One I’m messing with just a bit but am reluctant to mention: ALAAX.
What is it? An income producing fund with about 50% in bonds, 30% in equities, 5% cash and 15% “other”. (The “other” likely includes REITS, commodities, convertibles and a few short positions.)
Goal? To provide income greater than what bonds alone can produce, using dividend paying stocks inside that 30% component.
Fee: .76% due to a fee wavier. Lower than otherwise, but still too high IMO.
What I like: Seems to have outdistanced RPSIX and other multi-asset income funds over longer periods by 2 or 3 percentage points, albeit with more risk. A decent supplement to my mostly conservative bond bunds.
What I don’t like: In addition to the .76% fee, everybody seems to hate this fund. M* rates it 2 / 5. Lipper has it in the bottom 20% on performance (but higher on cap preservation). Max Funds gives it something like a 35% (poor) rating. Also, a few of the underlying funds stink - including some of the aggressive bond bunds that blew-up on Oppenheimer in 2008.
PS - I like the concept and have searched for an ETF with lower fees that resembles this. But haven’t come across anything. I still have some $$ directly at Invesco which helps explain how I stumbled on this one.

I found the most sobering analysis focused on the jobs report with it's huge miss of expected payroll ( 235,000 ) and the large increase in hourly wages ( 0.6%)
https://www.barrons.com/articles/economy-jobs-report-fed-stagflation-51630706928?mod=past_editions
This coupled with dramatic decreases in the expected GDP growth ( 2.5% down from 6.5%) makes me very cautious.
As soon as the Fed takes away the punch bowl, watch out. But this time Bonds are so over priced there will be little shelter there, especially if rates rise

This week’s Barron’s is disappointing in that Randall Forsyth is missing for the second straight week. Ben Levisohn, filling in at the Up & Down Wall Street spot isn’t nearly as good, IMHO. Levisohn addresses Friday’s disappointing jobs numbers - but I’m not quite sure where he’s going …
Generally, this week’s publication reflects a highly bullish tone. Several articles mention a continuing accommodative Federal Reserve stance. One article is titled “A Homebuilder Stock That Could Soar 65%”. Another bullish take appears in the magazine’s lead article, “The Trader” with its headline: “The Trend is Your Friend.”
One note of dissension appears from perma-bear Alan M Newman in the section featuring recent “snippets” from different market pundits. Here’s a brief excerpt:
“There are now so many parallels with history-making manias such as the South Sea Bubble, the Roaring ’20s, Tulip Mania, and even the relatively recent Tech/Internet Bubble that the present era in retrospect, may one day appear the craziest of all …. Today’s parallels are every bit as crazy, even hilarious. While the blockchain technology that many of the roughly 4,500 invented crypto currencies is based on is valid, there is ample reason to dispute valuations …
A Google search for ‘intrinsic value of Dogecoin,’ returns ‘..has no intrinsic value’. Thus, Dogecoin has turned out to be the 2021 equivalent of “carrying on an undertaking of great advantage but no-one to know what it is.’ You can’t make this stuff up, folks.” *
There’s an in-depth look at SEC Chair Gary Gensler’s efforts to overhaul equity trading platforms with the goal of making the prices paid by small investors fairer. Robinhood, particularly, is in his cross-hairs. Gensler likes to shake thing up. One may recall about a dozen years ago when he took on the mutual fund industry, publicly decrying what he considered excessive fees - at the same time his twin brother Robert managed one of T. Rowe Price’s largest equity funds.
* Excerpted passage from Barron’s - September 6, 2021
Feel free to add other opinions from Barron’s or other sources / pundits you may follow.

