PCE +2.5%, core +2.8%.
https://www.bea.gov/news/2024/personal-income-and-outlays-february-2024

@realityspeaks. If you are familiar with portfoliovisualizer.com (it’s great) input VWINX 50% and VWELX 50% and set the appropriate dates and your dividend reinvestment plan. Then compare to your collection. Just because something is a great owl or 5 stars /gold at Morningstar doesn’t make it so. Or make it so for your situation or mix. IMHO.

Multiple Funds with the overall allocation at the 50-50 ratio. Again almost all my choices on the funds have been from the Great Owls or honor roll listed within this website.

Clarification please. Do you mean you employed one or more “Balanced Funds”? Or a group of equity and bond funds to have a 50/50 asset allocation? One could be 50/50 holding Wellesley and Wellington or the same allocation with lots of moving parts.

I am 66 years old and have managed my own fund choices since 2018 and I have dutifully followed the advice of lowering my exposure to the stock market as I get closer to retirement. So, since June of 2018 I have been very close to a 50-50 Stock Bond portfolio with the stocks weighted towards the value end vs the growth end. The bond portfolio was weighted to the short end of the duration. Almost all of my fund choices can be found in the Great owls or the Honor Roll as described on this website. I just did an analysis of my past 5.75 years relative to if I had just left everything invested in the S&P 500.
The results are disappointing, and I do not understand the reasoning now of the balanced fund approach etc. So my overall return in this time period was 32% which works out to be 5.54% annually. The S&P 500 returned 84.09% or 14.62% annually. In real dollars I went from 660K to 871K. The S&P 500 would had taken me to 1.44Million.
In the up markets I got on average 61% of the return of the S&P 500 which I am okay with because I was not exposed as much to the market.
It's the down market. I managed to capture 85% of the down market, The Bond portfolio failed to moderate the losses. In 2022 in a down market I captured 107% of the loss suffered by the S&P 500 I was invested at 52% stocks and 48% the whole time period in 2022.
I am slowly learning that almost all financial advisor advice is BS sorry for my French.

The difference between the value funds in my accounts and PVCMX might be the commitment to the value stocks identified. I don't see how a value oriented stock fund can make much progress if it is unwilling to back its best stock picks past 17% of holdings.
I recently realized VSMIX was available in most of our accounts. We now have toeholds, or better. They commit.

I had also taken a small position in VSMIX before closing, but I do not think a direct comparison with PVCMX was meaningful.

Invesco Small Cap Value Fund (VSCAX/VSMIX) had three really good years. Even during this exceptional period they've managed a max DD of -20%, while I do not remember Cinnamond getting substantially below -20% in his entire career across 4 funds. (I do not have great fund data at that resolution, though, so please do not hesitate to correct me if this is wrong.)
If we take a more extensive view, things at VSCAX/VSMIX start looking downright dismal: max DD of -45%/-48% and alpha of -0.16/-4.74 at 5/10 y respectively. So, investing in VSCAX/VSMIX one hopes to make money now and not need them when another < -40% DD hits. I am more comfortable taking 5-10 y results and being reasonably sure that I'll have no less than 80% of max whenever I need the funds. To each his own...

To each his own. :) Did I read that you are a new subscriber to the data side of MFO? I hope you have as much fun with it as I do.
The only way I would compare VSMIX and PVCMX is to say that both invest some money in small caps.
When I look at five and ten year returns, I compare VSMIX to its peers in SCV. It doesn't make sense to me to include a fund that has never surpassed an 18% stake in equities, just because the manager says there is nothing worth buying, but he would buy, if only something; darn the luck, or curse the times.
Over ten years, as tracked by MFO Premium, VSMIX is in first place for APR in SCV. The standard deviation is not for the faint of heart at 25.5. And the alpha is -.1. OTOH, it's fourth in Sortino and Martin, so the pain doesn't last as long as it might with other SCV funds.
BTW. VCSAX is third in APR behind XSVM. In fact, Portfolio Visualizer tells me a person would take about a 2000$ haircut from VCSAX on an original 10000$ investment made ten years ago when the Invesco team took over. Zowie.
Over ten years VOO's APR beat VSMIX's 12.7 to 10.4
Over five years VSMIX (and two of its siblings) is once again tops for APR among SCV, and running ahead of VOO 16.8 to 14.7. Its alpha is at 6.1 to 0 for VOO.
I don't know if VSMIX is still beating its SCV peers, but it is still beating VOO if M* can be believed.
A five year run at MFO runs from March through February at this point. I am curious where you got the negative alpha for VSMIX? Portfolio Visualizer also shows a positive number starting from January 2019.
What about risk? What about if I need money right now? Well, that's why I own funds like GLIFX, FSUTX, IYK, VRIG, and USFR. Four out five had positive returns in 2022, and GLIFX was only off -1.30.
I have only owned VSMIX for a few weeks. But might the total return of a dog's breakfast portfolio like mine end up beating a fund like PVCMX over some period of time? Would it fall behind, what with volatility, drawdowns, and all that stuff? I have no idea.
Is my approach "simpler" than leaving the allocations to a few managers like Cinnamond? I suppose most would say not. OTOH, I'm reasonably certain that the funds I own are actually investing in what they advertise, rather than waiting for Godot. And none of my funds charge me a buck 38 for the pleasure of their company.

