Hi Guys,
For a long time now, I've been fascinated by the research summarized in the biannual SPIVA reports. That fascination helps me in making asset allocation and active/passive investment decisions. You too just might find the SPIVA studies a useful addition to your data when making your portfolio decisions.
The references provided in this thread have been superseded by a more recent SPIVA release that includes all 2016 data. Here is a Link to that report:
https://us.spindices.com/documents/spiva/spiva-us-year-end-2016.pdf
The numbers change, but the basic conclusion remains unchallenged. Active fund management is a difficult chore when it's success is measured against a realistic benchmark.
This end of 2016 SPIVA report now includes 15 year data summaries. These extended timeframe data sets reinforce the conclusion of just how daunting beating a benchmark really is.
In very general terms, in all fund categories, less than 20% of active fund managers outdistanced their benchmarks. That's depressing unless an investor was prescient enough to anticipate that successful cohort early in any cycle.
The SPIVA document also has category charts for 3-year periods. Over that shorter timeframe, a higher fraction of fund managers do deliver outsized outcomes but the percentages change dramatically over various .3-year periods. Investing is never easy and certainly never a certainty.
Please access this SPIVA research report. It will contribute to your investment toolkit and decision making in a positive way.
Best Regards

FWIW, given the fund's big manager turnover and rather high expenses for mostly AAA-rated debt, and lack of asset base ($9 million), I would look elsewhere. Vanguard's VFSUX has a better long-term record for teeny expenses. Yeah, Vanguard has higher duration, but that really applies to more sudden jumps in interest rates rather than the 0.25% moves we have seen the last two years. If I want to pay what SEMRX charges, I would own OSTIX for higher yield and much longer management experience.

http://www.palmersquarecap.com/about/commentary has some interesting commentary about their approaches.
These people (Palmer Square) run PSYPX
When you look at their 'team' they are a lot of smart people - all about 40-45 years old.
They try to focus on credit markets - on the other hand they took a beating in the later part of 2015, early 2016, or later 2016.
I think that the June 2015 podcast is interesting --- where they try to paint how difficult a time it was.
Did they learn from their mistakes? Well, they've made a big comeback but SEMRX looks steadier.
Right now PSYPX is heavily in Fannie Mae paper - altho' it is a small enough fund to be more nimble.
SEMRX lost several of their managers near the end of 2016 (one of whom, Vesta Marks, went to PSYPX)
The lead mgr has been there since inception - but loss of 4 other mgrs raises questions.
SEMIX(inst. class) /SEMRX (non inst. class) also has a lot of collateralized mortgage obligations --- more circuitous than straight fannie mae.

No, of course not; I was comparing it with other real good mutual funds, as one should. Which it also outperforms iff you go back to its inception --- it had tremendous outperformance 1990-98. But look at its $10k growth for the last 20/15/10/5/3y etc etc against DODGX or FCNTX. Not consistent outperformance, not consistent underperformance, it comes and goes, and at many points it's right in there. As I wrote, a real good fund, not invariably a superior one. That's all. I have owned it.

FYI: Pension Trustee Smith: I recommend to the committee that we liquidate our International
equity assets and index our equity exposure to the S&P 500. US stocks have outperformed
for the last 20 years, and I see no reason why that should not continue. Everyone knows
that the US is the strongest economy and market in the world.
This is a somewhat fictionalized version of a comment or conversation that has gone on in many
committee discussions over the last several years in one form or another. And why wouldn’t it?
Being a US equity investor over the past several years has felt glorious. The S&P 500 has trounced
the competition provided by other major developed and emerging equity markets. Over the last 7
years, the S&P is up 173% (15% annualized in nominal terms) versus MSCI EAFE (in USD terms),
which is up 71% (8% annualized), and poor MSCI Emerging, which is up only 30% (4% annualized).
Every dollar invested in the S&P has compounded into $2.72 versus MSCI EAFE’s $1.70 and MSCI
Emerging’s $1.30. Diversification theoretically sounds good, but as Yogi Berra said, “In theory there
is no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is.” Diversification in this particular
instance seems good in theory but not so much in practice.
So, shouldn’t we agree with Trustee Smith and throw in the towel, index all of our equity exposure
to the S&P 500, and call it a day? If our goal is compounding capital for the long term, which it is,
we would not just say “No,” but something akin to “Hell no!”
Regards,
Ted
https://www.gmo.com/docs/default-source/research-and-commentary/strategies/asset-allocation/the-s-p-500-just-say-no.pdf
MarketWatch Article:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/just-say-no-to-the-sp-500-and-buy-these-stocks-instead-say-gmos-strategists-2017-08-16/print