Vanguard's MGK (Mega Cap Growth) might be an even better choice:

https://seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4453466-mgc-vanguards-mega-cap-etf-holds-nothing-but-winners
MGC: Vanguard's Mega-Cap ETF Holds Nothing But Winners
Sep. 3, 2021 1:24 PMVanguard Mega Cap ETF (MGC)AAPL, AMZN, BRK.A
Summary
The Vanguard MGC ETF is a passive managed fund that tracks a Mega-Cap Index.
Maybe good idea buy some MCG

How much does the 3.5 T infrastructure package , if passed, play into ones investment ideas ? Just maybe the passage is already priced in ?!
Trying to stay Kool, Derf

Sept 3rd Episode:

PYEWX
Also, look at short lived Vanguard Emerging Markets Bond Admiral, VEGBX

@MikeW : Availability Trust Company Customers Only
Automatic Investment PlanHelp No
52 Week Range $42.85 - $67.91 (for SMVLX)
SVFAX is open at Schwab
Does this help, Derf

Bonds Are Trash, Says Bond King Bill Gross. Stocks Could Be Next Too.
Bond yields have “nowhere to go but up,” and the intermediate- to long-term bond funds that invest in them are “new contenders for the investment garbage can,” the former PIMCO head and founder Bill Gross wrote on his blog this week.
Gross calculates that 10-year Treasury yields rising to 2% in the next year from their current 1.3% would hand investors negative total returns of 2.5% to 3%.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/bonds-stocks-trash-bill-gross-51630582073?tesla=y
You can read whole article incognito search Google
What do we do??

We are looking at building a portfolio that can not be changed for 5 years looking ahead from today (other than rebalancing). It might be helpful to include VWINX in the mix because it doesn't rely on a five year continuation from today of out-performance principally related to market behavior during the recent central bank supported stock market melt-up. VWINX has performed well since 1977 through many types of market conditions. And, looking at the 2008 to early 2009 stock market catastrophe suggests it may outperform again when the next catastrophe occurs -- if it doesn't outperform again before then.
Here is a picture that looks at the performance of VWINX and the mixed asset funds in the Catastrophe Portfolio since 9/25/2002 which is the inception date for COTZX (FAYZX is omitted due to its short life).

update:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1444822/000119312521265144/d439010d497.htm
497 1 d439010d497.htm AQR RISK PARITY II MV FUND
AQR FUNDS
Supplement dated September 3, 2021 (“Supplement”)
to the Class I Shares, Class N Shares and Class R6 Shares
Summary Prospectus, Prospectus
and Statement of Additional Information, each dated May 1, 2021,
as amended, of the AQR Risk Parity II MV Fund (the “Fund”)
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information. Please review this important information carefully. You may obtain copies of the Fund’s Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information free of charge, upon request, by calling (866) 290-2688, or by writing to AQR Funds, P.O. Box 2248, Denver, CO 80201-2248.
At a meeting held on August 19-20, 2021, the Board of Trustees of AQR Funds (the “Trust”) approved a proposal to liquidate the Fund on or about November 5, 2021 (“Liquidation Date”). Information regarding the liquidation was disclosed to shareholders via a Prospectus supplement dated August 20, 2021. A copy of this August 20, 2021 supplement can be obtained free of charge by calling (866) 290-2688, or by writing to AQR Funds, P.O. Box 2248, Denver, CO 80201-2248. You may also view this supplement on the AQR Funds website at https://funds.aqr.com/fund-documents by viewing the Fund’s current Summary Prospectus or Prospectus.
In the August 20, 2021 supplement, it was disclosed that the Fund had declared two dividends to occur prior to the Liquidation Date, a special distribution to all holders of record as of August 30, 2021 and a second special distribution to all holders of record as of November 1, 2021, collectively consisting of any undistributed income and capital gains (net of available capital loss carryovers).
The Fund has now declared a third dividend to occur prior to the Liquidation Date, a special distribution to all holders of record as of September 10, 2021. In addition, prior to the Liquidation Date, the Fund may declare one or more additional dividends to all holders of record as of a date or dates to be determined. Prior notice of such additional dividends will be posted to the AQR Funds website at https://funds.aqr.com.
We appreciate your investment in the AQR Funds. For more information, please contact the Trust at (866) 290-2688.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE

Bill Smead was a regular guest on the local PBS finance show "About the Money".
I was impressed by his thoughtful investment strategy and candid demeanor.
I didn't like Smead Value Fund's expense ratio which was rather high.
The fund has performed well with top 5% returns in the large value category for the trailing 3 Yr, 5 Yr, and 10 Yr periods.
Note: Smead Value Fund was classified as a large blend fund by M* from 2011 (or before) through 2017.

