If 2023 still face interest rate hikes (at least several smaller ones), 50/50 allocation will not improve much from the 60/40. 60/40 in S&P500/cash would have done better, but that is hindsight.
It is really a reward-risk trade off between two asset classes that have opposing correlation but that broke down last year as they approached 1.0. Thus no protection from bond allocation. You have to ask yourself whether this continues in 2023?

You should execute your investment strategy as you determine appropriate. You are also correct that RPHIX has not historically generated a 4% calendar year ending Dec 31st return of 4%. However, RPHIX has generated total returns in excess of 4% on a rolling 12 month basis in the past (few but has). Below is a chart comparing the 12 month trailing 12 month return of RPHIX to the 1 year UST yield at the beginning of the measured period (T+0). The only underperformance was as a consequence of COVID volatility.
If you compare 12 month rolling total return of RPHIX since inception to the beginning 1 year UST, there are 136 measurable periods. Below is the max, min and average excess return:
Max 5.09%
Min -1.71%
Avg 2.13%
On a distribution basis for 136 measured periods, the first column represents the 1 year excess total return (RPHIX Total Return - I Yr UST Yield) and the second column shows the % of times of the occurance
Negative 7%
0-1% 11%
1%-2% 29%
2%-3% 23%
3%-4% 22%
>4% 7%
That said, RPHIX is not a substitute for a 3, 6, 10 month UST or CD.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/vanguard-says-the-outlook-for-the-60-40-model-is-looking-rosier-but-heres-the-asset-allocation-it-prefers-the-most-11672918734?
Does Vanguard offer a 50/50 allocation fund?
I found the plot chart of S&P 500/10 Yr US Treasury interesting. 2022 was a true outlier.

Bloomberg is behind a paywall. Get to read few news on Apple News.

US companies added more jobs than expected in December, driven by small- and medium-sized businesses, and highlighting the resilience of labor demand that’s underpinning wage growth. Private payrolls increased 235,000 last month after an upwardly revised 182,000 in November, according to data from ADP Research Institute in collaboration with Stanford Digital Economy Lab. The figure exceeded all but one forecast in a Bloomberg survey of economists.
Treasury yields spiked and US stock futures declined after the release.

https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-04/us-job-openings-remain-highly-elevated-at-10-46-million

Bad news for Celsius Earn Program (cryptos) customers. Bankruptcy judge cites fine print in his ruling that customer assets under the Program belonged to Celsius, not customers. This will put a new focus on brokerage TOS (terms of service) in cryptos and elsewhere as this is the domain of contract law.
https://www.axios.com/2023/01/04/celsius-bankruptcy-earn-accounts
https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/04/bankruptcy-judge-rules-celsius-network-owns-users-interest-bearing-crypto-accounts/

For the week ending on 1/4/23, bearish remained the top sentiment (42.0%; high) & bullish became the bottom sentiment (20.5%; very low); neutral became the middle sentiment (37.5%; above average); Bull-Bear Spread was -21.5% (very low). Investor concerns: Inflation (moderating but high); supply-chain disruptions; recession (2023?); the Fed (slower pace but higher rates longer); dollar; crypto ice-age; market volatility (VIX, VXN, MOVE); Russia-Ukraine war (45+ weeks); geopolitical. For the Survey week (Thursday-Wednesday), stocks were up, bonds up, oil down sharply, gold up, dollar flat. #AAII #Sentiment #Markets
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/141/aaii-sentiment-survey-weekly?page=8&scrollTo=890

On Friday, 6 January, we will be conducting our year-end webinar to review funds and the MFO Premium site. If you can make it, please join us by registering here. Just one session this year: 9 a.m. Pacific (noon Eastern).

And all of the funds we bought get horrible grades from the site recommended by msf. ... CSGZX ha[s] held up reasonably well from our purchase[] in July
CSGZX is 'A' rated on fossil fuels, is scored a 17 on carbon footprint and a 35 on carbon intensity, both low relative to benchmarks, and is 'A' rated in terms of deforestation.

@sma3. When I was doing the research, it was easy to find alt-energy ETF funds that excluded consumer durables. IIRC, that is the category that Tesla, and other EV makers, fall into. It's like looking for dividend funds that exclude REITS.
I'm also always irritated when I find Amazon in an ESG fund.
And all of the funds we bought get horrible grades from the site recommended by @msf.
In my experience, when I bought any fund is the single largest factor in how I feel about it years later.
Alt-energy and tech were at significant discounts this past year. TDV and CSGZX have held up reasonably well from our purchases in July. Purchases from 2021 don't leave us half so enthusiastic.
One question I ask myself is, "Are these things going to go away?" Another question I ask myself is whether I will be disappointed if tech, alt-energy, and health become as boring as consumer durables and utilities.

Nevermind, found it.
"(Reuters) -Amazon.com Inc's ( AMZN ) layoffs will now increase to more than 18,000 roles as part of a workforce reduction it previously disclosed, Chief Executive Andy Jassy said in a public staff note on Wednesday.
The layoff decisions, which Amazon ( AMZN ) will communicate starting Jan. 18, will largely impact the company's e-commerce and human-resources organizations, he said.
The cuts amount to 6% of Amazon's ( AMZN ) roughly 300,000-person corporate workforce and represent a swift turn for a retailer that recently doubled its base pay ceiling to compete more aggressively for talent."
Amazon CEO says job cuts to exceed 18,000 roles

So as unfortunate as that is for the affected individuals it amounts to a little over 1% of their workforce. It leaves me wondering just what all those folks in corporate were doing.

All of you mention valid arguments about the past performance of MMAs, but I am looking at this from today's perspective, the momentum shifted, at least for the next 3, 6, and 10 months in favor of treasuries and MMAs. CDs provide a way to lock in the rate now for the next 6 yrs. Historically, RPHIX had not returned 4% per year.
Another point to consider is taxation, US Treasuries are not taxed at the State level.

Cuts focused on the company’s corporate staff exceed earlier projection
Following are excerpts from a current report in The Wall Street Journal:

Amazon Inc.’s layoffs will affect more than 17,000 employees, according to people familiar with the matter, the highest reduction tally revealed in the past year at a major technology company as the industry pares back amid economic uncertainty.
The Seattle-based company in November said that it was beginning layoffs among its corporate workforce, with cuts concentrated on its devices business, recruiting and retail operations. At the time, The Wall Street Journal reported the cuts would total about 10,000 people. Thousands of those cuts began last year.
The rest of the cuts will bring the total number of layoffs to more than 17,000 and will be made over the coming weeks, some of the people said. As of September, Amazon employed 1.5 million people, with a large percentage of them in its warehouses. The layoffs are concentrated in the company’s corporate ranks, some of the people said.

Yes, I agree with you to this point about primary housing. We've not held individual U.S. gov't bonds in a taxable account; but I recall the ordinary dividends (paid two times a year?) are taxable at a Federal level annually, but not at the state and local levels; although one doesn't actually receive the dividend. I stand corrected, if I misunderstand this tax point.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing; exhibit 1 :-)
What you are describing are STRIPs - zero coupon government bonds (created by "stripping" the coupons from the bonds). And your description of their tax treatment (imputed interest) is correct.
What Lewis is talking about is your run of the mill, coupon-paying bond, whether Treasury note/bond or corporate. The idea is that the coupon payment you'd receive would cover the mortgage payments, or at least the interest portion. That seems like it might be possible if you have a mortgage obtained a while ago when mortgage rates were lower, and you buy a bond now paying a higher rate.
In any event, that coupon paying bond would be subject to income taxes. But if the coupon roughly matched the interest portion of the mortgage payment, you'd be taking a deduction (on the mortgage) equal to the amount of the coupon.
The suggestion is essentially a quick and dirty cash flow matching strategy - simple, elegant, and liquidity enhancing.

If a fund has a $100,000 minimum, is it OK if you invest with this amount and shortly afterwards, remove a large portion of the initial sum while maintaining the rest of the investment?
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what the fund requires for a maintenance balance, and then if you fail to maintain that balance, whether the fund company chooses to exercise its right to give you notice (if required) and close (or downgrade) your account.
For taxable accounts, FZDXX requires $100K to open, but only $10K to maintain. From its statutory prospectus:

If your fund balance falls below $10,000 worth of shares for any reason and you do not increase your balance, Fidelity may sell all of your shares and send the proceeds to you after providing you with at least 30 days' notice to reestablish the minimum balance.

So by prospectus, you're allowed to drop the balance by 90% with no consequences. And even if you drop the balance lower, it's up to the discretion of the fund company (here, Fidelity) to close out the account after appropriate notice.
The reality is that for this particular fund, Fidelity is pretty lax. But don't push things too far. I did. For RMD purposes, I sold $10K of a fund in a Roth IRA and moved it to FZDXX ($10K min in IRAs). I announced to the Fidelity rep that my intent was that some of that be used for the RMD and the rest stay there to maintain open position in FZDXX. Even though this would drop the balance below the min; I would rely upon Fidelity's discretion not to close the account.
While the rep acknowledged that Fidelity doesn't really close these accounts, my explicit acknowledgement was a bit too much for him. He (rightly) felt compelled to check with his back office whether this was okay before he put the trade through. The back office said what I was planning was fine and the rep placed the trade. But I did, inadvertently, put him in an awkward position.
A few years ago, two Vanguard funds we held in admiral shares dropped below the admiral class min. Vanguard converted one of the funds back to investor class shares. The other fund Vanguard left alone. FWIW, the funds were submanaged by different money management firms.
The bottom line is that it depends. If the rules allow a lower maintenance balance, all is well and good. If not, it's up to the fund company. In my experience, most times the fund company won't care. But sometimes it does act.

@FD1000
>> You can make several % more in managed bond fund, this is where they shine.
go on, please (as always)
DODIX was down just under 10% for the year, a few percent better (yes) than FTBFX, FBND, AGG, BOND, and the others, not as good as PONAX (a bit better than -8%). STIP down a bit over 2%.

Apples and oranges. PONAX is a multi sector fund. TIPS is a tip fund. DODIX is a diversified higher rated bond funds.
PMORX made more than all the above.
TBX made even more, and I posted about it months ago on another site.

Yes, additional money was added to the 401(k), Roth IRA, and HSA accounts in 2022.

Thanks for your reply @Observant1 . Did you add addition money to these accounts during 2022 ? I'm guessing you did. I know I added to two separate accounts & will have to subtract those amounts from 2022 closing balance.
Have a good week, Derf

@yogibearbull
For example the YTM on TIPS maturing 1/2028 is 1.697 at Schwab. That is the YTM received after paying original price plus accumulated inflation adjustment, correct? (For this particular example, I can't see the actual accumulated adjustment, as it has a $75000 minimum and Schwab won't let me look at the final proposed trade)
In order for that to beat similar treasury YTM at 3.84, inflation has to run at greater than 2.143 ( 3.84-1.697), and the additional income will be in the form of accumulated inflation adjustment in principal?

I did that maybe 15-20 years ago with a Summit fund held directly at TRP when I believe the entry point was $25,000 - and it worked until I eventually sold the fund and moved on. Recall one of their (previously very capable) phone reps suggested the tactic to me. My guess would be that it would work until it doesn’t (ie for a number of months but not for years). If there are any “low balance” fees associated with fund, that should appear in the fund prospectus.