PRWCX is available in Merrill accounts. I dip-bought a bunch a month ago and it's up 7% --- luck.
These are many tempting ideas to read for one who has 95% of his egg in FIGXX earning 4.17%.

I took another look at JEPI. While it hasn't been exposed to a bear market, 2022 and 2025YTD have been tough years. JEPI is consistently superior to OEF GATEX (that also uses protective puts) and equivalent allocation 65%SPY + 35%BND; note that Relative SD of JEPI is 0.65 wrt SP500.
For an individual stock, covered-call limits the upside in exchange for the call premium, but doesn't limit the downside. So, something in the fund structure of JEPI is leading to lower volatility. My guesses for reasons include (i) lower equity exposures, (ii) more conservative equity holdings, (iii) upside caps (that trim some volatility), (iv) execution of the options strategies & (v) redeployment of premium & other proceeds (e.g. when the stocks get called away). But I cannot point to a single dominant cause.
Similar observations can be made for JEPQ in relation to QQQ (Nasdaq 100).
https://testfol.io/?s=kRhewIHNMLw

I kind of like some absolute return and market neutral funds. My favorites, which are EGRIX, BDMAX, and QMNNX keep chugging along. They have done well this year during an uncertain environment.

+1
Add to it QLENX.
Another option is to own the best categories/funds. Europe (VGK) signaled it since 02/2025.
https://schrts.co/qqqMxnXW

Last night, posted all ratings to MFO Premium site, using Refinitiv data drop from Friday, 23 May 2025. FLOW tool is now updated daily.

Vanguard has been careless in merging some of its OEFs. After ignoring related investor complaints, it had to settle with the SEC on this
What Vanguard was careless about was how it went about reducing the min of its institutional clones of TDFs. Not the merger per se.
Reducing the min triggered a mass migration of smaller sized employer-sponsored retirement plans from the retail funds to the institutional funds. The result was a huge sell-off (and recognized gains) in the retail funds. Individual investors with shares in taxable accounts were left holding the bag - a huge tax bill.
Shortly thereafter, Vanguard merged the institutional funds with the retail funds.
Had Vanguard not reduced the min for institutions, or had Vanguard reduced the min subsequent to merging the funds, no sales and no gains would have been triggered.
I haven't checked the prospectuses of these new ETFs, but Vanguard allows tax-free conversions of its mutual funds/OEFs to their ETF classes that may have lower ERs (typically similar as Admiral OEF ERs), but not the reverse.
See https://www.chapman.com/media/publication/15122_IL-0224-Coyle-Pershkow-Warren.pdf

This highlights another benefit to Mutual Fund Class shareholders of Perpetual’s proposed structure (also a featured part of the original Vanguard model, the DFA Application, and the First Trust Application, the Fidelity Application). The structure outlined in the Perpetual Application contains a conversion privilege that allows for a shareholder seamlessly convert from a Mutual Fund Class to the ETF Class.[fn 17]
17 Unlike the Perpetual Application, the DFA Application, the Fidelity Application, the First Trust Application, and the original Vanguard application, the F/m Application proposes a conversion privilege whereby an ETF shareholder could convert its ETF shares to mutual fund shares. The F/m Application, however, does not address whether this structure would function essentially as an open-ending mechanism. Any time shareholders are displeased with the spread or premium/discount of their ETF shares, they could move to the mutual fund and redeem at net asset value (NAV). This could have at least one major unintended consequence: market makers and liquidity providers who regularly purchase and sell creation units will be disincentivized to make markets or provide liquidity, thereby stressing the ETF’s arbitrage mechanism.