FYI: Blogging can sometimes lead to mutual fund firms sending mixed
messages to their FA allies and to investors. Case in point: Van
Eck [profile] and bitcoin.
Many fundsters, especially PMs looking to boost their brand as
thought leaders, take to their keyboards or microphones to share
ideas regularly with investors, in the form of blog posts, podcasts,
and more. Yet, in Van Eck, one PM's public commentary last
week did not quite line up with a planned product in development
by the New York City-based mutual fund firm.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mfwire.com/common/artprint2007.asp?storyID=56846&wireid=2

@davidrmoran
You imply as to this: BRK/A versus SPY, all of 1999 through August 15, 2017
One may plug in whatever other ticker into this chart to compare.
Below period, total return =
BRK/A = +281%
SPY = +181%
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?BRK/A,SPY&n=4685&O=011000
ADDED: Fido Contra and Growth

http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?BRK/A,FCNTX,FDGRX&n=4685&O=011000

@MFO Members: Here's what M*'s Mutual Funds Discussion think of MFO !
Regards,
Ted
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/p/374434/3846258.aspx#3846258

I find totally the opposite, at least the substantive, analytic, on-point brief comments to short articles. yogibearbull et alia. M* responds and corrects some of the time too. A true marketplace of ideas.
E.g., just two, almost at random:
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=821658
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=821370

TimesSquare Capital is a welcome addition. However, it will start with only a small sliver of the fund. Vanguard might send new cash its way while not reducing the amount managed by the other firms. Just a possibility - one that would minimize turnover.

Following the transition, TimesSquare Capital will initially manage a modest portion of the fund (less than 5%), with its allocation expected to grow over time. Schroders, which has managed the fund since its inception in 1996, will oversee approximately 66 per cent of the fund. Wellington, which was added as an advisor in 2010, will manage approximately 29 per cent of the fund with the remainder in equitized cash investments.

http://www.wealthadviser.co/2017/08/02/254593/timessquare-capital-join-advisory-team-vanguard-international-explorer-fund
Schroder is also a fine fit for this fund. It ran the fund well from its inception as Schroder International Smaller Companies (SSCIX) through 2002 when Vanguard acquired and rebranded it, until mid 2010 when Wellington was added as a manager.
I remain less than thrilled with Wellington's international management skills (as I've commented about before). VINEX did not fare particularly well in the first couple of years after the mid 2010 addition of Wellington. 2011 (90th percentile) and 2012 (68th percentile) were not good years, though it has generally done much better since (except last year).
If you want to get a purer view of how Wellington management has done with international small caps, you can look at HNSYX. It's been co-managed by Simon Thomas (who is the Wellington manager for VINEX) and Daniel Maguire (also of Wellington) since 2006. An okay fund, but not one that stands out.
Note that HSNYX was closed in 2016. It currently has $422M AUM. VINEX currently has $3.6B AUM, 29% of which (about $1B, i.e. over double the size of HSNYX) will continue to be managed by Wellington, at least for now.
Finally, I wonder whether the addition of TimesSquare Capital will accelerate VINEX's drift toward growth stocks. My vague recollection is that VINEX started out as a value fund. M* still classifies it as blend, though its portfolio drifted into growth three years ago, where it has remained.
Perhaps Vanguard will reduce Wellington's AUM and shift them to TimesSquare. The numbers suggest that would help improve the fund.

