this tread seems to be wandering off the title, but here is a good reason to question Grantham's advice. I love his pieces and read them regularly, but he has been wrong for a long time
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2021/02/15/the-case-for-emerging-markets?bt_ee=nQdQqooUUehguFxr8cHYJ3EYbfDtkNeaSkM5kRAHFeaBTpmHhq/SLnj/nDXwg7WE&bt_ts=1613473644073

Great discussion here. I bought MATFX 2 weeks ago. I really like the manager of this fund, Michael J. Oh, who has been lead manager of the fund since 2006. He writes some great commentary pieces that lay out his thinking on stock selection and where he sees opportunities. https://www.matthewsasia.com/funds/asia-growth/asia-innovators-fund/ . Scroll to the bottom for links to articles and podcast. Wonderful track record. With this I now hold FSEAX, CHIQ in emerging Asia. I also own MIOPX which is about 35% emerging Asia. MIOPX is probably my favorite fund of the lot because it is international in its focus. If you look at its performance for just about any time frame on Morningstar or MFO Premium it's in the top 10%. Finally, I own Hennessy Japan which is a nice steady eddy fund that gives you good exposure for a global rebound in the economy.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/8-reasons-taxes-may-increase-120045148.html
Stay warm & safe, Derf

Pfizer FDA submission
https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download

Taking reports of side effects now the vaccines have been given to over 40 million people is fraught with difficulty, as there is no longer a placebo group to compare to. Anyone who has a serious medical problem after the vaccine will likely be reported to the FDA but that does not mean that the vaccine caused the stoke or heart attacks or whatever. The frequency of adverse reaction the FDA reports in post marketing studies are reflective of whatever reports they receive.
30,000 people were in both of the Pfizer and Moderna studies which is a huge number. It is large enough to give us confidence that the most serious side effects would show up, and could be compared to their frequency in the placebo group.
I would suggest people who are interested read the original FDA data both Moderna and Pfizer submitted. You can quickly go to the section on side effects and see the actual data that compares the vaccine recipients to their placebo counterparts. The tables are clear and easy to follow.
Here is Moderna
https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download
The text for "deaths" follows.
"Serious Adverse Events Deaths As of December 3, 2020, 13 deaths were reported (6 vaccine, 7 placebo). Two deaths in the vaccine group were in participants >75 years of age with pre-existing cardiac disease; one participant died of cardiopulmonary arrest 21 days after dose 1, and one participant died of myocardial infarction 45 days after dose 2. Another two vaccine recipients were found deceased at home, and the cause of these deaths is uncertain: a 70-year-old participant with cardiac disease was found deceased 57 days after dose 2, and a 56-year-old participant with hypertension, chronic back pain being treated with opioid medication died 37 days after dose 1 (The official cause of death was listed as head trauma). One case was a 72-year-old vaccine recipient with Crohn’s disease and short bowel syndrome who was hospitalized for thrombocytopenia and acute kidney failure due to obstructive nephrolithiasis 40 days after dose 2 and developed complications resulting in multiorgan failure and death. One vaccine recipient died of suicide 21 days after dose 1. The placebo recipients died from myocardial infarction (n=3), intra-abdominal perforation (n=1), systemic inflammatory response syndrome in the setting of known malignancy (n=1), COVID-19 (n=1), and unknown cause (n=1). These deaths represent events and rates that occur in the general population of individuals in these age groups.
Non-fatal Serious Adverse Events Among participants who received at least one dose of vaccine or placebo (N=30,351), the proportion of participants who reported at least one SAE from dose 1 to the primary analysis cutoff date (November 25, 2020) was 1% in the mRNA-1273 group and 1% in the placebo group. The most common SAEs occurring at higher rates in the vaccine group than the placebo group were myocardial infarction (0.03% in vaccine group, 5 cases vs. 3 cases in placebo group), cholecystitis (0.02% in vaccine group, 3 cases vs. 0 cases in placebo group), and nephrolithiasis (0.02% in vaccine group, 3 cases vs. 0 cases in placebo group). The small numbers of cases of these events do not suggest a causal relationship. The most common SAEs occurring at higher rates in the placebo arm than the vaccine arm, aside from COVID-19 (0.1% in placebo group), were pneumonia (0.05% in placebo group) and pulmonary embolism (0.03% in placebo group). Occurrence of other SAEs, including cardiovascular SAEs, were otherwise balanced between treatment groups. "
I think it is fair to say these vaccines are very safe, and at least so far, very very effective