Many years ago I looked into ways of investing in currencies when Fidelity (among others) offered currency funds.
Invesco CurrencyShares® ETFs (e.g. FXE, FXF) are one way to play currencies. The YTD gains reported above include both changes in premium (spread of market price over NAV has increased) and interest (these ETFs can pay interest).
From the M* chart for FXE here the YTD figures are:
NAV (representing currency movement less expenses): +9.47%
NAVwDivs (representing the above plus interest earned): +10.09%
Price (representing NAV gain + increased premium): +9.65%
Price+Divs (representing the above plus interest earned): +10.27%
Thus, interest earned YTD = (10.27% - 9.65%) = (10.09% - 9.47%) = 0.62%.
Compounded to annual yield: 1.0062 ^ (365/144) (days) - 1 = 1.58%
Another way to invest in currency is to open foreign currency accounts at banks. Perhaps the most well known is Everbank. It wasn't competitive when I looked at it years ago and doesn't seem to be competitive now. (It is offering 0.10% APY on a three month Euro CD.) There are other banks that offer foreign currency accounts. The one I remember is Cathay bank.
Dollar weakness seems to be due to worldwide disinvestment in the US attributed to increasing uncertainty in the US generally (regulatory environment, tax regimen, tariffs, etc.). Somewhat counterbalancing this are higher interest rates in the US - the Fed has not reduced rates recently (due to inflation concerns) while other central banks have continued to do so.
WSJ, Why the Fed Isn’t Ready to Join Other Central Banks in Cutting Rates, May 8, 2025.

The Fed cut its benchmark short-term rate by 1 percentage point in the second half of 2024 ... The European Central Bank, meanwhile, has cut its benchmark rate seven times in the last year by a combined 1.75 percentage points. The Bank of England on Thursday cut its benchmark rate to 4.25% from 4.5%. It was the bank’s fourth cut since last summer.

larryB,
many of us long for the day, but consider Prof. Peter Atwater in 2025, for the first time, states that geographies and leaders (i.e., macropolitics) should be the first priority in investing, displacing the traditional top 3 (valuation, sentiment, management)
e.g., even if you believe technicals are your main focus, as a foreign owner of a chinese ADR, can you be confident macro positioning is likely to be one where your interests are the priority of the country and CCP?
i wont go any further into addressing this, but it was not clear you were looking for a multi-asset answer.

Passive voice in CNBC piece: "are expected". Who is expecting, and why?
The current SEC rules and regulations require funds to seek "exemptive relief" from the SEC. Generally all share classes of a fund must be treated equally. That's not true of ETF shares. Hence the need for relief.
ETF shareholders cannot purchase and redeem shares at NAV (they must trade at market price in a secondary market). There are other inequities as well. When funds seek exemptive relief, they include plans for how they will deal with various differences between the share classes.
https://www.chapman.com/media/publication/15122_IL-0224-Coyle-Pershkow-Warren.pdf
(For those interested in fund mechanics, this is an interesting nine page (plus notes) piece that doesn't get bogged down in legalize. The first few pages are of more general interest, describing the differences between ETF class shares and OEF class shares.)
Another example is brokerage fees. OEF shareholders pay these fees (though they're not included in the ER calculation). They purchase shares for cash which a fund then uses to buy securities, thus incurring brokerage fees. In contrast, authorized participants buy ETF shares with creation baskets of securities already purchased. No brokerage fees involved. There are various ways a fund can deal with this disparity. A request for exemptive relief has to spell this out.
The former acting SEC chairman, Mark Uyeda, "directed staff to prioritize the review of more than fifty applications for relief that had been unprocessed for as long as two years."
https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/2em6tlqjoggjytyhjgjy8/corner-office/etfs-may-become-just-another-share-class-if-sec-approves-dimensionals-latest-regulatory-ask (April 1)
Maybe that's what's supposed to open the floodgates. But Uyeda was appointed back in January. So why the CNBC piece now, and not in January, or a month ago (related to the Uyeda quote above)?
The only thing I see that has happened since then is that Paul Atkins was sworn in as SEC chairman on April 21. He is not expected to change much from what Uyeda was doing. "Chairman Atkins thus has arrived at an already changed agency."
https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/sec-enforcement-20-chairman-atkins-has-arrived
A concern with actively managed ETFs (already discussed in an older thread) is that pragmatically they cannot close to new investment when capacity is reached. So this is something to monitor when purchasing an actively managed ETF. Soon OEF fund investors will also need to monitor capacity if their funds begin to offer ETF class shares.

