Thanks much @AndyJ.
Yeah - I owned HSGFX & HSTRX about the same time as you, along with others here. I’ve considered diving into one or the other. But - Ughh …. !
He’s been quoted lately as extremely bearish. No doubt he has the fund positioned in that direction.
Fido assesses a $49.95 purchase fee. Also, there’s an early withdrawal fee on Huss’s funds out to 60 days.

Jerome Dodson was the PARWX manager from inception (04/29/2005) until he retired on 12/31/2020.
Billy Hwan became a comanager on 05/01/2018 and the sole manager at the start of 2021.
Mr. Dodson took a contrarian approach which resulted in an elevated risk profile.
Mr. Hwan takes a relative value approach and wants to bring the fund's beta (vs. S&P 500) down.
Taking this into consideration, past PARWX performance may not be very indicative of future performance.

M* charts show that MSEGX (Morgan Stanley Inst Growth fund) is down nearly 30% but stock charts show it is down 25% from its recent high on November 16.

To no great surprise, the discrepancy dates to Dec 15, when a cap gain of $18.005 (per Yahoo) was distributed. The price on Dec 10 (Fri) was $89.20, and the price on Dec 13, post div, was $69.57. Back of the envelope [($69.57 + $18)/$89.20] says the fund lost about 1.8%. That's what M* says. Stockcharts reports a gain of 4.4%.
The Morgan Stanley site shows the divs, but doesn't yet report the true gain for December.
https://www.morganstanley.com/im/en-us/registered-investment-advisor/product-and-performance/mutual-funds/us-equity/growth-portfolio.shareClass.A.html
The $18.005 div bought 0.2588 shares at the ex-dive price of $69.57. Perhaps Stockchart took those shares and valued them at the old price of $89.20, coming up with a "new distribution" of $23.085.
Now the same calculation as before, using this new distribution amount, comes to:
($69.57 + 23.09)/$89.20 = 1.038%, or a 3.8% increase. Not all the way up to 4.4%, but that's all I can coax out of bad arithmetic.

Compared to TR Price, Vanguard is the epitome of good brokerage service. See https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/58965/brokerage-experience-with-t-rowe-price#latest

@wxman123 -- Bank MM funds yield around 0.4 to 0.5%. FDIC insured so 100% risk free. Are you expecting your near cash holdings to provide a higher return?

Yes, that would be the objective but doesn't always work out. Over the longer term, these "near cash" vehicles should outperform high yield FDIC insured bank accounts, but that's not generally how I use them. I mainly use them in retirement accounts where the only viable, comparable option is near zero MM funds. Over the last 3 years VNLA has earned a total return of 2.39% with very little heartburn. I don't think you could have gotten that even in the highest yielding fully liquid bank accounts.

I would probably opt for STIP for short-term TIP exposure, lower fees 0.05% versus 0.15% and shorter maturity bonds--0-5 years--so less sensitive to rising rates. VTIP also has lower fees. But TIPS in general look pricey right now.

Still not phrasing my question well, evidently.
Higher fee notwithstanding, TIPX has outperformed those other two competitors handily for 9/5/3/2y, but has trailed, nontrivially but perhaps unimportantly, 1y and less, meaning recently. Was wondering about any informed thoughts as to that, and longer-term prospects for any of them.

M* charts show that MSEGX (Morgan Stanley Inst Growth fund) is down nearly 30% but stock charts show it is down 25% from its recent high on November 16. Either way, it is in a bear market. I think there are other MS funds that are more aggressive growth funds than MSEGX. So, it is not just ARKK losing money.

“Will the Fed REALLY shake things up here?” Next Fed meeting is Jan 25-26th.
They’re caught between a rock and a hard place. I think I can pretty confidently predict some market fireworks in the coming weeks and months - no matter what course they pursue. While they won’t admit it, market behavior will impact their future course of action.
We tend to dwell on equities, but the playing field is much larger of course. Bonds, mortgage rates, real estate prices, gold, industrial metals, short sellers, short squeezes, derivatives and leveraged bets. Another ARKK or two could send shock waves thru the whole economy. And, let’s not forget crypto. Should be a fun ride.
Just my humble opinion of course.

There is nothing more defensive than a Fund with a large cash hoard. PVCMX will look like a champ if the market corrects here and they pickup the pieces. Cash was near 80% last I saw.
Its the perfect small-cap fund to gamble on if you view the current market as extremely vulnerable. Its a low-risk fund for now.
Will the Fed REALLY shake things up here? Next Fed meeting is Jan 25-26th.

RIO +1.76% / TAIL +.45%

I was up in my PFIE(1.75%) and DLA(0.63%) positions but down more than 5% in FC in which I have a sizable stake for an individual stock.

Please elaborate on your alt funds. VARAX QGITX BAMBX my best performers all ended flat.