Here is what I read (some of) every week, since the Journal has been making significant lay outreach efforts:
https://www.nejm.org/covid-vaccine/faq#Clinicians
from 6w ago:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra2035343?query=featured_coronavirus
and otherwise more info than most of us need:
https://www.nejm.org/coronavirus?query=main_nav_lg

@johnN: A search of the "Up-to-date" link which you have provided shows none of the information which you have listed.
However, judging from the appearance, that information seems likely to have been derived from a reasonable source. Can you please provide a link to that source?

Try this link instead:
https://www.uptodate.com/contents/covid-19-mrna-vaccines-united-states-and-canada-authorized-for-use-drug-information?topicRef=8357&source=related_link#F55189491
As one can tell from the intro, "The following adverse reactions and incidences are derived from the FDA issued emergency use authorizations", this page is not the source of the data. The data are from the clinical trials, i.e. the CDC links that I already gave.
Without reading the CDC data, or the text quoted by sma3, one would not know that "younger patients" does not mean the same thing with Moderna data as with Pfizer data.

Up TO DATE is probably the best single source for updated medical information available to health care professionals. It is not cheap ($350 a year) but it is peer reviewed and edited by top academic physicians, many of them from Hopkins, Harvard, Yale, Stamford and other "top ten" medical schools
Here is their summary recommendation and summary of Side effects
" For individuals who are eligible for vaccination according to local allocation priorities, we recommend COVID-19 vaccination (Grade 1B). Selection of vaccine depends on local availability. The different vaccines have not been studied head-to-head, and thus, comparative efficacy is uncertain."
A Grade 1 B recommendation
A Grade 1 recommendation is a strong recommendation. It means that we believe that if you follow the recommendation, you will be doing more good than harm for most, if not all of your patients.
Grade B means that the best estimates of the critical benefits and risks come from randomized, controlled trials with important limitations (eg, inconsistent results, methodologic flaws, imprecise results, extrapolation from a different population or setting) or very strong evidence of some other form. Further research (if performed) is likely to have an impact on our confidence in the estimates of benefit and risk, and may change the estimates.
Moderna Safety and side effects – Local and systemic adverse effects were dose dependent and relatively common after the second dose; most were of mild or moderate severity (ie, did not prevent daily activities or require pain relievers) [61]. Among participants younger than 65 years, fever occurred in 17 percent, and severe fatigue, headache, myalgias, and arthralgias occurred in 10, 5, 10, and 6 percent, respectively.
Pfizer ( essentially the same) Safety and side effects – Local and systemic adverse effects were dose dependent and relatively common after the second dose; most were of mild or moderate severity (ie, did not prevent daily activities). Among participants younger than 55 years, fever occurred in 16 percent and severe fatigue, headache, and chills, occurred in 4, 3, and 2 percent, respectively [49]. Rates among older participants were slightly lower. "
This has been what I have heard form friends and family who have been vaccinated. Young people have more side effects, but at the same time they are more able to deal with them.

I listened to that Grantham interview on Bloomberg 2-3 times one day recently. He lays out a convincing case. But there are equally good arguments on both sides.
As far as Grantham’s argument goes he’s focused on three areas: (1) He thinks artificial risk asset impetus has been supplied from over a decade of easing by the Fed and other central banks. Since he doesn’t think this can continue much longer (deficits / unrealistically low rates) he sees an eventual popping of the “bubble”. (2) He sees a near hysterical chasing of return today irregardless of risk - a euphoria he equates with the final stages of bull markets. (3) He takes issue with high valuations in some sectors - technology particularity.
It should be noted that Grantham is more sanguine re value stocks, thinking there are pockets of opportunity in that depressed sector. He sounds downright bullish on emerging markets - if one has a long enough time horizon.
Each investor needs to consider his own time frame, risk tolerance, overall financial situation before undertaking any changes. I’ve grown a bit more cautious over the past couple months. The last two years were good to most investors. So, irrespective of Grantham, I see no compelling reason for a retiree to be overly aggressive at this point. I’m sharing how my allocation has changed in recent months as I try to protect 50+ years of accumulated retirement savings. Your situation is doubtless different and so should be your approach.
* End of 2020: Alternatives 25%, Equity/Balanced Funds 25%, Diversified Bond 25%, Cash & cash alternatives 15%, Real Assets & Commodity 10%.
* Today: Alternatives 33%, Equity/Balanced 20%, Diversified Bond 20%, Cash & cash alternatives 15%, Real Assets & Commodity 7%, Benchmark Fund (PRSIX) 5%.
Explanatory Notes:
- TMSRX accounts for about 50% of the alternative portion. PRPFX comprises most of the rest.
- I’ve gone much shorter on the diversified bond holdings. DODLX is the riskiest one at 50%. The rest consists of short term bond funds like newly opened TSDLX.
- I’ve moved most of the cash into a medium duration TIPS index fund,
- I’ve switched from TRRIX to PRSIX as my benchmark and have added a small allocation to that fund. One difference between the two above funds ... PRSIX commits 0-10% to a Blackstone hedge fund. TRRIX does not.
- There remains a small spec position in a mining fund.

