"It consists simply of splitting your investment portfolio into 7 equal amounts, and investing one apiece in U.S. large-company stocks (the S&P 500 SPX, +2.28% ), U.S. small-company stocks (the Russell 2000 RUT, +2.26% ), developed international stocks (the Europe, Australasia and Far East or EAFE index), gold GC00, +0.04%, commodities, U.S. real-estate investment trusts or REITS, and 10 year Treasury bonds TMUBMUSD10Y, 3.562%."

Absolutely not taking any particular "side" here, but the way that I read the substance of the above is that by dividing a portfolio into seven specific groups of dissimilar securities, one can achieve a good return over a long period of time.
What specific vehicle is used (etfs, etc.) to represent each group may change over time- the main thrust of the article is to observe those seven groups, not any specific vehicles.
Added note- not having followed this thread previous to this post, I just took a look at the page generated by the original link... it certainly looks like a financial article, not an advertisement, to me.

Well it may not be an ad but it is crazy. IMHO if you're going to submit an article claiming that this group of ETF's has beaten Wall Street for 50 years it just seems to me that you would select funds/stocks & bonds/ whatever that have been in existence for those 50 years. So do we have a make believe history here or what? Saying that his chosen 7 are close enough or can be substituted doesn't quite cut it for me.
"Last year, 2022, marked the 50th year of this unheralded portfolio, which is termed “All Asset No Authority,” and which we’ve written about here before."
Q: what were the exact components of this portfolio on day one? I'll wait.

I think 2023 will be very trying and full of ups and mostly downs, due to persistent inflation.
Consequently, I am not increasing equity exposure, except maybe to Deep Value funds like PVCMX where I can count on the manger not being fully invested.
There is a lot of talk about the "undoing of globalization" and "multiple wars"
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/high-inflation-long-term-problem-owing-to-real-and-metaphorical-wars-by-nouriel-roubini-2022-12?barrier=accesspaylog
( I know Roubini is a perma Bear and disaster maven, but worth listening to)
which coupled with high interest rates will continue to pressure the winners of the last decade, ie Large Cap Tech. At the same time it is likely that there will be continuing event driven increases in prices of commodities like foodstuffs and energy, as instability prevents them from being easily moved to consumers, regardless of demand.
An 11% allocation to Energy saved my bacon last year and we are basically flat for the year. I don't see any reason to dramatically decrease energy.
As an early retiree, I am much more content to miss a big upside, than to get caught in a dramatic continuing bear market, so my equity exposure is probably lower than most here, with over 60% of our portfolio in Treasuries, CDs and Munis and 5% Gold.
Working now to figure out best and easiest way to add TIPS. Will probably start with SCHP or TIP and buy some bonds at the next auction, along with my allocation of I Bonds.
If there is a big correction will DCA back into equities, mainly US.

I have owned since it was the Pennsylvania Avenue Event-Driven Fund in 2008/2009. Since then, it was reorganized into Quaker Event Arbitrage Fund then moving to the Frank Funds. Since I have owned it when it was the Pennsylvania Avenue Event-Driven Fund investor share class, I was grandfathered from paying a load when it was transferred to the Quaker Event Arbitrage Fund as an "A" share class investor. My "A" share class shares are still load waived. I also bought a small position in the institutional share class through Scottrade.
Pennsylvania Avenue Event-Driven Fund reorganization with Quaker Funds:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/870355/000145078910000169/quaker497forn14.htm
Excerpt from the above SEC link:
Comparison of Sales Load and Distribution Arrangements
The Acquired Fund currently offers one class of shares, the Investor Class, which does not charge a front-end sales load at the time of purchase or a contingent-deferred sales load at the time of redemption.
The Surviving Fund offers three classes of shares: Class A, Class C, and Institutional Class. The Surviving Fund’s Class A Shares charge a front-end load of 5.50% at the time of purchase. This load will be waived for the Acquired Fund shareholders who receive Class A Shares of the Surviving Fund in connection with the Reorganization. The front-end sales load applicable to Class A Shares of the Surviving Fund will not be charged for the shares received in the Reorganization or for future purchases of shares of the Surviving Fund made by shareholders of the Acquired Fund.
Reorganization from Quaker Funds to Frank Funds:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1281790/000116204418000238/frank497201804.htm

