BOT a full position in GOOGL at $188.18, DOWN ~8.6% after yesterday's earnings. Gene Munster, Deepwater Asset Mgmt, my go-to guy for all things tech, noted the sell off was unwarranted.
May do a quick trade out of it or may hold LT. Either way, too good of a BUYing opportunity to pass up.
Had a lot of success with NVDA and GOOGL trades in 2024. Deja vu all over again? We'll see.

American Balanced has 19 classes!
NTF/no-load at Fido & Schwab is BALFX, ER 0.62%
Cheapest is Retirement R6 RLBGX, ER 0.25%

Numerous mutual funds from American Funds have far too many share classes!

Tactical allocation funds have quite varied approaches and their performances are all over the map. A few examples, in case this is what you were looking for, illustrate this.
I'm not including funds that M* classified as something other than tactical allocation in 2022 (e.g. moderate allocation, market neutral, etc.). Even the styles of many of these funds are volatile.
QSTFX - worst of the worst in 2022, 100th percentile, -45.16% return
DWTNX - a top performer in 2022, 2nd percentile, 2.59% return, but 97th percentile in 2023
These two give you the range of tactical allocation returns in 2022.
CRDBX - 21st percentile in 2022, -8.54% return. All other full calendar year returns were in top quintile. Very high Sharpe ratio (relative). This fund does not invest in fixed income (per prospectus).
LCORX - 13th percentile in 2022, -6.79%. A popular 4* fund here, included for reference.
In a year when almost everything is down, funds that made money or lost a pittance are likely to have lucked out, or be extremely erratic or the opposite, extremely conservative (as I recall only Treasuries did well in 2008).

Thanks for posting this and checking into past five years.
Russel Kinnel, author of the article, speculates:

I think the driver of flows in this case is the long-running move to target-date funds in 401(k)s.

He also notes VDIGX's lower exposure to Mag 7 tech funds.
I would add, VWELX and VWINX are among Vanguard's oldest funds, and RMDs could have something to do with outflows

@Observant1 - Thank you. Yes it is. Too late last night when I first looked. I’m surprised tactical allocation lost more than 15% in ‘22. LCORX lost about half as much.

CFPB is an oddball agency that has a complicated history. It's funding came out of the Federal Reserve, but the Fed, Fed Chair or FOMC didn't have much say in the operations of CFPB.
As CFPB tackled consumer finance issues, it wasn't a popular agency with banks or lenders.
Then, the way it was originally constituted, it's actions should be views differently for 2011-2020 and after 2020.
As initially constituted, CFPB had funding outside of the federal budget (i.e. from Federal Reserve operations) and the CFPB Director(s) couldn't be fired/replaced by the President without cause (although President nominated and Senate confirmed). After various court challenges, Supreme ruled in 06/2020 that CFPB funding was constitutional, but the CFPB Director served at the will of the President (so, he/she could be replaced without providing any reasons).
So, CFPB actions during 2011-20 period were different when it's Director felt truly "independent", but after 2020, its actions were a bit different due to service-at-Presidential-will. So, in the post-2020 period, it has been a semi-independent agency.

American Balanced has 19 classes!
NTF/no-load at Fido & Schwab is BALFX, ER 0.62%
Cheapest is Retirement R6 RLBGX, ER 0.25%

It would be helpful if M* compared the relative performance in 2022. I’d really like to see that. Just looking “hit and miss” I’d say tactical allocation funds held up somewhat better, but that's hardly scientific (or representative). If you want a highly regarded ”stable asset mix” fund (silver rated by M*) look at TRRIX. A fine fund longer term. But it lost a bit over 13% in ‘22. For the conservative investor it’s designed for and marketed to (older & retired) that’s a big loss to swallow.
Not a fan of tactical allocation funds. Fees are one reason. Also, I think Warren Buffett is correct that small investors have an advantage over bigger players in being more nimble - able to change positioning more easily. So, if you want tactical allocation, do it yourself and save the fee.
I don’t mind paying high fees for a specialized product that fills a particular portfolio need. I’m married to a conservative L/S fund. Pricy, but it allows me to have money exposed to markets that would otherwise be sitting in cash.

VWELX and RLBGX have very similar expense ratios. The expense ratios are 0.26% and 0.25% respectively.
RLBGX compares favorably to VWELX over the trailing 3 year, 5 year, and 10 year periods ending Jan. 2025.
ABALX also performs well vs. VWELX but can't overcome higher expenses (0.57%) over the trailing 10 year period.
Portfolio Visualizer

High costs have also weighed down results for tactical asset-allocation funds. On average, funds in this category levy annual expense ratios of 1.4% of assets, making them one of the pricier categories

Management fee of 1.4% is not easily to overcome. Alternatives funds are often expensive to own.

Speaking of damages that Musk is causing to the government. Turely appalling ….
https://npr.org/2025/02/03/nx-s1-5285539/doge-musk-usaid-trump
Some of those working for Musk don’t have security clearance but they are assess classified files in the Treasury department.