The graphic is set for the 5 days ending March 28, Friday; for the best to worst % returns in select etf categories. One may then also select the one month column to align the one month return best to worst; or for the other listed time frame columns.
ADD an etf performance of your choosing, if you desire. *** The 5 day period returns may be slightly skewed, due to the 4 day trading week in the U.S.
*** Requested ADD: For the week and YTD
--- EWW = +2.71% / +2.15% (I Shares, Mexico)
MMKT note: Fidelity mmkt's yields remained unchanged this week, with core acct's yields at 4.97% (SPAXX) and 5.02% (FDRXX).
NOTE: The broad U.S. equity sectors finished the week with small positive returns; while the tech. and growth sectors had losses. U.S. bond sectors were mostly positive, with the longer duration finding the largest gains.
NEW: 1 week 'heat map' by sectors. This is an interactive graphic. You may hover the computer pointer over the various blocks to view portions of sectors and/or stocks within those sectors. NOTE: to the left of the graphic, one may change the 1 week performance drop down menu to another time frame. Another example: at the left edge of the graphic, select exchange traded funds and then 1 week or a time period of your choice.
Remain curious,
Catch

The main problem with

I've not been a fan since losing money investing in ARIVX (I think that was Cinnamond's first solo adventure with his "disciplined" style).

I won't try to defend Mr. Cinnamond's record or explain why I find his approach compelling - I've done this on a

different thread - and I can sympathize with the feelings one gets from a losing investment that sometimes takes year not to pay off. But to correct something you have said for others: ARIVX was Cinnamond's third fund as a manager and, I believe, second as a lead after ICMAX.
In my experience (and I've invested in three Cinnamond funds), his funds tend to go through a long period of flat performance, followed by fairly rapid appreciation bursts, followed by another period of flat performance. All of this can be readily understood within the technicalities of his style. So, when one is unfortunate to invest towards the end of the run, losses - though rather modest losses - would follow should one sell out before the next run or if Cinnamond decides to liquidate the fund (as he - rather objectionably, imo - did with ARIVX).
To be fair, if you wait for and hold on through the run, the returns might be quite impressive. I've invested early in ARIVX and did make money on it. Similarly, ICMAX returned ~ 100% over Cinnamond's tenure there (roughly, 2006 - 2011) while SP500 barely broke even during that time.

I think you touched on several good points. I mentioned Arnott before. Both did well when markets went down, but since 2009, PAUIX had a terrible performance compared to the easy SPY. Finding compelling risk-reward funds is what I have done since 2000. It is part of my system, but I stopped following Cinnamond more than 10 years ago.
The guy also jumps from one fund to another = not a great idea.
The main problems:
1) Is he going to be another Arnott in the next 5 years?
2) How much patience is someone supposed to have?
3) What % of your portfolio are you investing with him? The less you invest, the more it's insignificant. For me this is major.
4) How do you know when in the start, middle, or end of the cycle? Remember, markets can be irrational for a lot longer than you think. Prof Shiller claimed in 2012, based on valuation, that SPY would make only 4% after inflation in the next 10 years, it made 11%
(link)
5) Cinnamond plays timing hugely, owning less than 20% in stocks is difficult to grasp.
But, I'm a flexible investor who looks beyond categories and is interested in total portfolio risk-reward performance.
Someone's style and goals matter a lot when selecting funds.
How many funds do you own, what trading are you doing,

I've invested early in ARIVX and did make money on it.

What % did you make less than SPY or PRWCX?

@yugo, M* now provides Drawdown data for 3, 5, 10 yrs only. How did you get the data for 2009? From M* Chart? Old file data?
MFO Premium provides data for various timeframes.
Of course, PRWCX has been closed for many years, but there are some other things now for access to Giroux - all-equity TCAF, CA-PRCFX.

