"Be aware that 60 day IRA transfers are restricted to one within a 365 day period, not within a calendar year. One could not, e.g. do a transfer 2/2/22 and then another on 1/12/23."
Yes, it's a 365 (or 366) day wait. "One year period" more specifically. Many sites (even some IRS ones) get this wrong, and say 12 month period, which is different! Or even say "per year", which is ambiguous. The Bobrow v. Commissioner 2014 ruling says "1 year period" and the IRS says subsequent IRS publications will "reflect the Bobrow interpretation of § 408(d)(3)(B)." Publication 590 specifically states:
"The 1-year period begins on the date you receive the IRA distribution, not on the date you roll it over into an IRA."
Worse yet, different parts of USC and other state and local laws definine "1-year period" differently. But as far as the IRS is concerned, it's from MM-DD-YYYY to MM-DD-YYYY+1 plus a day just to make sure ;-)

And notable Ahlsten / Parnassus quote: “ Value has done well out of the gate, but growth stocks could come back strongly in the second half as the yield curve flattens. People will rediscover that they want to own innovative companies, not slow-growth, narrow-moat, old-economy companies. Areas like semiconductors could do really well. Semis are 60 basis points of the global economy but bring intrinsic value to the table. Hyperscaled software providers, and innovative companies in healthcare, life sciences, and life-science tools all could do well as the economy slows. The second half could be almost the mirror image of the first half. The S&P 500 could end the year up by mid- to high-single digits.”
Black: “ I follow small- and mid-caps, as well. The small-cap Russell 2000 trades for 17 times forward earnings, but 39% of the companies in the index have no earnings. Thus, the Russell’s true P/E is about 28 times, as is the Nasdaq’s”

I do my one 60-day transfer a year
Be aware that 60 day IRA transfers are restricted to one within a 365 day period, not within a calendar year. One could not, e.g. do a transfer 2/2/22 and then another on 1/12/23.
https://www.irahelp.com/slottreport/what-year-means-when-it-comes-your-ira-rollover

@Thanks @Edmond for the insights on CPREX. I noted that one of the roundtable participants mentioned it favorably - that’s all. 10 different participants. Some may have been tossing grenades. However, based on your description, I’ve decided not to invest the $1,000,000 minimum in that fund.
Randal Forsyth summarized Zulauf’s current bearish views a few weeks ago. I checked Zulauf’s forecasting record which isn’t very good, and so I withheld posting that on the board. I’m somewhat in agreement with Zulauf myself. But it’s certainly not a mainstream view. Would be happy to hear you and others discuss it - supplying the necessary substance to make Zulauf’s case or negate it. I subscribe to Bill Fleckenstein’s “Daily Rap” column / blog and get a somewhat similar take on the markets there as what Zulauf is saying.

Junk bonds are somewhat like hybrids - they rise and fall with stocks as well as with bonds. Here's Portfolio Visualizer's correlation matrix of USHY vs. AGG vs. SPY vs SPDO (IG corporate). USHY correlates much more closely with the S&P 500 than with the aggregate IG bond market.
USHY vs. AGG: 0.21
USHY vs. SPY: 0.48
SPDO vs. AGG: 0.80
SPDO vs. SPY: 0.48
When a fund correlates closely with a benchmark, then its beta tells you the volatility relative to the benchmark. With an R² of 0.64 relative to AGG, the beta of SPDO relative to AGG is reasonably meaningful. But with an R² of just 0.04, the beta of USHY relative to AGG is meaningless.
One can turn to standard deviation to get a sense of volatility independent of benchmark. Portfolio Visualizer says that the standard deviation of USHY is 8.26%, falling between that of SPY (16.71%) and SPDO (5.91%). Which is as one would expect - the lower the quality of a bond, the less it behaves like a high grade bond.
IG corporates, while relatively high grade, still carry issuer risk, unlike the AAA bonds which make up a large part of AGG. Thus they are more volatile than AGG, which has a standard deviation of 3.42. (All figures from PV over the maximum time frame it provides.)

One guy NOT on this year's roundtable is FELIX ZULAUF. However, for anyone interested, his recent thoughts/prognostications are on a recent YT video. He expects a major drawdown in equity markets in H1-2022. If I recall, something like a 33% decline from the 4800 peak on the SPX. Maybe less in EAFE, as its not so expensive. He then expects the Fed & other CBs to again come to the rescue, resulting in new highs off the drawdown lows. He seemed to think that after any sell-off EM equities might be work a look too.

Felix Zulauf hasn't participated in Barron's Roundtable since 2017.
Approximately a month ago, Mr. Zulauf shared his 2022 outlook with Barron's:
"He sees a major decline of 30% in the U.S. market, with perhaps losses of five percentage points less in Europe, because the excesses there are more moderate. 'After that decline, it will shake authorities.
Instead of a taper and rate hikes, they will move back to stimulate to stop the selling panic,' he predicts."
Link
We'll see what happens...