We know how long it takes to move and station 10,000 soldiers to the border permanently or even temporarily from their current military bases.

Yup. Readable.
Conclusion: "My single biggest worry about all of this is that the entire operation could be like a freight train that starts picking up more and more speed and becomes harder and harder to stop, so that even if somebody — the courts in six months or GAO in a year — says, “Wait, this is not right, should not have been done,” so much damage will have been done, so much china will have been broken, so many programs undermined that it’s going to be a Humpty Dumpty that can’t be put back together again."
*********
This is not news anymore, but terrifying. The Repugnants on The Hill are giving the Orange Disaster and uncle Muskie free rein. They are accomplices in the ongoing coup. As I've said before, the Repugnant Party today is not the Republican Party of yesteryear. Which means the Rule Of Law is just...dead. The checks and balances built into the gov't are nothing more than decorations, now. Any organization cannot function unless participants are operating in good faith. That is no longer the case. This is a revolution from within, a hostile takeover.
Senator Schatz from Hawaii has stated he will use procedural rules to block State Dept. appointee-nominees from reaching the floor for a vote until USAID is restored. Court cases take time. Investigations take time. Time is what we do not have.
And think of this: the President is already a criminal felon. What he's doing and directing others to do these days is illegal, too. It is criminal activity. Will he get away with murder AGAIN? Probably, and so I need to vomit. Too many voters are as dumb as rocks, or they just don't care about ethical considerations anymore, if they ever did. This is not the country I used to know.
MUSKIE:

The problem described doesn't depend on whether the underlying holdings are ETFs or other traded securities. Either way, the question is whether an ETF's bid and ask prices are representative of the aggregate prices of the underlying securities.
IOW, what you're asking is just a variant of a question already addressed (knowing an ETF's NAV). In math terminology, your problem can be reduced to a previously-solved problem.
See Boiling Water joke.
Until a few years ago, all ETFs were required to publish Intraday Indicative Values (IIVs), aka intraday NAVs (iNAV) every 15 seconds that purportedly "indicated" the NAV.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/etf-eulogy-inav-190000321.html
In this case, pricing might not always accurately reflect the value of those underlying funds.
That's true for "vanilla" ETFs as well. This is why Authorized Participants exist. They arbitrage away these discrepancies. They buy ETF shares and redeem them when the shares are underpriced, and do the reverse when shares are overpriced. Consequently ETF prices don't wildly diverge from values.

Anyone with Fed TSP a/c know the February rate for G Fund (SV)?
TSP Folio is still reporting the January rate.
Typically, it's updated on the 1st or 2nd business day of the month.

NPR's Here and Now did an interview with a WaPo reporter based in Mexico City today. Seems Mexico already has 15,000 troops stationed along the U.S. border.

Hi, guys.
As you might have noticed, the February issue is live!
Lynn does exceptionally detailed work on three aspects of fixed-income investing. I try to work through water infrastructure as an asset class. Since that's something folks have discussed before, I'm hoping I got it approximately right. And, too, I walked through my own portfolio. Unlikely past years, I tried to focus more on the Big Picture aspects - the role of investments in a healthy adult life, the necessary tradeoffs implied in the dual pursuit of eating well vs sleeping well - than on individual funds. I did allow that you could probably achieve comparable outcomes with two funds, and modeling the 2024 performance of two such portfolios. And, as well, TheShadow tracked down a slew of industry machinations.
My publisher's letter touched on chaos and the prospect that some forms of chaos are productive. I am struck that our total public debt after 204 years (that is, as of 1980, was $900 billion, smaller than our yearly deficit now. Too, some forms of chaos are purely toxic; "havoc" (from Old French, "pillaging" or "looting") might be the alternate term there. I did excise rather a substantial chunk of the draft text as less relevant and inflammatory.
Please do follow the same impulse. If you're going to excoriate any particular politician or political movement, it should live in "Off Topic" and strive to be civil. Discussions of trade wars might plausibly be "Other Investing" to the extent that we try to reason through how to hedge against such.
Be well!

You guys are running a sit com. Ya I just added a couple of zeros to make someone chase their tail. $630m is about $20b today. Ok the US (contractor) lost 22-30,000 workers. I saw when googled “ Estimates of the number of people who died building the Panama Canal range from 22,000 to 30,000. The Panama Canal is considered the deadliest construction project in history.”

Wait, so you just appear and throw out slop for the heck of it? wtf?
Today's online world is overflowing with slop and worse than slop. Go away ffs.

That's what Chahta from Big Bang is good for.

Just posted all ratings and fund flows to MFO Premium site, using Refinitiv data drop from Friday, 31 January 2025, reflecting metrics thru January.

+1
Now the illegal migrants and drugs can pass under the protection of 10,000 soldiers. Any agreement that does not tie to verifiable numbers is just another Houdini’s act.

Watch this Monday interview with Richard Fischer, former Dallas Fed Pres and Deputy US Trade representative, whose first language is Spanish because he grew up in Mexico.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=wM4aLrbvvb8