@David_Snowball
Hi David.
Thank you for sharing as always.
Your list of top managers largely and understandably looks like the cream of the crop from the funds in your portfolio as per most recent post. (I am less of a bond fund investor: Mr. Sherman is ‘David K. Sherman’ managing RPHYX, right?). And since I actually prefer low-profile managers, are the Leuthold and T Rowe Price people: Scott Opsal (+ m.b. Chun Wang) and Charles Shriver (+ m.b. Stefan Hubrich / Richard De Los Reyes)? Are there others at those co's I have missed?
Overall, your manager selections make perfect sense to me in all instances, but one. And I either trust these same managers with my investments (Seafarer, Grandeur, Artesian and now, Palm Valley) or would certainly consider doing so under the right circumstances, again – except for one. Oddly enough, this ‘one’ is your top fund holding: FPA Crescent (FPACX).
I used to have a position in FPACX long ago, but sold out for alternatives, because – to my eyes – this is a good example of where a fund and a manager ranking might diverge: i.e., a good fund with an average manager. Clearly, I am missing something, since you both value Mr. Romick highly and also have a better understanding of mutual fund dynamics.
You have previously mentioned that FPACX has ~ matched S&P 500 with about half the downside. That is a significant achievement and a strong relative metric when comparing funds – though not necessarily managers – as S&P 500 is unmanaged (sans relatively rare changes to the index). Also, S&P 500 is Large Cap while FPACX is MA/AL per MStar, so it does not seem to make for an entirely apples-to-apples comparison.
So, the questions I asked myself were:
1. How much value did Mr. Romick create for shareholders within the strategy where he operates: MA/AL (unless you believe FPACX is misclassified)? And
2. Are there managers within that strategy who have created significantly better long-term value so they might be called ‘great’ and, by extension, other manager – whose performance was meaningfully lesser – would be ‘average’ or below? (This also avoids the active manager vs passive index issues.)
Re 1, I looked at FPACX 10-year record on MStar – not as long as 30 years but might be sufficient to test across market conditions. There, FPACX has 10 y Alpha of 1.14, Beta of 1.14 coincidentally, max DD of -20.51%, and Sharpe ratio of 0.52 vs MStar MA/AL index w max DD -22.30% and Sharpe ratio of 0.61. This, and I could be very wrong, would seem to imply that active management of FPACX resulted in the fund fairly closely tracking the index and was able to generate a modest 1.14% excess return vs index at the cost of lower Sharpe ratio. To me, these numbers imply that active management of FPACX delivered average value for a good fund (i.e., a fund that managed to do marginally better than a well-performing index, which returns a poor manager / placeholder might implicitly or explicitly emulate).
Re 2, There are several options here, but I will use the one that has already been brought up: PRWCX. I think the comparison is fair since FPACX has spent most of the last 10 years in the same MA category as PRWCX. And it is a well-known fund not on your portfolio list, so you have – so to speak – chosen Mr. Romick’s fund management over Mr. Giroux’s. I do not believe, perhaps wrongly, that it is due to fund size as FPACX is not "small" and PRWCX has grown this "big" only in the last few years. As for active management metrics: per MStar PRWCX has 10 y Alpha of 4.55, Beta of 1.01, Sharpe ratio of 0.88, and max DD of -16.53%. That is, using a roughly similar pool of strategies and within the same timeframe, Giroux produces ~ 4x higher excess return, with better risk-return profile, lower downside if you happen to need the assets at just the wrong moment, and – depending on how you interpret data – does so in an arguably more predictable way. That sounds ‘great’ to me. So, why Mr. Romick and not Mr. Giroux?
To be honest, I was so baffled that I’d signed up for MFO Premium – one good thing to come out of this – and looked for clues there. The only thing I could find when running a comparison on MFO Premium was maxDD of -36.63% for PRWCX vs -28.83% for FPACX in 200902. Btw, things looked even grimmer @ MStar w max DD of at least -40.11% vs -30.80%, respectively, in the same timeframe. (Does MFO calculate max DD differently?) However, the time to convergence within 5% was quite short ~ 1 mo. So, does 5% extra DD over one month deprecate all other evidence that Mr. Giroux is a significantly better manager? Seemed doubtful to me. Finally, this comparison might not even be relevant as, in the words of Mr. Giroux, this was a BFS era, before Farris Shuggi […] it changed the way I managed CAF which happened in late 2009. In that sense, Mr. Giroux capabilities have undergone a (positive) qualitative change and, when comparing Mr. Giroux to Mr. Romick management skills since 2010, the superiority of the former appears to leave no doubt. So, I am still puzzled...
Of course, none of this is meant as a critique in any way – except, perhaps, of my own decision to sell out of FPACX – but I remember using similar logic to drive my own choice then and am, more than anything, trying to see what I might have missed. (Especially, since the rest of your fund manager appraisals resonate so well with my own.)