I hope the link works
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/fb9bf115-cdf6-346f-8506-db2dcd08fca2/us-etf-investors-mainly.html
Stay warm & safe, Derf

Here are excerpts from a disturbing report from The Washington Post.

By Shira Rubin
Feb. 15, 2021
TEL AVIV — Israel's Health Ministry said Sunday that two Israelis who had recently recovered from the coronavirus have been reinfected by the variant first identified in South Africa, making a total of three such cases.
The announcement comes even as Israel finally begins to see a drop in infection rates as a result of its nationwide vaccination drive.
The Health Ministry this week recorded an additional 14 confirmed cases of the South African variant in Israel, bringing the total of number of such infections to 44, with 124 confirmed contacts and 36 infection chains. Health officials believe the numbers are substantially higher.
In late January, the first Israeli, a 57-year-old man from central Israel, was reinfected with the South Africa coronavirus variant after returning from a trip to Turkey.
Last month, U.S. pharmaceutical giant Pfizer and German biotech firm BioNTech released results from lab tests that, while not yet peer-reviewed, showed that their joint vaccine is effective against the N501Y mutation that is found in both the British and South African variants.
In a statement, the companies said the preliminary findings “do not indicate the need for a new vaccine to address the emerging variants,” but they are “prepared to respond” with updates to their shot if necessitated by new strains.
Another vaccine, co-developed by Oxford University and the British-Swedish pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca, proved to be only minimally effective in preventing mild and moderate forms of covid-19 caused by the variant first identified in South Africa.

I find it fascinating that a large segment of the population is desperate to get vaccinated, but there are people who apparently fear side effects, which have generally been minimal and well tolerated, especially in older people.
The delays in vaccinating a large portion of the population, mostly logistical, the total inability to vaccinate much of the less developed countries, unfortunately will give the UK and the South African variant a head start. There is more evidence that Pfizer (and probably Moderna too) will activate cell mediated immunity and be modestly protective against B1.351 ( the South African strain) but the exact extent is unclear, and it will certainly not be 95% seen with the original variant
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/11/pfizer-vaccine-strong-response-new-covid-variants?fbclid=IwAR2MDt35tFje1H9I2FgUhTk6xx44eHgs0hNieJQTIrfXz59z8ngs7RecURY
There are still large numbers of people who believe this is all "fake news" and have to be forced to wear masks on airplanes etc, even now, providing a ready source of vulnerable people and infections.
Given these idiots, the slow roll out of the vaccine, rising numbers of variants and the as of yet still completely unknown issue of vaccination preventing ( or not ) asymptomatic transmission, I believe Covid 19 will be with us forever. The hospitalization and death rates will undoubtedly improve, but it is unclear how much. Further variants may be more lethal.
As we saw this summer, Covid 19 does not appear to be seasonal, like influenza, so there will likely be significant ongoing burden of disease all year long.

