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?

Moved money from PRNEX to new fund TCELX- China Revolution fund at TRP

China Evolution Fund - a subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) difference!
10% up in 3 weeks is pretty impressive so far.

....Just came across VLAAX. Looks good to me, except the ER is higher than it ought to be. In that category, I have liked and owned MAPOX, but I think we can do better than the performance that MAPOX has given us. What's not to like re: VLAAX? ($1,000 minimum to get in.)

@catch22 Thanks for the reply. JBALX led me to yet more classes of shares. JBALX minimum is $100k. So, Janus Henderson simply doesn't want our money. As I'm fond of saying, nothing should be so complicated. I'll keep looking. There's no rush.

TIAA-CREF will offer Zero-commission Stocks, ETFs and Options trades beginning 1/16/20, as per announcement I saw when I logged in just now. Also has 3000 Mutual funds now available commission free.
Shopping is going to be good in 2020.

Hi, guys. We needed a small chunk just for the down-payment on a car, after just getting here. The best available option was to take the $$$ from my best performer: PRWCX, which I've owned since 2013. Along with just a few other TRP funds, it's in my T-IRA. My wife has money in a 403b, but taking the needed cash from her 403b account would mean paying an early-withdrawal-penalty, too. Our income will surely not create much, if any, tax due. I'm not worried about that. I won't be working. (And it makes me SO happy to say that!) And she'll work just part-time.
Your logic in recommending the Roth to us is flawless. But we simply don't have much money invested anywhere that's NOT in a tax-sheltered account. We plan to do a direct rollover into an IRA for HER, with that 403b from her former job. After taking the $4,000 from my T-IRA for the car already in 2020, I don't want to add almost $10,000 more in income (her 403b) from there, too. Add to all of this, the fact that my reaction to all of the tricky, obtuse, crazy, arcane, absurd IRS tax rules leaves me just not wanting to jump through all those bullshit hoops. We already have enough current income to get by just fine...... THANK you all for the guidance and concern. :)
*This is unrelated, I suppose: My bond funds are now generating about $300 per month, and that may turn out to be very useful. Those funds are PRSNX, RPSIX (in T-IRA) and PTIAX in a regular, taxable, joint investment account. It's always been my Ace-in-the-hole to use those monthly dividends IF the money turns out to be needed, after all. That way, I can take advantage of the pay-outs without shrinking the size of my pie.

"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.

Interesting. I had opened a position in YACKX about 10 years ago for the reasons listed above, with the intention of moving more of my IRA into it as I approached retirement. However, Fidelity or Yacktman placed a hard close on the fund, preventing me from buying any more shares. So, I settled on PRBLX as a suitable replacement and it has far exceeded my expectations. I’m actually glad that YACKX closed because I’ve done better in PRBLX and their investment philosophy is more aligned with my preferences.

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

FPURX has changed to a virtual clone of FBALX , although Puritan seems to have only 1 manager.

I believe that 401(k) withdrawals have to be initiated on the 401(k) side, unlike IRA transfers/conversions. Often a 401(k) holding is a security that cannot be transferred in kind so liquidation is mandatory. Between having to liquidate holdings and rollovers taking weeks, it's understandable that one would want to hedge the market.
To hedge equity transfers, you can identify some tax-sheltered money that you've got sitting in cash or near cash, or absent that, some reasonably vanilla bond fund that's easily bought and sold. It doesn't have to be in the same place where you're going to transfer the 401(k), it just needs to be in some tax-sheltered account.
Simultaneously use that cash to buy an equity holding and sell the same amount of the equity holding in the 401(k). Then transfer the cash. You now have a new stash of cash available. Rinse and repeat. After the final transfer, use the cash to repurchase the near cash or bond holding that you sold off at the beginning of this process.
If the amount of cash you've got to play with is small and if it takes a couple of weeks to to a transfer, you could be at this for months. Still, you're not going anywhere, so it's just a matter of time and patience.
An alternative, if your 401(k) custodian also provides no-fee IRAs is to have the 401(k) rollover done "in house". For example, Fidelity, Vanguard, etc. often operate companies' 401(k) plans. In house rollovers are usually much faster than rollovers between financial institutions
Even if you aren't excited by the IRA options, so long as they're adequate, they'll do for the purpose of keeping you in the market. You can either do a straight pre-tax rollover followed by a conversion, or a direct rollover conversion.