Recently, mfs posted one of Old_Skeet's portfolio's dating back to December of 2015 that was linked back in 2016. For easy reference I am providing this same link beow.
http://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/24926/old-skeet-s-new-portfolio-asset-allocations-2016
As there has been a good bit of changes in the holdings since then I am linking through this post the most current portfolio's holdings. A good bit of money has been moved left within the portfolio (since December of 15) into more conserative investments as the stock market has become more richly priced. Some sleeves and their holdings have been increased while others have been reduced. The growth area of the portfolio is where I am the most active with positioning naturally some takes place within the other sleeves as well. In tracking my portfolio through Morningstar Portfolio Manager it has had an investment return (excluding cash) year-to-date through July 2017 of 9.1% and for my bogey (The Lipper Balanced Index) 8.4%.
So, where did the money go?
From the reduction in the number of funds held in the growth & income area, the domestic equity sleeve was reduced from six funds to three funds. In the growth area funds were reduced from six to three in the global growth sleeve and from four to three in the large/mid cap sleeve. These monies were used to expand the holdings in the income area form thirteen funds to eighteen along with restablishing my CD ladder. So, indeed a good bit of money was moved left within the portfolio while some was added to current positions in the growth & income and growth areas plus there were also a holding change made within the global hybrid sleeve and some funds were moved from one sleeve to another. So, with this one can see Old_Skeet had indeed been active.
Sleeve Management System ... Here is how it works.
Now being in retirement here is a brief description of my sleeve management system which I organized to help better manage the investments held within mine & my wife’s combined portfolios. Currently, the master portfolio is comprised of two taxable investment accounts, two self directed retirement accounts, a health savings account plus two bank accounts. With this, I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves … an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consists of two sleeves … a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves … a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. An finally there is the growth area, where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five sleeves … a global sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, a specialty/theme sleeve plus a special investment (spiff) sleeve. Each sleeve (in most cases) consists of three to nine funds with the size and the weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds and amounts held. By using the sleeve system one can get a better picture of their overall investment landscape and weightings by sleeve and area. In addition, I have found it beneficial to Xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly. Again, weightings can be adjusted form time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets along with using a market barometer that drives an equity allocation weighting matrix as an aid to help set the stock allocation weighting. All funds pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio with the exception being those in my health savings accounts where reinvestment occurs. With the other accounts paying to the cash area builds the cash area of the portfolio to meet the portfolio’s monthly cash disbursement amount (if necessary) with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. Generally, in any one year, I take no more than a sum equal to one half of my portfolio’s average five year return. In this way, principal builds over time. In addition, most buy/sell trades settle from, or to, the cash area with some net asset value exchanges between funds taking place between funds.
Last revised: 07/31/2017 Master Portfolio
Here is how I have my asset allocation broken out in percent ranges, by area. My neutral allocation weightings are cash 20%, income 30%, growth & income 35%, growth & other assets 15%. I do an Instant Xray analysis on the portfolio quarterly (sometimes monthly) and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assessment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc. Currently, according to Morningstar Instant Xray, I am about 20% in the cash area, 25% in the income area, 35% domestic stock area, 15% foreign stock area & 5% in the other asset area. In addition, I have the portfolio set up in Morningstar’s Portfolio Manager by sleeve and as a whole for easy monitoring plus I use brokerage account statements along with some other Morningstar reports for information and tools helpful in managing the portfolio.
Cash Area (Weighting Range 15% to 25% with neutral weighting being 20%)
Demand Cash Sleeve… (Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual)
Investment Cash Sleeve … (Savings & Time Deposits)
Income Area (Weighting Range 25% to 35% with neutral weighting being 30%)
Fixed Income Sleeve: BAICX, CTFAX, FMTNX, GIFAX, LALDX, LBNDX, NEFZX, THIFX & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: APIUX, AZNAX, CAPAX, DIFAX, FISCX, FKINX, ISFAX, JNBAX & PGBAX
Growth & Income Area (Weighting Range 30% to 40% with neutral being 35%)
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX & EADIX
Global Hybrid Sleeve: CAIBX, PMAIX & TIBAX
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, DDIAX, FBLAX, FRINX, HWIAX & LABFX
Growth Area (Weighting Range 10% to 20% with neutral weighting being 15%)
Global Sleeve: ANWPX, SMCWX & THOAX
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, SPECX & VADAX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: PCVAX, PMDAX & TSVAX
Specialty & Theme Sleeve: LPEFX, PGUAX & NEWFX
Spiff Sleeve: None at this time.
Total Number of Mutual Fund Positions = 46