good grief, reading comp
It is NOT an ad.
Brett Arends has been a v smart financial writer for decades
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Arends
The article:
Brett Arends's ROI
This ‘crazy’ retirement portfolio has just beaten Wall Street for 50 years
by Brett Arends
This strategy beats the market with less risk, fewer upsets and no ‘lost’ decades
You could call it crazy.
You could call it genius.
Or maybe you could call it a little of both.
We’re talking about a simple portfolio that absolutely anyone could follow in their own 401(k) or IRA or retirement account. Low cost, no muss, no fuss. And it’s managed to do two powerful things simultaneously.
It’s beaten the standard Wall Street portfolio of 60% U.S. stocks and 40% bonds. Not just last year, when it beat them by an astonishing 7 percentage points, but for half a century.
And it’s done so with way less risk. Fewer upsets. Fewer disasters. And no “lost” decades.
Last year, 2022, marked the 50th year of this unheralded portfolio, which is termed “All Asset No Authority,” and which we’ve written about here before.
It’s the brainchild of Doug Ramsey. He’s the chief investment officer of Leuthold & Co., a long-established fund management company that has sensibly located itself in Minneapolis, a long, long way away from Wall Street.
AANA is amazingly simple, surprisingly complex, and has been astonishingly durable. It consists simply of splitting your investment portfolio into 7 equal amounts, and investing one apiece in U.S. large-company stocks (the S&P 500 SPX, +2.28% ), U.S. small-company stocks (the Russell 2000 RUT, +2.26% ), developed international stocks (the Europe, Australasia and Far East or EAFE index), gold GC00, +0.04%, commodities, U.S. real-estate investment trusts or REITS, and 10 year Treasury bonds TMUBMUSD10Y, 3.562%.
It was Ramsey’s answer to the question: How would you allocate your long-term investments if you wanted to give your money manager no discretion at all, but wanted to maximize diversification?
AANA covers an array of asset classes, including real estate, commodities and gold, so it’s durable in periods of inflation as well as disinflation or deflation. And it’s a fixed allocation. You spread the money equally across the 7 assets, rebalancing once a year to put them back to equal weights. And that’s it. The manager — you, me, or Fredo — doesn’t have to do anything else. They not allowed to do anything else. They have no authority.
AANA did way better than the more usual Wall Street investments during 2022’s veil of tears. While it ended the year down 9.6%, that was far better than the S&P 500 (which plunged 18%), or a balanced portfolio of 60% U.S. stocks and 40% U.S. bonds, which fell 17%.
Crypto? Er, let’s not talk about that.
Last year’s success of AANA is due to two things, and them alone: Its exposure to commodities, which were up by about a fifth, and gold, which was level in dollars (and up 6% in euros, 12% in British pounds, and 14% when measured in Japanese yen).
Ramsey’s AANA portfolio has underperformed the usual U.S. stocks and bonds over the past decade, but that’s mainly because the latter have gone through a massive — and, it seems, unsustainable — boom. The key thing about AANA is that in 50 years it has never had a lost decade. Whether the 1970s or the 2000s, while Wall Street floundered, AANA has earned respectable returns.
Since the start of 1973, according to Ramsey’s calculations, it has earned an average annual return of 9.8% a year. That’s about half a percentage point a year less than the S&P 500, but of course AANA isn’t a high risk portfolio entirely tied to the stock market. The better comparison is against the standard “balanced” benchmark portfolio of 60% U.S. stocks and 40% Treasury bonds.
Since the start of 1973, according to data from New York University’s Stern business school, that 60/40 portfolio has earned an average compound return of 9.1% a year. That’s less than AANA. Oh, and this supposedly “balanced” portfolio fared very badly in the 1970s, and badly again last year.
You can (if you want) build AANA for yourself using just 7 low-cost ETFs: For example, the SPDR S&P 500 SPY, +2.29%, iShares Russell 2000 IWM, +2.25%, Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets VEA, +2.76%, abrdn Physical Gold Shares SGOL, +1.94%, a commodity fund such as the iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust ETF GSG, +0.55%, the iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond ETF IEF, +1.29%, and the Vanguard Real Estate ETF VNQ, +2.69%.
The list is illustrative only. There are competing ETFs in each category, and in some — such as with commodities and REITs — they vary quite a lot. GSG happens to follow the particular commodity index that Ramsey uses in his calculations.
There are many worse investment portfolios out there, and it’s a question how many are better. AANA will underperform regular stocks and bonds in a booming bull market, but do better in a lost decade.
For those interested, Ramsey also offers a twist. His calculations also show that over the past 50 years the smart move to make at the start of each year was to invest in the asset class in the portfolio that performed second best in the previous 12 months. He calls that the “bridesmaid” investment. Since 1973 the bridesmaid has earned you on average 13.1% a year — a staggering record that trounces the S&P 500. Last year’s bridesmaid, incidentally, was terrible (it was REITs, which tanked). But most years it wins, and wins big.
If someone wants to take advantage of this simple twist, you could split the portfolio into 8 units, not 7, and use the eighth to double your investment in the bridesmaid asset. For 2023 that would be gold, which trailed commodities last year but broke even.
Crazy? Genius? For anyone creating a longterm portfolio for their retirement there are certainly many worse ideas — including many embraced by highly paid professionals, and marketed to the rest of us.