Yeah, the real-estate fund (CPREX) recommended is a joke, IMO. From its fact-sheet:
"The fund is newly organized with a limited history of operations... 71% of assets in the NE US. the fund is 'inherently illiquid'. there is no guarantee repurchases will occur".
Oh, yeah, sign me up for that!
I do think floating-rate funds are the place to be. I prefer the relatively tame FFRHX here. Though if CEFs participate in sell-off of risk assets, I might move into some loan-CEFs at that time.
One guy NOT on this year's roundtable is FELIX ZULAUF. However, for anyone interested, his recent thoughts/prognostications are on a recent YT video. He expects a major drawdown in equity markets in H1-2022. If I recall, something like a 33% decline from the 4800 peak on the SPX. Maybe less in EAFE, as its not so expensive. He then expects the Fed & other CBs to again come to the rescue, resulting in new highs off the drawdown lows. He seemed to think that after any sell-off EM equities might be work a look too.

+1 @msf

Spread in spread-products can absorb minor rate fluctuations just as your car's shock absorbers. But hit a big enough pot hole, and the shock absorber cannot handle that. See chart - USHY is the main chart, PFF (no PEF) and 10-yr $TNX are in the bottom panel.
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=USHY&p=D&yr=1&mn=0&dy=0&id=p09393672443

The once and future rules are different for institutional (both prime and muni) MMFs and retail prime and muni MMFs.
Was:
Institutional - floating NAV required, gating and redemption fees with thresholds
Retail - floating NAV not required, gating and redemption fees with thresholds
Will be:
Institutional - swing pricing required
Retail - nothing
SEC 2014 Money Market Reform Final Rule
As the SEC writes in the current (2021) proposal summary:

The proposal would remove the liquidity fee and redemption gate provisions in the existing rule.... The proposal would also require institutional prime and institutional tax-exempt money market funds to implement swing pricing policies

So the change isn't quite "ditch[ing] redemption fees and gates in favor of SWING-PRICING". At least not for retail funds. Brookings has a good piece on swing pricing, written a few months before the SEC proposal came out:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/08/03/what-is-swing-pricing/
A problem with the 2014 rules is that they invite gaming. The most obvious is racing for the exits when liquidity drops. One would keep an eye out for falling liquidity that might trigger gates/fees (or NAV reduction on institutional funds). Then run for the hills and try to stay ahead of the stampede.
The funds' countermove was to keep liquidity higher than necessary to prevent the stampede. What they could have tried instead (another gaming move) was challenge the SEC to enforce its rule.
The rule gave the funds an out - at the first threshold they were permitted, but not required, to impose gates (or redemption fees). They were free to say simply that it was not in the best interest of the fund to do so. The result might be a race to the bottom (of liquidity).
IMHO much of the exodus from retail prime funds was forced by the fund companies converting their prime funds to government funds. One wonders whether they would have done that had they foreseen that they were going to keep liquidity consistently high to prevent gates/fees from triggering.
I've gamed the system a little myself. With both prime and government MMFs yielding the same one basis point, I've voluntarily moved to the nominally safer government MMFs. An added benefit is that the divs of those MMFs (esp. Treasury funds) are more likely to be fully state tax-exempt. Maybe I saved 3¢ in state taxes for 2021. I'll know when I file my returns.
A couple of technical clarifications on Lewis' piece:
- Some MMFs price multiple times a day. For them, the threshold for market impact calculations is 4% divided by the number of pricings per day. (Footnote 123 in proposal.)
- While swing pricing was authorized in 2016 as Lewis wrote, that authorization only became effective in 2018. (This resolves the different dates in Lewis' piece and Brookings'.)
SEC 2016 Swing Pricing Final Rule

Here’s a good article from Lynn Bolin …. https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2021/04/right-beneath-my-nose/

I don't know what the "floor" will be, but many Nasdaq stocks were recently down 50% or more from their 52-week highs.
"Four out of every 10 stocks in the Nasdaq are currently down 50% or more from their 52-week highs.
One out of every 5 stocks in the S&P 500 are down 20% or more from their highs of the last year.
And this is at a time when the S&P 500 itself is less than 2% from all-time highs."
Link

@yogibearbull - Thanks for the links. Please know I welcome your more comprehensive Barron’s’ summaries, which received a number of positive responses last week. My occasional Barron’s posts are “hit & miss”, focusing on single articles.
Re crypto, I can’t say any of the participants was very enthralled by it. One point of view expressed was if the central banks issue their own crypto currencies backed by sovereigns it might put the current ones out of business.
There was a nice swipe at Musk’s SNL appearance … to the effect that if a single “off-the-cuff” comment by a celebrity on television can cause one of these currencies to soar or plunge in value, it ought to be avoided.
PS - I’ve been trying to guess which miscalculation or failure will bring down the equity markets. Generally it’s an unanticipated “bolt out of the blue”. Crypto could be one ignition source. But there are plenty of others. I will concede there’s already been some correction. Can’t see the ARKK type stuff going much lower. Some of the holdings are off 70% over 1 year. My guess: Maybe another 10-15% for many of the names on Wood’s little tug that couldn’t.