Thankyou all
You can also report severe side effects to your Healthcare agency and they may forward info to cdc
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/expect/after.html
Adverse Reactions
Up-to-date
https://www.uptodate.com/contents/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-vaccines-to-prevent-sars-cov-2-infection
The following adverse reactions and incidences are derived from the FDA issued emergency use authorizations (EUAs) unless otherwise specified. Refer to EUAs for specific vaccines for information regarding reporting adverse reactions (FDA 2020; FDA 2021c).
>10%:
Gastrointestinal: Diarrhea (Pfizer: 8% to 11% [placebo: 6% to 12%]; higher in younger patients), nausea and vomiting (Moderna: 9% to 21% [placebo: 4% to 8%]; higher in younger patients and with second dose)
Local: Pain at injection site (66% to 90% [placebo: 8% to 19%]; higher in younger patients), swelling at injection site (4% to 13% [placebo: 0.2% to 1.2%])
Nervous system: Chills (Moderna: 5% to 49%; Pfizer: 6% to 35% [placebo: 3% to 6%]; higher in younger patients and with second dose), fatigue (33% to 68% [placebo: 17% to 33%]; higher in younger patients and with second dose), headache (Moderna: 25% to 63%; Pfizer: 25% to 52% [placebo: 18% to 34%]; higher in younger patients and with second dose)
Neuromuscular & skeletal: Arthralgia (Moderna: 16% to 46%; Pfizer: 9% to 22% [placebo: 4% to 12%]; higher in younger patients and with second dose), axillary swelling (Moderna: Including axillary tenderness; 6% to 16% [placebo: 3% to 5%]; higher in younger patients), myalgia (Moderna: 20% to 62%; Pfizer: 14% to 37% [placebo: 5% to 14%]; higher in younger patients and with second dose)
Miscellaneous: Fever (<1% to 16% [placebo: 0.1% to 0.9%]; higher in younger patients and with second dose)
1% to 10%:
Gastrointestinal: Nausea (Pfizer: 1%), vomiting (Pfizer: <1% to 2% [placebo: 0.3% to 1.2%]; higher in younger patients)
Hematologic & oncologic: Lymphadenopathy (≤1% [placebo: <0.1% to 0.6%]; unsolicited) (Polack 2020)
Hypersensitivity: Hypersensitivity reaction (Moderna: Including injection site rash and injection site urticaria; 2% [placebo: 1.1%])
Local: Erythema at injection site (2% to 9% [placebo: 0.4% to 1.1%])
<1%: Nervous system: Malaise (Pfizer)
Frequency not defined:
Dermatologic: Facial swelling (Moderna)
Gastrointestinal: Appendicitis (Pfizer; unsolicited; data insufficient to determine causal relationship)
Hypersensitivity: Anaphylaxis (CDC 2021; CDC/FDA 2021a; CDC/FDA 2021b)
Local: Local swelling (at or near the site of dermal fillers [eg, face or lips]) (CDC 2021)
Nervous system: Bell’s palsy (unsolicited; data insufficient to determine causal relationship)
Neuromuscular & skeletal: Joint injury (shoulder; unsolicited) (Polack 2020)

I came across this as part of Josh's interview with Dan Nathan here:
(good discussion on options strategies)
hthe-options-market-is-a-circus-with-dan-nathan-the-history-youve-never-been-taught
In The Money Show (Feb 10th):
options/in-the-money
Also, his Podcasts (On The Tape):
podcast/on-the-tape

Regarding being late to the party in buying the stocks of vaccine makers, consider the example of one high-flyer, NVAX. This company, started about 35 years ago by Johns Hopkins scientists, had never produced a successful vaccine until the current entry in the COVID sweepstakes. Every time there was a scare such as SARS and the like, including the flu, NVAX would be touted as the company most likely to get a vaccine candidate to market. The shares rose and fell (mostly fell) in accordance with the rumors; investors did not profit. I’ll grant you a Présidents Day virtual medal if you stuck with this stock, even when it was under $2, and now have a massive profit. Please give me enough time to inform the foundary that they need to strike a medal.
My wife and I had sore arms after our first Pfizer shot February 9 and we are scheduled for the second one on March 2. We feel fortunate and are prepared for a day of chills and fever post-shot.

MATFX is a large cap EM fund.

You DID read what I wrote, correct? ARTYX seems to have 35% US and is large cap growth. FSEAX is at least mostly foreign, but ALSO large cap growth. All per M*. If that is correct, then MATFX, with 100% Asian large cap growth, should be in there with those two. At least I can't see a huge difference. If I'm missing something, then please point it out to me.

