If you are looking for a mutual fund that plays stock market pullbacks automatically you might wish to study CTFAX to see if its strategy might interest you and it might be a strategy to incorporate within one's own portfolio to take advantage of stock market movement.

I have always felt that this fund was designed by the marketing department - I felt that way when it was first announced, and upon rereading the prospectus, I still feel that way. I may post more about the fund at some point in another thread.
Here I'll stick with how it dealt with the Brexit pullback. Its basic problem is that it is not allowed to reverse course for 31 days. (That appears to be out of concern about triggering the wash sale rule.)
It decreased its equity exposure down to 20% (from 25%) in early June (with the S&P 500 rising above 2100). Consequently it was not allowed to increase its equity exposure for the rest of the month, even as the S&P retraced its path below 2100, and even went below 2000 on June 27th.
Had the market not moved so fast, the fund would have increased its equity holdings to 30% at that point, and gradually sold off equities as the market resumed its upward path. Instead, it just sat there. At least if it did what the prospectus required.
It is worth reiterating - the 31 day "cooling off period" is strictly for tax reasons. The prospectus offers no tactical justification.

Not fighting here either, just interpreting "stocks have been flat" differently.
In my mind, it's equivalent to saying "the stock market's been flat, so there wasn't any point in having investing in stocks" (regardless of whether one used funds or individual stocks).
Regarding the spread: A spread of 45 cents on $10K is 0.0045%. On a share price around $200 (IVV), that's less than a penny. It's just rounding.
But if one looks at market return (what an actual investor would get) as opposed to NAV return, the differences are more marked. I compared FUSEX, VOO, VFIAX, and S&P 500 TR. (M* data for month ending 6/30/16). The only one that had a different return is VOO (at 0.32% vs. 0.26% for the others).
Recognizing that VOO and VFIAX are two different share classes of the same portfolio (not two identical portfolios, but a single portfolio), and that they have identical ERs, the only explanation for the deviation would seem to be market return vs. NAV return.

>> why not just use indexes themselves ... ?
A liking for actual investor return based on plausible behavior, rather than theory, that's all. (For when someone says 'stocks have been flat' blah blah.) Not picking a fight with you of all people. I want to know what would happen to my $10k if I go to Fido and buy whatever the last day of the year, or the first day of the next, and the gain or loss as of CoM at any given close. That's the only reason.
Interesting that the $10k-growth spread over the last month among SPY, FUSEX, VOO, and IVV is 45 cents, with Fido on top --- above Vanguard by 37 of those cents. Huh.

Catalyst Macro Strategy MCXIX is down an amazing -23% for the year. I know I'm not the only one here that invested in it, but I'm guessing the others don't want to talk about it either.

I got out of that 5 months ago. It looks like I made the right decision.

I got the S&P 500 Total Return performance from the M* chart of VTSMX where I added the S&P 500 as a benchmark. Here's the link again for that chart. You can read the S&P 500 total return ending value for the period in the chart (Dec 31, 2014 to June 29, 2016). It's $10,279.39 (2.79% return).
Here's the same result using a chart for FUSVX.
Cash drag (due to UIT reinvestment rules) is a problem found in only a few ETFs like SPY. But all ETFs have another problem in measuring market performance. Their prices don't match their NAVs - so any pretend purchase (which by definition of "purchase" uses the purchase price) results in performance data that differs from the market.
For example, the YTD (price) return for SPY as of June 30th (M* data) is 3.82%, while the NAV YTD return is 3.74%.
Other problems using index funds as proxies for market performance are tracking error due to embedded expenses, and tracking error due to, well, inaccurate tracking (e.g. portfolios that don't exactly replicate the index).
With all these (admittedly minor) errors, why not just use indexes themselves to measure market performance? After all, that's what indexes are designed for. And index total return figures are just as easy to pull out of Morningstar (or Yahoo, or ...) as are fund return figures. See links above.

I cited M* for S&P 500 TR from 12/31/14 close (aka New Year's Day, 2015) to 6/29/15 as 2.79%. Agreed it's not nothing, but it's not 3.73% either.
Since SPY is a unit investment trust that can only reinvest dividends quarterly, it suffers from cash drag, which can actually improve performance when the market dips. (It reinvests dividends later, after the market has gone done for the quarter.) That's one reason why I wouldn't use SPY as a benchmark.
In any case, it appears you're using Yahoo's adjusted close figures for 6/29/16 and 1/2/15. (266.66/199.21) That's a common off-by-one error. Somewhat like saying that we're in the 20th century because our years begin 20xx. It's forgetting that the first century started with a 0, not with 1(000).
One needs to start with the final price before the period begins (i.e. 12/31/14). Then, the closing price on 1/2/15 (relative to the 12/31/14 close) tells you how much you made by holding your stock for the first trading day of the year.