Hi @DavidV,
Pursuant to your inquiry.
I had to go back in the stack and look for post that contained writtings about the barometer. Below are a few of the links dating back to February 2017 where the barometer was discussed in some detail. There are some others but you will have to troll to find them.
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/31155/the-markets-and-more-january-31-2017#latest
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/31176/the-markets-more-february-3-2017#latest
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/31302/the-markets-and-more-tuesday-february-14-2017#latest
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/31322/the-markets-and-more-wednesday-february-15-2017#latest
I hope this information is helpful.
Old_Skeet

Not Old_Skeet, but is this what your looking for:
@DavidV
There has been news of late that centers around possible war with North Korea and its effect this is currently having on a richly priced stock market. No doubt, my thinking is, big money has the markets levered up and with this recent news of possible war money is being called home to delever their exposure in the stock market.
Over the past three weeks Old_Skeet's barometer has move from a reading of 143 to 146 to 152 for its weekly close. The barometer measures certain elements of the S&P 500 Index. A barometer reading of 150 represents the mid point of fair value. A reading of 143 would indicate that the Index was about 5% overvalued and now with a reading of 152 just slightly undervalued. The barometer has three feeds. An earnings feed, a breath feed and a technical score feed. With this, it combines both fundmentals and technicals to produce a numerical reading. Generally, a higher barometer reading indicates there is more investment value in the 500 Index over a lower barometer reading.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1004655/000093247117004797/whitehallmergedsupps.htm
497 1 whitehallmergedsupps.htm WHITEHALL 497E
Vanguard International ExplorerTM Fund
Supplement to the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus Dated February 23, 2017
Restructuring of the Investment Advisory Team
The board of trustees of Vanguard International Explorer Fund approved adding TimesSquare Capital Management, LLC (TimesSquare Capital) to the Fund’s investment advisory team.
Effective immediately, TimesSquare Capital will manage a portion of the Fund’s assets.
TimesSquare Capital and the Fund’s other investment advisors—Schroder Investment Management North America Inc. and Wellington Management Company LLP—each independently select and maintain a portfolio of common stocks for the Fund. The Fund’s board of trustees determines the proportion of the Fund’s assets to be managed by each advisor and may change these proportions at any time.
The Fund’s expense ratio, investment objective, principal investment strategies, and principal risks are not expected to change.
Prospectus and Summary Prospectus Text Changes
The following is added under the heading “Investment Advisors”:
TimesSquare Capital Management, LLC (TimesSquare Capital)
In the same section, the following is added to the list of Portfolio Managers:
Magnus S. Larsson, Senior Vice President and Portfolio Manager of TimesSquare Capital. He has managed a portion of the Fund since August 2017.
(over, please)
Prospectus Text Changes
The following is added to “Security Selection” section under More on the Fund:
TimesSquare Capital Management, LLC (TimesSquare Capital) employs a bottom-up investment process driven by fundamental equity growth research conducted by its investment analysts, with a particular emphasis on the assessment of management quality, an in-depth understanding of superior business models, and valuation discrepancies.
TimesSquare Capital invests the Fund’s assets in a diversified portfolio of stocks that it believes, based on its research, will generate superior risk-adjusted returns. TimesSquare Capital’s research process begins with a collaborative team of skilled and experienced analysts, which identify superior growth businesses with market capitalizations less than $5 billion at the time of purchase. Once a company is identified, rigorous fundamental analysis is performed, projected growth rate and return potential is calculated, and the company’s valuation is assessed on a relative and absolute basis. A company’s relative value is compared to industry peers, as well as firms with similar business models and at a similar point on the value chain. TimesSquare Capital’s sell decisions are based on the same research process, and securities would generally be sold when, among other things, there is no longer high conviction in the return potential of the investment, or when the advisor identifies a significantly more attractive investment candidate.
The following is added to the “Investment Advisors” section:
TimesSquare Capital Management, LLC, 7 Times Square, 42nd Floor, New York, New York 10036, is a registered investment advisor that specializes in small- and mid-cap growth equities. TimesSquare Capital’s institutional partner, Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. (AMG), a publicly traded global asset management company, indirectly holds a majority equity interest in TimesSquare Capital, with the remaining portion owned by TimesSquare Capital principals. As of June 30, 2017, TimesSquare Capital managed approximately $17.2 billion in assets for AMG funds, corporations, public funds, unions, endowments and foundations, retirement plans, and other institutional accounts.
In the same section, the following is added to the list of portfolio managers:
Magnus S. Larsson, Senior Vice President and Portfolio Manager at TimesSquare Capital. He has worked in investment management since 1995, has managed investment portfolios since 2000, has been with TimesSquare Capital since 2012, and has managed a portion of the Fund since August 2017. Education: B.S., B.A., University of Orebro, Sweden.
© 2017 The Vanguard Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Vanguard Marketing Corporation, Distributor.
PS 126A 082017....