Why? Not seeing any reason to prefer it [SUBFX] to say FTBFX over the last 5-4-3-2-1y

The OP appears to be looking for a fund in addition to WATFX.
If the question were one of merely replacing WATFX, it's hard to see any reason to choose FTBFX, with its very close performance and volatility. FTBFX does have a somewhat shorter effective duration but that is offset by its lower average credit quality.
When it comes to complementing WATFX, there's no comparison between SUBFX and FTBFX. Over the suggested timeframe (2013-now), WATFX and FTBFX have a correlation coefficient of 0.97 (hence R² of 0.94), while WATFX and SUBFX have a correlation coefficient of 0.47 (R² of 0.22). SUBFX is by far the better diversifier.
Portfolio Visualizer correlation matrix
There's also a middle ground. For the management skills of SUBFX in a somewhat more sedate package, i.e. core plus, but one that still offers more diversification and better performance than FTBFX, there's SCPZX. The correlation coefficient between WATFX and SCPZX is 0.83 (R² of 0.69) over the same 2013+ time frame.

Try setting the start for a year later, and for the periods ever after, than the v v hot start (+30% over the initial 18mos or so) of 9.5y ago.

I suppose it depends on whether one is counting all adverse reactions or just severe ones.
According to the CDC, data from clinical trials show that 41.9% of those (aged 18-55) receiving vaccines and keeping logs (2,291 subjects for first dose) experienced some level of headaches after their first Pfizer dose and 51.7% after their second dose.
Of course one needs to compare these percentages with those of the 2298 subjects receiving placebos.
Other reactions experienced (first/second doses):
Fatigue: 47.4% / 59.4%
Chills: 24.0% / 35.1%
Fever: 3.7% / 15.8%
Diarrhea: 11.1% / 10.4%
New or worsening muscle pain: 21.3% / 37.3%
New or worsening joint pain: 11.0% / 21.9%
Pfizer reactions; https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/reactogenicity.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-manufacturer/pfizer/reactogenicity.html
Moderna reactions: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/moderna/reactogenicity.html

Last Sunday, 7 February, all ratings were updated on our MFO Premium site, including MultiSearch, Great Owls, Fund Alarm (Three Alarm and Honor Roll), Averages, Dashboard of Profiled Funds, Portfolios, QuickSearch, and Fund Family Scorecard. The site now includes several analysis tools, including Correlation, Rolling Averages, Trend, Ferguson Metrics, Calendar Year and Period Performance.
Today, we launched a new tool for premium subscribers: "Dashboard of Launch Alerts."
The "Launches Dashboard" compiles and tracks funds first appearing in our "Launch Alert" feature of the monthly MFO commentary. It follows a format similar to the Profiles Dashboard, but lists funds by alert date, most recent on top to oldest on bottom, since MFO launched in May 2011.
Hundreds of new funds are launched annually (e.g., 590 in 2020), but most are not worth mentioning. David highlights just a dozen or so each year.
When a manager with a strong record leaves an established firm to start anew, David lets us know:

• Andrew Foster created Seafarer Capital Partners, LLC and launched Seafarer Overseas Growth and Income (SIGIX), as discussed in the February 2012
  commentary.
  


• Laura Geritz created Rondure Global Advisors, LLC and launched
  Rondure New World (RNWIX) in 2016.

As he does when an established firm of high stewardship launches a fund in a new market:

• Vanguard Emerging Markets Government Bond Index (VWOB) in the March 2013 commentary.


• T Rowe Price Total Return (PTTFX) in December 2016.

Usually, the Launch Alerts contain a paragraph or two describing why the fund may be worthy. Some are longer than others, a kind of mini-profile:

• Towpath Focus (TOWFX) launched by Mark Oelschlager and highlighted in September 2020 feature.
  

Since 2016, MFO breaks-out Launch Alerts in the new magazine format. Before that, they were included in the long-scroll format.
Many of the funds in Launch Alert have gone-on to do quite well, some spectacularly. While about 1-in-6, as of January 2021, end-up in the dust bin (not shown, e.g., Whitebox Funds).
As an adviser or individual investor, I would check this list often.
Premium subscribers can access the new tool here. QuickSearch, Great Owls, Three Alarm, and Profiles tools remain available to the public without subscription.
Enjoy!