This small ($69M) sized Event Driven fund has had a really nice run. It's been around for almost 20 years. Would have to eat a 2% Front-end Load for the A class (EVDAX), which keeps many investors away.
I do see that ETRADE has it LOAD WAIVED. The Institutional version is $1M Min. Any takers?
As of 12-31-2022:
Camelot Event Driven Fund Class A
1 Yr 3 Yrs 5 Yrs 10 Yrs Life
3.51% 14.76% 12.05% 8.59% 7.26%

” The average stock market return is about 10% annually in the U.S. over time — but realistically, that figure varies widely from year to year, and it’s more like 6% to 7% when accounting for inflation. For context, it’s rare that the average stock market return is actually 10% in a given year. When looking at nearly 100 years of data, as of September 8, 2022, the yearly average stock market return was between 8% and 12% only eight times. In reality, stock market returns are typically much higher or much lower.” Source
Since gold has been mentioned, personally I’ve held small exposures to it through “thick and thin”. But more “thin” than thick. Nonetheless I remain optimistic. Folks are usually referring to p/m mining funds when they reference gold - albeit it is possible to buy ETFs that invest in the less volatile metal itself. Be aware gold funds have in the past declined by as much as 70% over shorter periods (3-4 years). How many small investors possess the fortitude to hold an asset like that when it’s in a downtrend?
Not promoting or discouraging gold. Just pointing out why you don’t hear a lot about it here. Hasn’t shined for at least a decade - few really good years over my 50+ years investing. Recently it has been hot. Friday alone my fund (OPGSX) and one mining stock I own were both up well over 3% on the day.

+1 hank No etfs were available 50 years ago, as SPY was launched in January 1993 !