I don't see The Economist article either. I did a search on all Economist pieces since March 1 containing the word "Europe" (there are 267). The vast majority are under 1,000 words. Several are between 1,000 and 2,000 words in length (typically around 1,200). Only a 8 (3%) are over 2,000 words. Most of those are not on point, the two relevant ones aren't as bleak as you describe:

• If it comes to a stand-off, Europe has leverage over America, March 13, 2,688 words.

  Almost all the steps it [Europe] could take would be self-harming, even if they inflicted even greater damage on America. For that reason among others, getting European leaders, a fissiparous bunch at the best of times, to agree on a concerted response to American bullying would be a feat. But if they resolved to fight back, they have plenty of ways to do so.

• As Donald Trump's trade war heats up, China is surprisingly confident, April 3, 2,632 words.
  
• Your guide to the new anti-immigration argument, March 13, 2,545 words
  
• Emigration from Africa will change the world, April 24, 2,522 words
  
• Would Vladimir Putin attack NATO?, May 8, 2,520 words
  
• Can the world's free-traders withstand Trump's attack?, April 2, 2,496 words

  Much may hinge on what Europe does next. The EU and its open-market allies could form a formidable bloc—co-ordinating responses to American tariffs and pulling China in a more free-trading direction.
  

• Aid cannot make poor countries rich, March 6, 2,159 words
  
• Will Jamie Dimon build the first trillion-dollar bank?, May 22, 2,184 words.

Whether it remains true that "when America sneezes the world catches a cold" (cf. Klemens von Metternich referring to France and Europe) remains to be seen.
Still I agree that European stocks may not prove to be the safe refuge people are looking for, having asked: The question remains: ... will they [foreign equities] continue to have positive returns?

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/23/markets-investing-etfs-new-trading-strategies.html
"Soon, as many as 3,000 new ETFs are expected to launch in an ‘absolute tsunami’ triggered by the Securities and Exchange Commission allowing traditional mutual funds to offer an ETF share class.
Currently, there are around 4,000 ETFs.
The article mentions an estimate that roughly 53 mutual fund firms have filed for the ETF share class extension, and the thousands of new funds covered will lead to an “enormous burden on individual investors and advisors to wade through that stuff”.

European stocks have done really well this year.
VGK (Europe) returned 17.9% while EZU (Eurozone) returned 22.1%.
Stock markets in Poland, Austria, Greece, and Spain generated returns greater than 32%.
Returns are as of 5/13/2025.
https://bilello.blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/country-etfs-5-14.png

PRPFX has worked well this year thanks to a 20% gold allocation. It's +9.65% YTD.
QMNNX - AQR Market Neutral fund has held up very nicely. Up +13.89% YTD.
Now, if only their recent performance was some kind of indicator ("guarantee") of future performance......

”The main concern with doing simple (straight line) extrapolations is that they assume nothing will change.”
Yes. Could have worded my comment better. And nothing ”run of the mill” about the pretty good funds I listed.
”projecting out what that rate of return would produce through an entire year.”
Maybe instead -”representing an annual rate-of-return of roughly … “ ?
I circumvented @LarryB ‘s question which was more along the lines of “What may do well?” rather than ”What has already done well?” Like most here, I don’t make predictions. My four core holdings (15.5% each) are: global infrastructure, real assets, limited-term preferreds and a long-short equity fund. While that may indicate where I’m leaning, it in no way assures where markets will go.
Investment choices should relate to situation and time-horizon … Andrew Marvell might well have been speaking of investing: ”Had we but world enough and time, This coyness, lady, were no crime.”
:)