FLAT was good today. Congrats!
4 funds comprise my ALTS. The group lost .75% today - nearly as much as my growth portfolio which lost .80%. I do not consider the ALTS “defensive.” But they exhibit potentially lower volatility than my growth funds as a group. And, as a group, they often diverge among themselves, further reducing daily volatility.
#1 TMSRX fell .60% today. #2 ABRZX fell .62%. This one isn’t well known. I got into it because I have some $$ directly with Invesco. It doesn’t score well at the rating services. But watching it for a long time, it does seem very uncorrelated to most funds from day to day. So I’m seeing (and liking) something in its daily behavior that’s not evident from a broader perspective. #3 PRPFX fell .82% today. #4 QED is new. I moved some $$ from TMSRX into it a few weeks ago. This company seems to have a decent bunch of ETFs which track various styles of hedge funds thru its own propriatorey indexes. Each fund offering has a different risk & reward profile. This one, QED, attempts to track “event driven” hedge funds and appears to have low to moderate risk / reward. It fell an uncharacteristic .97% today.
I also have a 7-8% “speculative” sleeve which can be used for just about anything. Currently, it is mostly in TAIL. This fund is designed to run opposite equity markets & stands up particularly well when equities are under stress. It is not a viable long term investment as you would lose $$ over longer periods. Therefore, I cannot recommend it to others. But, it did gain .45% today. I recently added a very small amount of GLDB to the spec sleeve. This etf’s inception was just in May. Very small AUM. It’s a hybrid investment grade bond fund that also invests in gold futures as a hedge. It’s too new and untested to recommend to anyone else. Lost .20% today.
Happy investing!

The links in the initial post remain valid if you're curious about the broad markets performance for today (Jan. 5) and looking towards tomorrow.

BRK.B up .45

Purchased some PARWX LY and have been happy with it. It was up 31 percent in 2021. Up 4.7 to peers, low Ulcer, good Martin and Sharpe…
Wondering why it’s a MFO 3 Rating for 1 yr. I think I may need a re-education on ratings. Can anyone shed some light? Referring to 1 yr rating on this fund as all other periods are 5 rating. TIA.
Edit/Add: Is it an overriding category issue?

In the past I have found AOM useful for a tactical trade for smallish position size if one doesn't want to pay the $75 in some brokerages to get into VTINX or similar slightly superior fund. Or have the need to dollar cost average into a position over several days. Commission free trades. If one needs an AOM-like balanced vehicle. The iShares series is useful from that regard.

I’m not sure how Christianity entered the picture here? Maybe Wood’s religion?
I can’t see much difference between stopping at a convenience store in Michigan on the way home from work and picking up a 6-pack of beer along with a half-dozen state lottery tickets and than watching the state sponsored “live drawing” on TV that evening, and wagering $5 or $10 online on a sports event you’re viewing at home.
There are a lot of vices in this world. Gambling is one. And more so when it involves amateur athletes. I agree. But, as think @Mark suggested, you can visit any live casino and bet on a college game just as you would at home. I don’t think @LewisBraham has been in many casinos. I haven’t either. But the few I have been in are highly addictive in atmosphere. The sounds, the flashing lights, the skimpily clad waitresses. All of this is compelling to the addictive personality who tends to stay too long at the bar and run up an excessive betting tab. I avoid live casinos like the plague.
The online casinos are taxed heavily. I don’t think 100% of it goes to education; but a lot of it does. In fact, it’s the heavy state taxes on profits (50% in NY) that is making it difficult for the online casinos to stay viable. Be careful what you wish for, because that revenue is critical to the government and would need to be made up from other sources.
Come to think of it … Any one of us can log-in to Fido or Schwab or VG any time, day or night, and place a “bet” on any number of highly speculative stocks, currencies or ARKK-like funds. But, we don’t call it “gambling”. It’s “investing.” :) Yes, the motive and purpose may be more noble - but the addictive nature and potential for great harm are very similar. If you doubt my analogy here, consider the very words that graced the home page of “Fund Alarm“ for many years. It was a line from the Kenny Rogers song: “The Gambler” .

You are correct, I inadvertently read off YTD rather than 2021 numbers in some cases. Thanks for spotting my errors!
SNGVX really did lose almost a full percent, but you have the correct figure for BBBMX.
GILPX did eek out a 0.02% gain (still effectively zero) rather than lose 0.07%.
But MERFX did really lose 0.19% (still virtually zero), VNLA did really lose 0.18% (again, virtually zero).
BSV did worse than I reported, losing over 1% in 2021.
T-notes (maturities of 2-10 years) saw yields go up by 0.6% to 0.9%:
2 year rose from 0.11% to 0.73%,
3 year rose from 0.16% to 0.97%,
5 year rose from 0.36% to 1.26%,
7 year rose from 0.64% to 1.44%,
10 yr rose from 0.93% to 1.52%
Though yields on T-bills rose only slightly, with the shortest maturity bills even having yields fall:
1 mo dropped from 0.09% to 0.06%
2 mo dropped from 0.09% to 0.05%
3 mo dropped from 0.09% to 0.06%
6 mo rose from 0.09% to 0.19%
12 mo rose from 0.10% to 0.39%
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yieldYear&year=2021
Since interest rates did not move in tandem, how a portfolio was affected depended on its distribution of bonds. Two portfolios with the same average duration could have all bonds of the same, relatively short duration (thus not much affected by rising rates), or a mix of very short term and somewhat longer duration bonds (with the latter losing more value).

I would probably opt for STIP for short-term TIP exposure, lower fees 0.05% versus 0.15% and shorter maturity bonds--0-5 years--so less sensitive to rising rates. VTIP also has lower fees. But TIPS in general look pricey right now.

Amex mmf yields 0.50 APY with up to 9 withdrawals/transfers per month. I already have a Schwab amex card-maybe I should just kick back and accept the 50 basis point return for my cash!