...Logged-in, tonight. Boom! A -$50 deficit was showing in the joint brokerage acct. It must surely correspond to the $50 transfer/extortion fee charged to me by TRP. I have not even TOUCHED the Schwab accounts yet. I got onto the chat-box. The agent offered immediately to initiate the process to refund the $50.00. Nothing else required. I won't hold my breath, but she gave every assurance. The change will show up on Monday, she volunteered to say..... NICE.
@yugo EDIT TO ADD: the $50 refund appeared just a few hours later. Way to go! So much better service, compared with TRP these days...
EDIT X2: the reason the UN-TOUCHED Schwab account showed that -$50 deficit was because when the transfer was made, there was zero in my cash/sweep MM fund at TRP. So, TRP charged the Schwab account. (How on earth?) I just got the explanation in a message from Schwab. They just crossed it out, and we move on.
But this also tells me that the local guy at Schwab who advised me to empty-out that MM fund before the transfer happened ought to have told me differently. He's caring, but less than communicative. NO WORD on wife's transfer from BRUFX. Just a lot of waiting. I understand BRUFX is a 1-man show these days....

When did VSMIX close? If you have the weblink readily available to you, please share. M* does not show it is closed.

Officially, it closes 03/29/24 but the markets are closed then for Good Friday.
One can still mail them a check which they promise to accept if postmarked 03/29 or an advisor might be able to place a direct order, if they are open then.
Here is the link:
https://www.invesco.com/us-rest/contentdetail?contentId=9add3438-7a6b-4945-b2f5-7aa23303e3db&dnsName=us&title=invesco-small-cap-value-fund-to-close-to-new-investors

Because of its methodology, MOAT ends up selling constituents too soon or hang on to value traps longer than necessary. YTD, MOAT is the worse performing of any fund I have in my watchlist. As much as I like the moat theme, it is unlikely I am going to add anymore to MOAT (5% allocation); so it increases or decreases in allocation by its performance in the portfolio. I am guessing if I were to buy one of the new ones, it is going to be MGRO which I am guessing is likely going to be larger cap than MOAT. And the buy will be in an IRA to trade it if necessary.

The difference between the value funds in my accounts and PVCMX might be the commitment to the value stocks identified. I don't see how a value oriented stock fund can make much progress if it is unwilling to back its best stock picks past 17% of holdings.
I recently realized VSMIX was available in most of our accounts. We now have toeholds, or better. They commit.

I had also taken a small position in VSMIX before closing, but I do not think a direct comparison with PVCMX was meaningful. Invesco Small Cap Value Fund (VSCAX/VSMIX) had three really good years. Even during this exceptional period they've managed a max DD of -20%, while I do not remember Cinnamond getting substantially below -20% in his entire career across 4 funds. (I do not have great fund data at that resolution, though, so please do not hesitate to correct me if this is wrong.)
If we take a more extensive view, things at VSCAX/VSMIX start looking downright dismal: max DD of -45%/-48% and alpha of -0.16/-4.74 at 5/10 y respectively. So, investing in VSCAX/VSMIX one hopes to make money now and not need them when another < -40% DD hits. I am more comfortable taking 5-10 y results and being reasonably sure that I'll have no less than 80% of max whenever I need the funds. To each his own...

I've not been a fan since losing money investing in ARIVX (I think that was Cinnamond's first solo adventure with his "disciplined" style).

I won't try to defend Mr. Cinnamond's record or explain why I find his approach compelling - I've done this on a different thread - and I can sympathize with the feelings one gets from a losing investment that sometimes takes year not to pay off. But to correct something you have said for others: ARIVX was Cinnamond's third fund as a manager and, I believe, second as a lead after ICMAX.
In my experience (and I've invested in three Cinnamond funds), his funds tend to go through a long period of flat performance, followed by fairly rapid appreciation bursts, followed by another period of flat performance. All of this can be readily understood within the technicalities of his style. So, when one is unfortunate to invest towards the end of the run, losses - though rather modest losses - would follow should one sell out before the next run or if Cinnamond decides to liquidate the fund (as he - rather objectionably, imo - did with ARIVX).
To be fair, if you wait for and hold on through the run, the returns might be quite impressive. I've invested early in ARIVX and did make money on it. Similarly, ICMAX returned ~ 100% over Cinnamond's tenure there (roughly, 2006 - 2011) while SP500 barely broke even during that time.

