

(If already posted I’ll be glad to delete.)
“On Friday, Invesco (ticker: IVZ) announced that it will close 42 ETFs. They run the gamut from emerging market debt funds to U.S. large-cap factor funds to currency funds. The website ETF.com reported that the total assets in those funds exceeds $1 billion and that eight of the 42 funds have more than $50 million in assets, which ETF.com noted, is the point at which an ETF is considered “safe from closure.”
Barrons Article - From these Bing search results should be at / near top.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=invesco+closing+16%+of+its+funds&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=invesco+closing+16%+of+its+funds&sc=1-32&sk=&cvid=BE3CBD0D7691488F93B9C14CD36C67A7

@hank : What is it that you like about TMSRX ? 16 % in cash seems a {little } high to be.
Derf

Derf, I’ve owned it since inception. It’s the first fund I’ve ever held that sometimes sees big “up” days when equities hit the bricks, and yet can still hold its own in a rising equity market. That tells me there’s a very low correlation with equities. And I see little correlation with bonds either. It’s also been able to turn out a modest total return this year even while equities climb higher and higher. Yes, it’s lagging Price’s diversified income fund, RPSIX (11% vs 7%) YTD as I would expect. But let’s not forget that RPSIX invests 10-15% in an equity fund, which is benefiting from the hot equity market.
I’ve read a bit of what Price’s “brain trust” envisions for the fund. What I hear from them is that they foresee a possible scenario in which both bonds and equities are falling together. It’s not hard for one to imagine how that might happen. They believe the approach they’ve taken with this fund will allow it to avoid serious losses under such conditions. Obviously, the fund is new and untested. Time will tell whether it can hold up well during both an adverse bond and adverse equity market as they hope and expect.
As far as cash level, it can be misleading for a fund that engages in shorting equities as this fund does to an extent. Essentially, as I understand it, the cash-stash serves as a kind of collateral against the equities it has sold short..
BTW @Derf, Were you aware that board Prima Donna, PRWCX, is currently holding 15% in cash? :)

Kitces:“ Once ... buckets are established, the retiree then might use the following decision-rule framework for liquidations:
1) If equities are up, take the retirement spending from equities
2) If equities are down but bonds are up, take the spending from bonds instead
3) If both equities and bonds are down in the same year, take the distribution from Treasury bills ”
(or, in my case, from “Alternative” investment funds)
Thanks for the link @msf - I’d never seen any analysis comparing the two approaches before and somewhat humbled that Kitces sees some merit in what I’ve been doing. Of course there will be other experts who disagree.
My method IMHO only works if one is willing to sacrifice some current level of return in exchange for being fully invested at all times (a lousy misleading term anyway). So, I carry what some would consider expensive, low performing or erratic performance funds as an offset to a severe equity sell-down. Funds like TMSRX, PRPFX, OPGSX - none of which would pass mustard based on the metrics most mutual fund investors use or receive high marks on this board. There’s also a static 15% weighting in the mix devoted to ultra-short and short term bonds. (I just recently increased that frim 10%.) And as Kitces mentions, you have to be willing to sell your winners in a downturn and hang on to your losers.
One big problem is in trying to backtest anything. For most, 10-15 years seems like an eternity. But in terms of really important global financial turning points 10-15 years is little more than a drop in the bucket. And some of the alternative investment funds (like TMSRX) have only become available recently.