No yahoo to it. I was looking at M* to see what happened if I bought $10k worth of SPY the first day of 2015. That's all.
If you no likee SPY, that's cool.
If I bought FUSVX the day before, right, I have made $275, actually a hair under. (SPY made $266, a hair under, as you note; some intervals it does better, as cash drag works both ways sometimes.)
This is for yesterday close; not including today's nice runup.
I know about birthday math, yes.
Don't know where your figs come from, but for idiot-resistant simplicity I just go to M* and use either SPY or FUSVX, sometimes both, and do it from pretend purchase day with settlement at market close. No 'needs to start with'.

Hi David. I bought the fund when it opened with high expectations and sold it, I think towards the end of 2013 or early 2014. I haven't paid much attention to it since, but my memory for selling was because of it's early and very high stake in mining stocks. That hasn't changed. A quick look at ARIVX portfolio in M* still shows it's 3 top holdings as AGI, PAA, NGD. M* says ARIVX has 11.4% in stocks. The 3 PM stocks I show are 6.6% of the portfolio.
These 3 stocks are on a tear this year and likely are the reason for good YTD and 1 year returns. But the previous 3 years, PM stocks under performed the general small cap value index by a large margin, AGI down -25% in '13, -34% in 14' -45% in '15. PAA -31%, -9%, -13%. NGD -50%, -10%, -35%. If Cinnamond held PM stocks, which I'm guessing he did, through those years he bet wrong. He picked poorly - at least his timing was poor.
Like I said, I have not followed the fund in quite a while. My memory 3 years ago is the manager was heavily weighted miners and sat on heavy losses because of that. This look at his portfolio through M* shows that hasn't changed. The difference now, 4-5 years later is those stocks are finely having their day. But that was way to early a bet in my book.
As far as the funds coloration to PMs, isn't that just an effect of cash having a low coloration to PMs. His stocks being over 50% PMs on the other hand...

Hi Guys,
I don't get especially exercised when I see market returns that are tied to very specific start and stop dates. I'm especially alert when those dates have fractional time components. I don't worry those types of numbers which seem to be transitional and designed to evoke an emotional response.
I much prefer a broader array of return summaries that incorporate various timeframes. These numbers are readily accessible at websites like Morningstar. Here is a Link to one such extensive table listing:
http://news.morningstar.com/index/indexReturn.html
Lots of both red ink and black ink in this table. That's more the rule than the exception. The table provides a more balanced view of numerous market segments over differing timeframes. I find that more informative than single, selected presentations. Have fun!
Since I'm a long term investor, the columns on the left side of the table are meaningless for my purposes. I agree with Carl Richards' cartoons in that regard. I find the 3 and 5 year return listings most informative. But that's just me!
EDIT: Here is an internal MFO Link that references a pertinent Richards' sketch:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/28342/carl-richards-no-really-just-ignore-day-to-day-stock-market-fluctuations
Richards and I are joined at the hip on this principle. Even 5 days of market data is mostly noise.
Best Wishes.

Not me. Here's Fidelity's page for the fund (it shows up as NTF). A test trade shows no fee/load/commission charged either.
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/302933205?type=o-NavBar

Stocks have declined / made little upward progress when certain elements signal overvaluation / deterioration and coordination.
Since 1924, mean reversion statistically has occurred when there have been consecutive years of S&P 500 performance over the fixed "valuation baseline" * ( recent consecutive string 2012, 2013, 2014, ). Quantitative price based variable # 1 https://stockmarketmap.wordpress.com/2015/11/14/market-map-model-tactical-asset-allocation-using-low-expense-index-etfs-2015/
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hsBqvv3SUmHKBV5G0SUcFQpGaSf9nNlzDbT3W8hXGo8/edit
Economic conditions index falling below threshold removes "economic" market support
( conditions still positive ): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IqXuggnKY7fDH-i_96uMIOlmhzS7ei-dreUZ_8dpatc/edit?usp=sharing
An inversion of the yield curve can correlate to larger forward market declines vs. declines during normal yield curve structure ( during model cash signals ):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QkFJRNjd3TTEwDPUwXcCjd7toGaN_mxix5-nSN-kdig/edit?usp=sharing
*

Thank you for this heads up. I have a Fido brokerage account and I'm being shown that there's a 1.53% load on FMIHX (FMI Large Cap). Anyone else seeing this?