There are several classes of CPREX. In Barron's/Lipper database, interval-funds are shown under CEFs as "Continuously Offered" but info is very limited, mostly N/A. The Franklin Templeton site link is https://www.franklintempleton.com/investments/options/mutual-funds/products/92083/I/clarion-partners-real-estate-income-fund-inc/CPREX
BTW, I own ANOTHER direct real estate fund, TIAA Real Estate Account VA through my 403b. https://www.tiaa.org/public/investment-performance/investment/profile?ticker=41091375
Real estate has done well but it has a long cycle. Other options are real estate equity (VNQ, FRESX, etc) or hybrid (FRIFX, not many similar funds).

The inception date for CPREX is 09/27/2019.
Fund performance

Bobpa, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, I too hold MIOPX and BGAFX, both representing LG global, together around 15% of portfolio. I’m holding, for reasons Observant asked about above. Both are funds are highly rated, respected managers, and fill a role in the portfolio. Given the conservative overall AA of my total portfolio, equities less than 50%, I’m okay with the volatility. Actually, I’m prepared to add when I next rebalance. As mentioned on another thread about the research on tinkering with one’s portfolio, I try and remember “less is more”. I’m not sure I agree that rebalancing is the same as tinkering.
Best of luck,
Rick

Direct real estate fund CPREX is an interval-fund, a special type of unlisted fund that can be bought from brokers any time, but redemptions are limited.
For CPREX, that redemption is up to 5% per quarter at NAV (so, may take 20 quarters (5 years) to get completely out). There are about 3 dozen such interval-funds that are suitable for illiquid securities. These are sort of in between ETFs and CEFs. Some describe them as roach-motels.

Thanks. Most interesting. I wondered about CPREX as Lipper couldn’t locate it. From what I could find, there’s a $1,000,000 minimum. Of all the mentioned funds (I already own GLFOX) this one looked interesting. Generally I won’t open a new position in anything that’s up 20-30% in a year’s time. Prefer to buy low and get paid to wait. I suspect, that like real estate funds generally, CPREX has already seen a nice run up - hence off my radar.
PS - a link to its 1, 3, 5 year performance would be appreciated.

+1 Lou's 4 points look like they could apply now !

When not ?

This is a fascinating and lengthy look at the markets past and present. I highly encourage folks to obtain and read the full text. While I quote a few lines from different participants, realize each had a unique point of view. And, sometimes those viewpoints diverged sharply.
Participants:
Todd Ahlsten - Parnassus
Rupal Bhansali - Ariel
Scott Black - Delphi
Abby Cohen - Columbia Univ.
Sonal Desai - Franklin Templeton
Henry Ellenbogen - Durable Capital
Mario Gabelli - Gamco
David Giroux - T. Rowe Price
William Priest - Epoch
Meryl Witmer - Eagle
Quotable Quotes:
Cohen: “Unlike in recent years past, we will see that diversification, stock selection, and risk control matter.” She terms 2022 “the revenge of the nerds”.
Bhansali: “My (year-end) forecast implies a double-digit decline in U.S. markets (S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100) …”
Giroux: “The asset class today with the most attractive risk/reward profile is leveraged loans. I’ve taken leveraged loans to 12% of my portfolio …”
Giroux: “I would make a bet that the 10-year doesn’t get above 2.5% in the next year.”
Witmer: “What has been noticeable in the past year is extreme volatility in individual stocks.”
Witmer: “If the music stops and crypto tanks, there could be a contagion into the stock market. It could set up a good buying opportunity.”
Black: “The NTF craze in the art market is reaching the heights of delirium.”
Black: “I would avoid fixed income like the plague.”
Desai: “With TIPS, you end up taking on duration risk. If there is a selloff in Treasuries, TIPS won’t deliver …”
Priest: “There is also an existential political risk to the market around the question, ‘Does market efficiency require a democracy in order to operate optimally?’ “
Some of the funds mentioned favorably by various panelists at different points in the interview:
GLFOX, PAVE, EAPCX, SRLN, FRIAX, FEIFX, MPACX, CPREX (closed end)
From Barrons - January 17, 2022

Not sure but think the OP meant 1 fund but hope they won’t mind 2.
One fund = VWIAX*
Two funds = 40% VIG / 60% VTIP
*Didn’t know of a conservative allocation fund that invested in both dividend appreciation stocks and short-term TIPS. So yes, there’s a contradiction in my choices.