“ Did no one rtfs?”
I did a quick read of the advertisement / article. Was only allowed to access it once on M/W and was cut off from subsequent reading.
This did not seem to be written in any kind of objective manner. Those who read the WSJ, Barrons, fund reports and prospectuses are not accustomed to simplistic analysis (using words like “crazy, amazing, simple”). However, if you think the world of equities, bonds, commodities, previous metals, real estate, derivatives can be boiled down to a “simplistic” formula that even a 12-year old could grasp - than by all means study the author’s scheme and take away his suggestions.
Reading Level / Text Analyzer
If the intent of the writer is to emphasize the importance of diversification across asset classes and regular rebalancing, I agree. In the past I recall more discussion on this board and its predecessor about both of those issues. Threads like “How much do you allocate to commodities?” or “How frequently do you rebalance?” were quite common. Today, less is said of that for whatever reason.
Does the plan involve owning ETFs? How many were available to retail investors 50 years ago - the date from which the success of this plan is purportedly measured?
50 years is a long time if the author’s assessment is accurate. While past performance does not necessarily predict future performance, I’d think it entirely possible to generate a 9% annual return over very long time periods with a well diversified portfolio and annual rebalancing.
As I said, I no longer have the article / Ad to view, so am going here with what I rirst glimpsed.

"Neel Kashkari" wants 2% inflation target.
--- Wednesday, January 4
--- Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis President Neel Kashkari said the US central bank has at least another percentage point of interest-rate increases to deliver in 2023 even as inflation, which he compared to Uber surge pricing, shows signs of slowing.
“It will be appropriate to continue to raise rates at least at the next few meetings until we are confident inflation has peaked,” Kashkari said in an essay published Wednesday on Medium.com.
“I have us pausing at 5.4%, but wherever that end point is, we won’t immediately know if it is high enough to bring inflation back down to 2% in a reasonable period of time,”
Catch says, "Good luck with that 2% thingy, and that not too many 'things' become broken during the journey to that place".
---Friday, January 6. There were so many data reports issued this week, that I would need to hire a 'staffer' to keep track. Read the current Bloomberg Real Yield thread for information. Anyhoo, the equity and bond markets were smiling at midday. Perhaps both markets are OD'd (over done) at this time. We'll find what holds, eh? Perhaps none of this matters right now; pending the vote on raising the government debt ceiling to keep the U.S. finances moving along.
-"Predicting the future is always a waste of time; but preparing for it, makes sense", Mark Okada-
Worth a view for your brain cells, the below, with Mark Okada.
Mark Okada, IG Bonds, Thursday, January 5, 8:38 minutes video
A sincere thank you to Devesh Shah @Devo for his fine write regarding TIPS, and VTIP, in particular; in the January commentary, to help us better understand another potential investment path. I've added VTIP to the bond performance list.
---Several selected bond funds returns since October 25, 2022. I'll retain this date, as it is a recent inflection point when bonds began to have positive price moves. We'll need to watch if this was just a 'blip'.
NOTE: I've kept the prior dated reports in the beginning of this thread; and have added YTD to this data.
For the WEEK/YTD, NAV price changes, January 2 - January 6, 2023
***** No love for short term issues this week.....
--- AGG = +2.2% / +2.2% (I-Shares Core bond etf) widely used bond benchmark, (AAA-BBB holdings)
--- MINT = +.25% / +.25% (PIMCO Enhanced short maturity, AAA-BBB rated)
--- SHY = +.43% / +.43% (UST 1-3 yr bills)
--- IEI = +1.4% / +1.4% (UST 3-7 yr notes/bonds)
--- IEF = +2.7% / +2.7% (UST 7-10 yr bonds)
--- TIP = +1.4% / +1.4% (UST Tips, 3-10 yrs duration, some 20+ yr duration)
--- VTIP = +.21% / +.21% (Vanguard Short-Term Infl-Prot Secs ETF)
--- STPZ = +.32% / +.32% (UST, short duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- LTPZ = +4.7% / +4.7% (UST, long duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- TLT = +5.6% / +5.6% (I shares 20+ Yr UST Bond
--- EDV = +7.5% / +7.5% (UST Vanguard extended duration bonds)
--- ZROZ = +8.3 / +8.3% (UST., AAA, long duration zero coupon bonds, PIMCO
--- TBT = -10.3% / -10.3% (ProShares UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury (about 23 holdings)
--- TMF = +17.2% / +17.2% (Direxion Daily 20+ Yr Trsy Bull 3X ETF (about a 3x version of EDV etf)
--- BAGIX = +1.77% / +1.77% (active managed, plain vanilla, high quality bond fund)
*** Other, for reference:
--- HYG = +2.6% / +2.6% (high yield bonds, proxy ETF)
--- LQD = +3% / +3% (corp. bonds, various quality)
--- FZDXX = 4.26% yield (7 day), Fidelity Premium MMKT fund
*** FZDXX yield was .11%, April,2022. The rate of rise in the yield remained flat again this week.