@Crash- I just noticed- Over 58 THOUSAND views... One THOUSAND comments... One YEAR near the top of the page...
Great job, Crash! You deserve some sort of MFO award. Ol' Ted would be green with envy.
Congrats-
OJ

Appreciate it, @Old_Joe. It seemed like the thing to do: to provide a thread to serve as a clearinghouse for all of our best ideas. Happy Easter to all.

Not yet enough AUM or trading volume to dip our toes in but holdings and other information is available. Since they are only a day old, not all stock services may recognize the tickers yet.
If one is inclined to actively manage MOAT, these two (MGRO and MVAL) give one additional tools. Note that MOAT has approx 55 holdings whereas the new ones have approx 40 holdings and as such the new funds are more concentrated (& focused).
Also, info at this link is useful to have some discussion about these new moat ETFs.
https://www.vaneck.com/us/en/blogs/moat-investing/mval-etf-and-mgro-etf-question-answer/

Stable-Value (SV) Rates, 4/1/24
TIAA Traditional Annuity (Accumulation) Rates
No changes.
Restricted RC 5.50%, RA 5.25%
Flexible RCP 4.75%, SRA 4.50%, Newer IRAs 4.75%
(TIAA Declaration Year 3/1 - 2/28)
TSP G Fund hasn't updated yet (previous 4.375%).
Edit/Add, 4/1/24. April rate is 4.25%.
Options outside of workplace retirement plans include m-mkt funds, bank m-mkt accounts (FDIC insured), T-Bills, short-term brokered CDs.
#StableValue #401k #403b #TIAA #TSP
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1413/thread

@Crash- I just noticed- Over 58 THOUSAND views... One THOUSAND comments... One YEAR near the top of the page...
Great job, Crash! You deserve some sort of MFO award. Ol' Ted would be green with envy.
Congrats-
OJ

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1768447/000168386324002101/f38160d1.htm
497 1 f38160d1.htm SAI HOMESTEAD FUNDS TRUST - MARCH 2024
Filed pursuant to 497(e)
File Nos. 333-229995 and 811-23429
Homestead Funds Trust
(The “Trust”)
Rural America Growth & Income Fund,
a series of the Trust
Supplement Dated March 28, 2024
to the Statement of Additional Information dated May 1, 2023
IMPORTANT NOTICE
The Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board”), based upon the recommendation of Homestead Advisers Corp., the Trust’s investment adviser (the “Adviser”), has determined to liquidate and terminate the Rural America Growth & Income Fund (the “Fund”). Due to the small amount of assets in the Fund and the expectation that the Fund’s assets will not grow sufficiently in the foreseeable future, the Adviser believes that the Fund cannot continue to conduct its operations in an economically viable manner and that it is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders to liquidate and terminate the Fund. After considering all the information presented to the Board, the Board concluded that it would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders to liquidate and terminate the Fund. To facilitate the orderly closure of the Fund, the Board has adopted a Plan of Liquidation and Termination for the Fund (the “Plan”). Shareholders who do not sell their shares of the Fund before the liquidation date set forth in the Plan, currently expected to be the close of business on June 12, 2024, will receive a liquidating distribution in cash equal to the amount of the net asset value of their shares. Thereafter, the Fund will be liquidated and dissolved, and all references to the Fund herein shall be removed.
Effective as of the close of business on April 30, 2024, the Fund is closed and will not accept any purchase orders. In connection with the termination of the Fund and as the Adviser deems appropriate, the Fund will begin the process of liquidating its portfolio securities and shareholders should be aware that the Fund will not be pursuing its stated investment objective or engaging in any business activities except for the purpose of winding up its affairs.
Prior to the close of business on June 10, 2024, shareholders of the Fund may exchange shares of the Fund for shares of the same class of any of the other Homestead Funds.
For taxable shareholders, the liquidating distribution will generally be treated as a redemption of shares and such shareholders may recognize a gain or loss for federal income tax purposes. Shareholders should consult with their tax advisors for information regarding all tax consequences applicable to investments in the Fund.
For more information, please call Homestead Funds at 800-258-3030.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE