I’d never criticize somebody else’s investment approach. Being down double-digit (meaning 10% or more) wouldn’t be bad for some investors depending on their age and risk tolerance. By comparison the S&P is down nearly 13% YTD and the NASDAQ off more than 20%. So, somebody off 10 or 11% would be beating both of those indexes.
Out of curiosity I checked GLD GDX, a good proxy for gold miners. A lot of folks, including me, maintain a small exposure to miners. It, too, is off around 20% YTD. Yes, if you are sitting on a big wad of cash this year you’ve outsmarted the markets. Congratulations! But for long term focused investors cash, ISTM, is not a viable option. Inflation will eat you alive over longer time spans.
FWIW - I lost almost 22% in 2008. That was followed in 2009 with a gain of over 28%. I mention that only because if you’re down a lot, not all is lost. Markets will do what they will do.

Well. I paid $1.51 for a euro in 2009. And the yen is back over 137/dollar. CAD = $1.30 again.

@JohnN’s OP is a combination of wishful thinking and weak / incomplete technical analysis.

Awhile back he mentioned that he is down double digits as he continues to pursue the elusive bottom. It will be a long road to climb back to breakeven point this year and beyond.
Monday, August 22nd the broader market is down by over 1% as the Fed meets to decide next round of rate hike in September, regardless whether US is entering a recession or not. Europe is experiencing a slow down as well.

Markets also cooperated by being mostly in bullish trend leading to fund inflows. Remember, VG has been the king of fund inflows.
Flipside of the connection between VG OEFs and ETFs is that when there were large redemptions/outflows in 2020 (and in any other years), both the VG OEF and the related VG ETF had similar CG distributions. See the short table below.
Self-standing non-VG bond ETFs didn't have this issue. Much of the benefit from the ETF structure is from the combination of indexing and nontaxable in-kind trading. There are some additional benefits from the VG patented structure of having OEF and ETF classes. VG didn't license its patent to anybody else and others didn't really beg VG for that license. But things may change in/after 2023.
2020 CGs for several VG bond funds
VEDTX /EDV 3.16%
VBLAX /BLV 2.69%
VBILX /BIV 0.71%
VSIGX /VGIT 0.71%
VSBSX /VGSH 0.60%

So how does this help me? Do I want to own the ETF or OEF?

This current bump up from the June lows seemed way too easy. Reading the latest Barron's, there's more than a bit of anxiety in the market, and some are voicing this pretty clearly, which I find odd. I'm holding at the moment, waiting. It feels like there's another shoe ready to drop.

Ding. Ring that bell. This is not over, yet. If I had a slug of extra cash, I'd throw it in my HY fund, TUHYX. 6.57% yield, but currently a 9.41% SEC Yield. Buy low, sell high. That fund is wayyyyyy down there. Good income producer, about now.

Vanguard's domestic equity index mutual funds with an ETF share class are listed below ¹.
Vanguard 500 Index (VFIAX)
Vanguard Dividend Appreciation Index (VDADX)
Vanguard Extended Market Index (VEXAX)
Vanguard Growth Index Fund (VIGAX)
Vanguard High Dividend Yield Index (VHYAX)
Vanguard Large-Cap Index (VLCAX)
Vanguard Mid-Cap Growth Index (VMGMX)
Vanguard Mid-Cap Index (VIMAX)
Vanguard Mid-Cap Value Index (VMVAX)
Vanguard Small-Cap Growth Index (VSGAX)
Vanguard Small-Cap Index (VSMAX)
Vanguard Small-Cap Value Index (VSIAX)
Vanguard Total Stock Market Index (VTSAX)
Vanguard Value Index (VVIAX)
After the corresponding ETF share class was added,
there were no capital gains distributions for these funds.
Note: I haven't researched fixed-income index mutual funds or
international index mutual funds from Vanguard.
¹ excludes institutional funds.

What I find somewhat unsettling about MAFIX is Appendix A for "Monthly Returns" on page 46 (or page "A-1") of this: https://abbeycapital.com/multi-asset-fund/pdf-viewer/?view=prospectus&hsCtaTracking=6213949d-083c-4dc3-a165-0534cdde2bc2%7C58503b81-8e2e-4506-8e9f-12e8e5cb176c
For a fund that is supposed to be defensive, that 2008 number doesn't make me feel it can be a good diversifier, although it has, admittedly, worked of late.

Markets also cooperated by being mostly in bullish trend leading to fund inflows. Remember, VG has been the king of fund inflows.
Flipside of the connection between VG OEFs and ETFs is that when there were large redemptions/outflows in 2020 (and in any other years), both the VG OEF and the related VG ETF had similar CG distributions. See the short table below.
Self-standing non-VG bond ETFs didn't have this issue. Much of the benefit from the ETF structure is from the combination of indexing and nontaxable in-kind trading. There are some additional benefits from the VG patented structure of having OEF and ETF classes. VG didn't license its patent to anybody else and others didn't really beg VG for that license. But things may change in/after 2023.
2020 CGs for several VG bond funds
VEDTX /EDV 3.16%
VBLAX /BLV 2.69%
VBILX /BIV 0.71%
VSIGX /VGIT 0.71%
VSBSX /VGSH 0.60%

+1.

Good news: Jason Zweig answered my question (without being asked). In his column this weekend (see other MFO thread ongoing) he gives a live link to the January 1990 Federal Register, which is when the SEC proposed the use of a broad index as part of Form N-1A.
That's when the requirement started--somewhat later than my guess

Vanguard designed a process which eliminated capital gains distributions for select equity index mutual funds.
They basically added an ETF share class to an existing index mutual fund and used so-called heartbeat trades.
These trades rapidly pump money into/out of the ETF to wash away taxes for mutual fund shareholders.
Vanguard is the only firm using this innovation - they were awarded a patent in 2001 which is valid until 2023.
Other firms may copy this when the patent expires.
More detailed info here.
Edit: Added "equity" before "index mutual funds".

US SPR status update from Twitter.

Guy's got an agenda. But I won't argue with the chart provided. WOW. Lowest since '85. Not much reserve left to tap, then.

Many variations are fund specific. Moderate-allocation (MA) funds may have many moving parts.
PRWCX isn't really a moderate-allocation funds (despite its classification as such my M* and others). It is capital-appreciation and has more of HY (65.19%). Also may have unusual positions such as recently in utilities (but top sectors now are tech, healthcare, financials) and long-time position in GE turnaround (#4 holding).
DODBX had a policy change and is trying shorting and had beginner's luck.
VWELX also had an untimely policy change away from value into blend/growth just as that was losing momentum.
FBALX and FPURX have been run hot with growth orientation and higher equity % sometimes approaching aggressive-allocation (AA).

Hello, again.
I looked at Abbey Capital's Multi-Asset Fund, MAFIX. New to me. Once again, M* screwed up: their OWN website lists minimum entry at $1,000.00 and additional chunks minimum = $1,000.00. M* shows $1M minimum. the numbers look great, actually. but still a rather young fund.
*Edited to add: MAFIX is EXTREMELY concentrated, looking at the portfolio. (Per M*.). But on Abbey's webpage, I find it quite impossible to FIND the portfolio!
...OOPS. That's not a PERIOD. That's a COMMA. It IS actually a $1M minimum to get in. Listen to me giggle as I walk past. ...

US SPR status update from Twitter.

:) I wasn’t recommending bonds @BaseballFan. I’ve slowly shifted away from bond exposure over the past year or two, favoring equities (both funds and individual holdings) over them. Re bonds - I’m fairly certain you’re right longer term. It would probably take some accidental “overkill” by the Fed in their efforts to slow the economy for bonds to enjoy a temporary rebound. (Roughly only about 15% of portfolio resides in bond funds).
To replace the modifying / dampening effect of bond exposure in a conservative portfolio, I’ve beefed up exposure to alternatives and am also dabbling in a couple inverse funds. In the case of the latter, the cure might turn out to be worse than the affliction.
None of this is intended as investment advice of course.

@hank
I dunno Mr Hank...I am not an expert for sure but for certain I am not sanguine on bonds
I anticpated the following possiblities, scenarios and potentially negative for bond holders
* China, Japan continue to unload US Treasuries
*QT
*In reality, and all political narrative BS aside...inflation continues to go up, product/services continue to go up...gas sure a little cheaper but just wait until after the mid-terms when we replenish strat stock piles at even higher prices
*Did I mention mid term elections? I did. Wait for it. The cancelation of student debt, so more money to buy weed and shitcoins and sporty event gamblings.
* Wait for it...next and unlike the prior statement I totally agree with, the discharge of medical debt
* Wait for it....a complete debt jubilee once the weathy cannot pay the note on their overpriced crappy $675,000 starter homes
*Who and how is anyone paying on the half empty commercial buildings
*WAYYY too much debt created over the past dozen years.
I can see laddering Tbills, 3 month, 6 month, 12 months...but everyting else...dunno, not for me
To me. Maybe a better allocation funds are the MAFIX, BLNDX...although I am not certain if they are just lucky with their timing, were in OIL/Energy, commodities, FX at the right time? MAFIX maybe better result but more balck boxy than BLDNX? Dunno. Maybe better 50/50 3 month Tbill and solid divy paying value fund, TWEIX like?
Good Luck to all,
Baseball Fan

op cit

Notably, we find that 1,050 out of 2,870 funds made a change to their prospectus benchmarks
at least once over a 13-year period. Because we collect data on funds’ benchmarks beginning
in 2005, the first year in which we can detect changes is 2006. The average fund in our sample
reports 1.44 benchmarks per year and makes 0.84 benchmark changes during our sample
period.

I'm glad they did the research. But there are a lot of other red flags out there like cost, load, turnover, manager investment, whether the company is publicly owned, etc.

Funds that make at least one benchmark
change make an average of 2.27 changes during this period, suggesting that there is a serial
component to this behavior. Funds making at least one benchmark change also report
significantly more benchmarks each year (1.74) than the group of funds that never makes a
benchmark change (1.23).

Not surprising. I had some choices like that in some retirement plans my employers got us into.

Folks can we please try to turn down the volume here. I come here as do most others to engage in thoughtful investment discussions, not to deal with political vitriol. If you don’t like her political or social views then don’t invest in the fund. Simple as that. But Lewis is right her performance for her fund category is actually good. In the top 16% over the past 5 years. No need to go after the manager like that.

Here is a PDF of the study Zweig referenced in his article.