Outstanding socially responsible article from a leading financial publication. Couldn’t agree more with their conclusions and deep concerns. It occurs to me, however, that the same addictive personalities probably gamble in other ways like day-trading stocks or taking on excessive debt. Delinquencies on auto loans increasing.
A few excerpts:
”Addiction experts say a public-health time bomb is ticking.”
- After four years of back and forth, Kentucky in 2023 passed a bill to legalize sports betting beyond thoroughbred racing. To win over a group of holdouts in the state Senate, lawmakers added a problem gambling assistance account to the legislation. It earmarked 2.5% of the state's new gambling tax revenue to fund workforce training, treatment, and research. The remainder goes to the state's pension fund for public employees.
- DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM were among the gambling firms that advocated for the bill. In total, the industry spent $443,000 lobbying the Kentucky legislature in 2023, state records show. DraftKings was enthusiastic about the bill's passage. In August 2023, the company boosted its revenue outlook for the year, calling out $20 million in new revenue expected from Kentucky in the final three months of the year. Soon after, DraftKings told investors it had signed up more than 5% of Kentucky's adult population within five weeks of going live in the state.
- The betting trend has played out much the same way across the U.S. Americans now wager roughly $150 billion a year on sports, and 48% of American men under 50 have an account on a digital sportsbook at sites like DraftKings, FanDuel, ESPNBet, and BetMGM, according to a Siena College survey.
- The challenge for policymakers trying to regulate gambling is its almost magical benefits to state coffers.
Gambling is "a very effective way to get more state budget without having to raise taxes," says Heather Wardle, a professor of gambling research and policy at the University of Glasgow. Once gambling revenue is supporting pension funds, infrastructure, and other state priorities, Wardle says, "it's very hard to then roll back from that."
- An 11-year study ending in 2016 & found that one in five people with a gambling disorder had attempted suicide. The National Council on Problem Gambling estimates 1% of American adults, or 2.5 million people, meet the criteria. The federal government, which collected roughly $370 million in federal excise tax on sports gambling last year, has no programs in place for that group. The U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, by contrast, has an annual budget of $7 billion.
- "When you think of the Derby, you think of beautiful hats, stately horses, mint juleps, pageantry, pomp and circumstance, and the fun that's involved," Clark says. "You don't think of somebody out back getting ready to shoot themselves because they bet $10,000 on a horse and they're not going to be able to make their house payment."
Personal note: As a long time DraftKings customer my sports bets are limited to less than $1 on average per day and only while actively viewing a game. (Minimum wager is 50-cents.) I am appalled that the site relentlessly and flagrantly “pushes” those who log in to play games of chance like ”Roulette” & ”Black Jack” and to deposit additional sums (usually via debit card). Lord help those who take the bait. Certainly, the article has summoned up reservations about my continued participation on moral grounds.
* Excerpts in italics from: ”America’s Sports Betting Boom Is About to Backfire” - by Nick Devor (Print Ed.) Barron’s - dated May 26, 2025

Thanks all for sharing your thoughts. My current risk assets are limited to TRIGX,, CGDV and DODLX. All actively managed and not low cost by any standards. It’s not business as usual for me,,,

M* classifies DODLX as a global bond fund (not hedged). It has an ER of 0.45%.
M* shows 10 ETFs in this category. Half (5) have ERs of 0.5% or more. M* lists 147 share classes of OEFs in this category. DODLX has the 6th lowest ER. (The fifth cheapest is DOXLX.) By this metric at least, DODLX looks cheap. Not as cheap as one would hope a bond fund would be, but still low cost for a global bond fund.
Lipper rates it a 4 out of 5 on expense.

The main concern with doing simple (straight line) extrapolations is that they assume nothing will change. Businesses will ignore increasing uncertainty in the world, both economic and geopolitical. The markets will keep chugging along.
We've already seen that past is not necessarily prologue. This year (YTD), the FTSE Europe Developed Market All Cap Index (VGK) has outperformed the S&P 1500 (ITOT), 20% to -1% (M* charts). But over the past 10 years (through 2024) the US has outperformed foreign markets, both cumulative and on a calendar year basis (except for 2017 and 2022). See Portfolio Visualizer.
Likewise, value (VTV) leading growth (VUG) by 2% this year is a reversal from the previous 10 years (again with 2022 being an exception).
DODWX and DODFX are fine funds in their categories. Disregarding their somewhat superior performance relative to peers YTD (36th percentile and 47th percentile respectively per M*), their solid YTD returns are due largely to their categories (value and 50% or 100% foreign) having done well.
The question remains: even if foreign equities (and value) continue to outperform domestic (and growth) equities, will they continue to have positive returns?
I'm not one to make macro calls. I'm usually strongly inclined to follow the adage: don't just do something, stand there :-). But even I am looking at the writing on the wall and starting to consider how I would reconstruct my portfolio from scratch if I went substantially to cash now. Fortunately I'm in a position to do that and take the hit (opportunity cost) if I'm wrong and markets go up.
Regarding the "run of the mill" funds:
PRWCX is having one of its poorest performances relative to peers, all the way "down" to the 22nd percentile. Typically growth leaning, it has moved solidly into blend (37% of portfolio is LCBl) suggesting that Giroux also sees the markets moving toward value. (It is also open to investors who have at least $250K total invested at TRP.)
DODBX is having a banner year (4th percentile) relative to peers. Some due to good management & low cost, some due to being very value-oriented. (Allocation funds are not partitioned into value, blend, growth subcategories). Its category average YTD is just 0.73% (M*).
FKIQX likewise may be doing well this year due to its very value leanings. Same category as DODBX.
TRRIX benefits from having over 1/4 of its equity holdings in foreign securities. It is a global moderately conservative allocation fund. Its return is in the middle of its category (47th percentile YTD). Some category peers that have done better YTD, like VGWIX and FAFWX, have value leaning portfolios as contrasted with TRRIX's blend holdings. Again these illustrate the growth-value reversal this year.
I'll leave the remaining two funds to others.

Hasn’t been as bad a year as the headlines and talking heads on Bloomberg, etc. might lead one to believe. I posted elsewhere that both DODWX and DODFX are up double digit year to date. So is GLFOX which invests in infrastructure, mostly in Europe. The real assets category which usually includes commodities, energy, AG, real estate is also having a respectable year.
But how about less risky “run-of-the-mill” balanced / tactical allocation funds? I ran a few calculations factoring in the return YTD (M*) which represents 144 days thru Friday and projecting out what that rate of return would produce through an entire year. (No guarantees of course).
The first one, PRWCX, isn’t open to new investors, but is always interesting to watch.
PRWCX YTD: +1.91% .. Projected a full year = +4.85%
LCORX YTD: +2.84% … Projected a full year = +7.19%
DODBX YTD: +4.82% … Projected a full year = +12.25%
FKIQX YTD: +1.88% ..… Projected a full year = +4.78%
TRRIX YTD +2.55% .. .… Projected a full year = +6.46%
AOK YTD +2.45% …..… Projected a full year = +6.20%

23 May, 2025.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2025-05-23/bloomberg-real-yield-5-23-2025-video
Vonnie Quinn. Priya Misra (JPM) and Gennadiy Goldberg (TD.)
Sec. Treas. Bessent's recent remarks are unsurprisingly upbeat, almost sanguine.
Discussion about rates, duration. Will The treasury cut back on 30-year offerings?
Misra is skeptical that we can manage to grow enough to offset the huge debt, despite new income from tariffs. There's still too much uncertainty, "until we see just what are the rules of the road... or law."
'But while the yen is strengthening, U.S. yields are rising. We think this shows that the number of foreign buyers of US gummint debt is declining.' (Deutsche Bank's George Saravelos.)
EU: 2025 debt issuance = over 1T euros, quickest time ever to get to 1T. May, '25 volume= highest on record.
USA: I.G. issuance for the week led by Siemens, Citi, MCkesson, SNAM, Groupe BPCE.
Junk? Biggest month of the year, so far.
Short week, next week.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2042316/000168386325004827/f42160d1.htm
497 1 f42160d1.htm FUND LIQUIDATION SUPPLEMENTS
May 23, 2025
Victory Pioneer Global Value Fund
Supplement to the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus
and Statement of Additional Information
each dated March 31, 2025
The Trustees of the fund have authorized the liquidation of the fund. It is anticipated that the fund will be liquidated on or about July 25, 2025 (the “Liquidation Date”). The fund will discontinue accepting requests from new accounts to purchase shares or process exchanges into the fund effective at the close of business on May 23, 2025. The fund will discontinue accepting requests from existing accounts to purchase shares or process exchanges into the fund effective at the close of business on July 18, 2025. Shares purchased through any dividend reinvestment and certain automatic investments will continue to be processed up to the Liquidation Date. The fund also may accept additional investments from established employer-sponsored retirement plans up to the Liquidation Date.
Prior to the fund’s liquidation, all or a substantial portion of the fund’s assets may be invested in cash, cash equivalents and debt securities with remaining maturities of less than one year. When invested in such instruments in anticipation of the liquidation, the fund may not be able to achieve its investment objectives.
Shareholders can redeem their shares of the fund at any time prior to liquidation.
Shareholders may also exchange their fund shares for shares of the same class of any other Victory Pioneer fund that offers that class, subject to any restrictions set forth under “Buying, Exchanging, and Selling Shares” in the Prospectus. Any shares of the fund outstanding on the Liquidation Date will be redeemed automatically as of the close of business on the Liquidation Date. The proceeds of any such redemption will be equal to the net asset value of such shares after the fund has paid or provided for all of its charges, taxes, expenses and liabilities. Any liquidating distribution due to the fund’s shareholders will be distributed by the mailing of a check to each such person at such person’s address of record.
The liquidation of the fund may result in income tax liabilities for the fund’s shareholders. The automatic redemption of the fund’s shares on the Liquidation Date will generally be treated as any other redemption of shares, i.e., as a sale that may result in a gain or loss for federal income tax purposes.
If you hold fund shares through an individual retirement account, you can arrange to have such shares exchanged for shares of another Victory Pioneer fund prior to the Liquidation Date. Alternatively, if you receive a check representing your investment in the fund, it will be treated as a distribution from your individual retirement account. You may be eligible to roll over your distribution, within 60 days after you receive it, into another individual retirement account. However, rollovers are subject to certain limitations, including as to frequency. You should consult with your tax adviser concerning the tax implications of a distribution for you, your eligibility to roll over a distribution, and the procedures applicable to such rollovers.

The SEC filing may be a work in progress. While WCPNX's prospectus explicitly permits investments in unrated securities ("The Fund may invest up to 25% of its total assets in debt securities which are unrated or which are non-investment grade") the ETF's prospectus omits this ("The Core Plus Fund may invest up to 25% of its total assets in debt securities that are rated non-investment grade."_
And the ETF's SAI (which covers both the Multisector fund and the Core Plus fund) isn't clear whether investing in unrated securities is limited to the Multisector fund. Further it has verbiage about redemptions impacting sales of junk- and un-rated securities, which seems to be lifted from an OEF's SAI.
ETF's SAI:

Non-Investment Grade Securities
...
Price changes for debt securities held by a Fund will not cause changes to the Fund’s cash income from those securities, but will be reflected in the net asset value of Multisector Fund shares. Therefore, the judgment of the Adviser may at times play a greater role in valuing lower-rated or unrated securities. It also may be more difficult during times of adverse market conditions to sell lower-rated or unrated securities, whether to meet redemption requests or to respond to changes in the market.

OEF's SAI:

Preferred Stock and Debt Securities
...
Price changes for debt securities held by a Fund will not cause changes to the Fund’s cash income from those securities, but will be reflected in the net asset value of the Fund’s shares. Therefore, the judgment of Weitz Inc. may at times play a greater role in valuing lower-rated or unrated securities. It also may be more difficult during times of adverse market conditions to sell lower-rated or unrated securities, whether to meet redemption requests or to respond to changes in the market.

As to ETFs being more volatile, this relates to a post I made in another thread: looking at prices too frequently makes a fund appear more volatile. In many cases that's likely most of what you're seeing. That is, if one looks at the close-of-market prices of ETFs they are likely (nearly) as stable as those of OEFs.
All else being equal, I prefer OEFs for the absence of spread, the absence of SEC fees (de minimis), and the absence of premium/discount risk. But assuming the ETF version of Core Plus "exactly" tracks WCPNX, it is hard to argue against buying something that's 20 basis points cheaper. (To get the cheaper WCPBX, one must be able to pony up $1M.)