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1006783/000110465917051828/a17-20197_1497.htm
497 1 a17-20197_1497.htm 497
TURNER FUNDS
Turner Midcap Growth Fund
Turner Small Cap Growth Fund
Turner Titan Long/Short Fund
Supplement dated August 14, 2017
to the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) dated January 27, 2017
THIS SUPPLEMENT PROVIDES NEW AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEYOND THAT CONTAINED IN THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS, THE PROSPECTUS AND THE SAI. THIS SUPPLEMENT SHOULD BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS, THE PROSPECTUS AND THE SAI.
On July 20, 2017, the Board of Trustees of the Turner Funds (the “Trust”) determined to dissolve Turner Midcap Growth Fund, Turner Small Cap Growth Fund and Turner Titan Long/Short Fund (each, a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”) and therefore the Funds will begin the complete liquidation of their assets. In connection with the liquidations, the Funds may hold more cash, cash equivalents or other short-term investments than normal, which may prevent a Fund from meeting its stated investment objective. On August 12, 2017, the Board of Trustees of the Trust approved the closure of the Funds to purchases and redemptions and the liquidation of the Funds.
Accordingly, effective 4:00 p.m. (Eastern time) on August 14, 2017, the Funds will no longer accept orders from new investors or existing shareholders to purchase Fund shares. Each Fund may distribute a portion of its assets in cash pro rata to shareholders to avoid being subject to federal income or excise taxes. On or about the close of business on September 8, 2017 (the “Liquidation Date”), the Funds will no longer accept orders from investors to redeem Fund shares and the Funds will distribute as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter all of their assets in cash pro rata to their respective shareholders. All outstanding shares will be redeemed and cancelled and the Funds will then be terminated as series of the Trust.
Shareholders should consult their personal tax advisers concerning their tax situation and the impact of the liquidation on their tax situation.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

@LLJB,
Thank you for your question. I am sorry for the delayed response but I was out of pocket most of the day due to another family member's medical issues. I hate to be short with an answer but I also did not want my response to linger.
I use the Lipper Balanced Index for several reason. 1) It is easy to reference and track along with 2) it represents the combined performance of the most widely held hybrid funds plus 3) I have used it for a good number of years and have historical data that centers around it.
Since, my portfolio is pretty much a balanced portfolio with an equity allocation ranging form 45% to 55% equity. I use my market barometer which I have written about previsouly to drive an equity weighting matrix which in turn is used as an aid to help me throttle my equity allocation within my portfolio.
With this ... I felt the Lipper Balanced Index was a good choice for a bogey and, again, it has been my standard for a good number of years.
Thanks again, for your inquiry.
Skeet

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/almost-no-one-can-beat-the-market-2013-10-25
...
The author specifically noted that only about 1% of the investing public (that included individual investors and mutual fund managers) generate positive Alphas relative to a fair representative benchmark.