Comments and corrections, please.
Remain curious,
Catch

https://www.barrons.com/topics/mutual-funds-quarterly
(Performance data quoted in this Supplement are for 2022/Q4 and YTD to 12/31/22)
Pg L2: BOND and INCOME funds are back after a disastrous 2022 in which the FED hiked rates rapidly. The Fed isn’t done yet and there may be a recession, so stick to quality short/intermediate-term funds (core, corporates, munis, convertibles/preferreds). Mentioned are ABNDX, AGG, BND, DFCF, DFNM, MDNLX, MUB, PFF, PPSIX, SBFMX, SHY, SLQD, SPTI, VCSH.
Pg L5: ESG funds struggled in 2022 as they missed the boat on energy and defense, while growth and tech stocks sank. Criticisms of the ESG grew and several states banned then from state funds. Inclusive/relative-ESG funds did better than exclusionary/absolute-ESG funds. Still, there were inflows into the ESG funds vs outflows from general funds. A Morningstar study of the ESG funds with 15-yr history found that 44/69 funds outperformed their peers and a list of 10 such funds follow (M* owns the ESG rating firm Sustainalytics): BOSOX, CLDAX, CSIEX, FIW, MMDEX, PARWX, PHO, PIO, PRBLX, VCSOX.
Pg L7: Investors started venturing into stock funds in 2022/Q4 with blend and value (IVV, SPYV, etc) outperforming growth; energy was a partial explanation. Foreign funds rebounded (CIVVX, FIVLX, OAKIX, PRESX, TRIGX, etc); weaker dollar was a partial explanation. Several funds had strong outflows (and high yearend CG distributions; FCNTX, TRBCX, etc); some of the outflows went into the ETFs in the categories (and into the related CITs). Inflow champions were IVV, VTI. Tesla/TSLA sank several previous highflyers (BPTRX, BFGFX, FSCPX, VCR, XLY, etc). Alternatives funds (PQTAX, etc) couldn’t play good offense in Q4 after playing good defense previously. Among the bond funds, HY had inflows (HYG, etc) while TIPS had outflows. (By @LewisBraham at MFO)
Pg 10 (Fits better here): Cathie WOOD’s ARKK fell -67% in 2022 but she is mostly sticking with her convictions (EXAS, ROKU, SQ, TDOC, TSLA, ZM, etc). She believes that her holdings in innovative technologies will bounce back. She thinks that the US has been in recession since early-2022 and the Fed is overtightening. There is also a short-ARKK ETF SARK.
Pg L33: In 2022/Q4 (SP500 +7.37%): Among general equity funds, the best were LC-value +12.80%, multi-cap-value +12.63%, MC-value +12.39%, SC-value +12.01%, and the worst were multi-cap-growth +1.82%; ALL general equity categories were positive. Among other equity funds, the best were natural resources +19.76%, Europe +19.66%, international multi-cap-value +19.08%, and the worst were sc & tech +1.76%, real estate +3.44%; ALL “other equity” except short funds were positive. Among fixed-income funds, domestic long-term FI +2.03%, world income +5.71%; ALL FI categories were positive too (FI isn’t very refined in Lipper mutual fund categories listed in Barron’s). So, a good Q4, but still a bad 2022.
LINK

I think this approach makes more sense than relying only on an index of "clean energy companies" that by definition excludes any firm that is not exclusively in solar, wind, geothermal etc
Fossil Free Funds does not exclude sizeable utilities that use fossil fuels so long as that accounts for a minority of their revenue:

[Fossil Free Funds does not exclude] utilities that have fossil fuel operations but meet the criteria for inclusion on our Clean200 screen - USD revenue of at least $1 billion, and over 50% of total revenues are from green sources

https://fossilfreefunds.org/how-it-works

FRNW has virtually the same carbon footprint as ICLN: 354 vs 358. Still off the chart.
https://fossilfreefunds.org/fund/fidelity-clean-energy-etf/FRNW/carbon-footprint/FS0000GZWZ/F00001AEZV
FRNW does invest a smaller percentage of its portfolio in fossil fuel-burning utilities, so it does score better by that metric than ICLN.
A significant part of a company's business can be "clean" while the company overall is still a bad actor. If decarbonization is your focus, then it may be better to look at a company's overall carbon footprint than to give it a good grade because part of the company is "clean".

@Sven
Not to mislead you or anyone else and to be fair to the Utah 529; my initial link was directly mostly to the Vanguard choices, as this was the conversation company in this thread. Utah has a full line of choices, which by law; may be adjusted 2 times in a calendar year.
An overview of the other plan choices.

Other Vanguard 529 funds in other states have a decent exposure to developed and emerging markets in both stocks and bonds.
The LifeStrategy series of funds are constructed the same. For example, LifeStrategy Moderate Growth, VSMGX, is consisted of 37% Total stock market index, 25% Tot int’l market index, 27% Total bond index, and 12% Tot int’l bond index. https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/mutual-funds/profile/vsmgx#performance-fees
Last year this 60/40 global allocation fund lost 16%! So the MarketWatch article is puzzling that 50/50 allocation is better. Also I cannot locate the original source of the information in Vanguard site.

@old_Joe, Yes, rapid change from day to day. Today the wage growth rate has slowed. So the service cost as one of the inflation indicator is not as bad as it appeared to be on Thursday. Perhaps January’s FOMC will have a smaller rate hike, 25 bps?
Still have small allocation of investment grade bond and bank loan funds. Surprise that gold is making a come back. Must be due to bitcoin taking big hit last year.

Goldman Sachs has a long detailed analysis of the thinking behind GCEBX
https://www.gsam.com/content/dam/gsam/pdfs/us/en/fund-resources/other-reporting/GS_Clean_Energy_Income_Fund_Overview.pdf?sa=n&rd=n
that is worth reading. They have a significant number of companies that are "transitioning" to clean energy, most of which rate very poorly by Fossilfreefund. Page 38 shows that the fossil emissions of their companies have dropped by almost 50% but their carbon emissions are currently about average for the utility sector.
I think this approach makes more sense than relying only on an index of "clean energy companies" that by definition excludes any firm that is not exclusively in solar, wind, geothermal etc.

FRNW has a similar mix of sectors as ICLN, minus Con Ed, plus a healthy dose of Hong Kong. It's only been around a few years. So it's entire track record is in the red.
More info from etf.com:

FRNW provides exposure to the global clean energy industry utilizing an ESG overlay. The fund specifically includes developed and emerging markets firms of any size that generate at least 50% of their revenue from one or more of the following business activities: clean energy distribution, clean energy equipment manufacturing, and clean energy technology. Eligible companies are initially assigned with ‘thematic relevancy scores’ based on a proprietary natural language processing algorithm—which identifies clean energy firms using keywords from publicly available company documents. Firms are then further screened for various ESG factors. The highest scored companies are selected for inclusion and are weighted by market-cap. The index rebalances quarterly.

That's good enough for a C from fossilfreefunds.

ICLN invests in global clean energy companies, which is defined as those involved in the biofuels, ethanol, geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, and wind industries. Aside from holding companies that produce energy through these means, ICLN also includes companies that develop technology and equipment used in the process. Selected by the index committee, the fund is weighted by market-cap and exposure score — subject to several constraints — and reconstituted semi-annually. Prior to April 19, 2021, the index followed a more narrow methodology.

Given the weight of utilities in both funds (56% and 52%), it's going to be hard to get good carbon grades. A plain old utility index, like VUIAX makes ICLN look like Mr. Clean.