I cited M* for S&P 500 TR from 12/31/14 close (aka New Year's Day, 2015) to 6/29/15 as 2.79%. Agreed it's not nothing, but it's not 3.73% either.
Since SPY is a unit investment trust that can only reinvest dividends quarterly, it suffers from cash drag, which can actually improve performance when the market dips. (It reinvests dividends later, after the market has gone done for the quarter.) That's one reason why I wouldn't use SPY as a benchmark.
In any case, it appears you're using Yahoo's adjusted close figures for 6/29/16 and 1/2/15. (266.66/199.21) That's a common off-by-one error. Somewhat like saying that we're in the 20th century because our years begin 20xx. It's forgetting that the first century started with a 0, not with 1(000).
One needs to start with the final price before the period begins (i.e. 12/31/14). Then, the closing price on 1/2/15 (relative to the 12/31/14 close) tells you how much you made by holding your stock for the first trading day of the year.

@David: With all due respect , your going to need some more lipstick ! The average SCV Fund returned 5.27% over 3Yr. period, and 7.48% over 5Yr. ARIVX has returned 2.52 and 3.28 over the same peroid of time which is 50% less than the average SCV Fund.
Regards,
Ted

Hi, Mike.
I was curious about your observation so went back to check the numbers. The stocks in ARIVX have returned approximately 92% YTD, 50% over the trailing twelve months and 13% over the past three years. For comparison, the Vanguard SCV index returned 5.3, -1.7 and 9.4%. That assumes cash levels of 90, 80 and 75% for those three time periods. I don't have a firm grasp on the 5-year cash average - it looks to be in the mid60s - so I didn't want to venture an estimate there. If you accept mid60s, then the stocks have returned about 10%/year, about in-line with the index. At one level, it seems that his stocks have substantially and pretty consistently outperformed.
I hadn't thought much about precious metals. Mr. Cinnamond's argument when we last discussed it was that he wasn't particularly thrilled by gold but the mining stocks were getting hit so badly that they were among the few passing his value screen. He suggested that he actually could have justified a bigger position but wasn't comfortable with it. At the end of 2014, gold and silver stocks represented about 8% of the portfolio and about 33% of the stocks in the portfolio. There were four stocks, two of which remain in the portfolio and he subsequently added two more. They represent about 7.5% of the portfolio and about 70% of his stock holdings. The fund has a really low correlation to precious metals (0.34 to DBP, the PowerShares Precious Metals ETF) so I'm reluctant to praise or blame the fund's stake in such stocks.
David

@David & MfO Members:The fund's YTD and 1Yr. returns are due mainly to positions in precious metals stocks, but let's not try and put lipstick on a pig. The 3 & 5 year returns for ARIVX put it in the 95 and 94 percentile coupled with it's extremely high cash position make it a prime candidate to serve on Thanksgiving Day !
Regards,
Ted

Sometimes in all these discussions about stocks the big picture gets lost.
Stocks haven't gone anywhere for 1 1/2 years
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^GSPC+Interactive#{"range":"2y","allowChartStacking":true}

Remember to include dividends. In real terms, even including dividends, it's true that stocks have returned nothing. But in nominal terms, stocks have provided small gains. See, e.g.
Yahoo S&P 500 Total Return chart (2 Year, interactive), or
M* interactive chart - Total Stock Market (VTSMX) and S&P 500 TR, Dec 31, 2014 to June 29, 2014
VTSMX has gone up 1.45%, and the S&P 500 has gone up 2.79%.
Given recent volatility, a single day's movement could wipe all this out. So the cumulative returns are indeed positive, but not necessarily meaningful.

FYI: Battered investors are looking for light at the end of the tunnel. Here is at least a small glimmer: The most bullish day of the year is here. According to Stock Traders Almanac, July 1 (or which day is the first trading day of July) is the most bullish day of the year.
Over the past 21 years, the S&P 500 has advanced 85.7% of the time on the first trading day of July. The average gain is 0.46%.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/are-you-ready-for-the-most-bullish-day-of-the-year-2016-06-29/print
CXO Advisory July Trading Calandar:
http://www.cxoadvisory.com/trading-calendar/july/

Sometimes in all these discussions about stocks the big picture gets lost.
Stocks haven't gone anywhere for 1 1/2 years
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^GSPC+Interactive#{"range":"2y","allowChartStacking":true}
Or they lost money.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^RUT+Interactive#{"range":"5y","allowChartStacking":true}
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^IXIC+Interactive#{"range":"2y","allowChartStacking":true}
They still don't look appealing to me.

S&P500 bond index is available at Vanguard as Vanguard Intermediate Term Corporate Bond index, VICSX Admiral Share
ER 0.10% with 0.25% purchase fee; SEC yield 2.96%
The ETF equivalent, VCIT, has the same expense ratio and SEC yield, but without the purchase fee.
I have been using this ETF since 2009 and quite happy with its low cost and consistent performance. YTD is 7.39%.

TEDIX/MDISX fell 4.50%