In only two places did the author specifically note the 1% figure:

"Fewer than 1% of mutual fund managers persistently beat the market based on superior market-timing or stock-picking skills," and
"research by Brad Barber of UC Davis and Terrance Odean of UC Berkeley who found that only about 1% of active traders outperformed the market."

The bottom line is that there's nothing in the column that specifically notes only about 1% of the investing public generate positive alpha. Just the opposite:
"The more frequently people trade, the worse they do." (Another quote from the column.) So the investing public at large (including both active traders and others who trade less) does better than these "active" traders alone, i.e. more than 1% beat the market.
It's not even close.
Since the 1% line about active traders was attributed in the column to Odean and Barber, why not go to the source? In the Table 1 that I mentioned above, is an entry summarizing an Odean and Barber paper. It states that "the average individual investor underperforms a market index by 1.5% per year. Active traders underperform by 6.5% annually."
Think about that. The average individual investor outperforms active traders by 5%. The terminology from research paper perfectly aligns with your terminology ("individual investors") and terminology in the column ("active traders").

Hi Guys,
These exchanges suggest a considerable misunderstanding of my posts. I'll accept responsibility that I did not clearly state my position or intent. Sorry about that failure. Someday I'll learn to express myself more precisely.
In no way did I mean to be critical of anyone's investment policy or tactics. That's far above my pay grade. We all have specific investment objectives that are unique to each of us. More power to the individual investor. We choose our own pathway to wealth and happiness.
I failed to clearly distinguish the difference between an active investor and a day trader. A day trader is definitely an active trader, but all active traders are not day traders. I'm not sure that I can precisely define an active trader. How many trades per year or what average holding period defines an active trader? Any inputs to this question are highly encouraged.
The 1% number that has been linked to my posts comes from an earlier reference that I made on these postings. For completeness, I repeat it here:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/almost-no-one-can-beat-the-market-2013-10-25
That brief article opened wth the following paragraph:
"Year after year, decade after decade, evidence has piled up that neither individual nor professional investors can outperform broad market indexes consistently over long periods of time."
The author specifically noted that only about 1% of the active investing public (that included active individual investors and mutual fund managers) generate positive Alphas relative to a fair representative benchmark.
I assumed that that statistic is approximately accurate. It need not be exactly right! That statistic speaks to the hard challenges for all investors. It is goodness to be in that limited grouping. Old Skeet managed to fall into this highly successful, elite group. More power to him. I only meant to praise him for overcoming difficult odds. Hooray for Old Skeet!!
Sorry that my writing style did not make my good feelings for Old Skeet's success more positive.. I wish his success for all of us.
Best Wishes

@David: So the color coding does not align with the 1-5 ratings?

Hi @Old_Skeet, I'm just wondering why you chose the Lipper Balanced fund to benchmark your performance. Since it's an index created out of the largest 30 balanced funds and weighted by AUM (I believe), you end up comparing your portfolio to other mostly active funds. Presumably those funds, in total, have a similar asset class weighting to yours even though the range of the funds that make up the index seems to be fairly big. It also means the very large funds, like American Funds Balanced and Vanguard Wellington, carry more weight in the index than most others. I didn't do all the math so I can't say for sure but it looks possible that these two funds account for more than 35% of the index.
I track my performance against a collection of benchmarks, partly because my asset allocation adjusts more than yours does over time, but I just use a 60% Total Stock Market or Total World Stock Market and 40% Total Bond Market as my 'balanced' benchmarks. I'm wondering whether you might have better reasons than I did for choosing the Lipper Index?
Thanks in advance and congratulations on your results!!