Schwab will apparently charge $50 to $75 to buy VTMFX ( although I just put in a fake trade and there was no fee) FFFDX and FMSDX. VTMFX is not available at Fidelity. Vanguard apparently has the Fidelity funds but will charge $50
It is difficult to construct a similar portfolio using different funds, as the allocations in FFFDX and FMSDX are different in other similarly named funds.
Sometimes it seems I spend more time trying to see if a particular fund is available than I spend researching the competence of the manger, risk, and relative return etc.

The short version of my most recent experience with Vanguard.
For the past two months, Yodlee has not been updating my Schwab account when I log in to Vanguard. It appears to be a 2FA problem. I have sent countless messages to my Flagship representative and Vanguard's Web Technical Services. Ten days ago, I spoke with a Monique Burnett, "Resolution Associate" with Vanguard out of their North Carolina call center.
This past Monday, I sent yet another message to my Flagship Rep. Yesterday, I received the following message from him:
"Thank you for your e-mails.
The Yodlee issues that you are experiencing have been brought to the
attention of our Web Technical Support Team.
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
Kind regards,"
That message was followed by this one:
"Thank you for your email.
I have tried following up with Yodlee on your Charles Schwab issues. We
have not received an update to this point and understand your frustration.
Unfortunately we are dealing with a 3rd party vendor. This issue cannot be
resolved by Vanguard internally.
I sent a message to our vendor team and asked them to follow up with Yodlee
again. As soon as I hear anything, I promise I will contact you
immediately.
Again, I apologize for this delay and do appreciate your patience.
Support Specialist
Vanguard Web Technical Support Services"
I have left no less than 15 voice messages with Monique Burnett without a return call.
Mona

JR writes in essence that minor discrepancies among multiple sources of data are on the same order of magnitude as the difference between multiplicative and additive calculations. So don't sweat it.
I'll decompose that because I disagree with two out of three parts:
1. Data sources will be inconsistent. While true, that's a problem that can be circumvented by using a single data source containing all the necessary data.
Shiller's data contains:
a. CPI-U by month - so one can calculate inflation over any period of time
b. Earnings (E) by month - so one can calculate earnings growth over any period of time
c. S&P price (P) by month - so one can calculate P/E by month and thus multiple expansion over any period of time
d. Dividends (D) by month, so one can calculate D/P (dividend rate) over any period of time.
(JR adds another source of discrepancy; for earnings growth he cites a source for the entire economy, not for the S&P 500.)
2. The order of magnitude of these discrepancies is roughly the same as that of percentage differences when comparing multiplicative and additive results.
That is, if one factor adds 3%/year and another factor adds 2%/year, we can combine them by adding and get a 5%/year gain, or we can multiple them to get (1+3%) x (1 + 2%) - 1 = 5.06%. It's just a small difference and comparable to differences introduced by using multiple data sources. Granted.
3. The percentages (which may be off slightly due to #2) are unchanged over time. For example, if one factor accounts for 2% of the gain in a year and another factor accounts for 3% of the gain in a year, the same will be true over 45 years. That is, compounding the returns doesn't change the factor impacts (here 40%:60%).
This is wrong, and this is the main point I've been driving at.
Consider inflation and multiplier expansion. For simplicity, we'll assume that no divs are paid and earnings don't grow.
Annualized rates are: Inflation 3.51% and multiple expansion 2.19% (from original column)
To allocate weights, we just take each value's percentage of the sum total.
Inflation accounts for 3.51/5.70 = 62% of the total, and
multiple expansion accounts for 2.19/5.70 = 38% of the total.
After 45 years, inflation has increased the price by (1.0351)^45 - 1 = 372%, and
multiple expansion has increase the price by (1.0219)^45 - 1 = 165%
Over 45 years, inflation accounts for 372/537 = 69% of the total, and
multiple expansion accounts for 165/537 = 31% of the total.
One cannot allocate percentage impacts by using annualized figures. Compounded over time, the larger factors loom ever larger while the smaller factors play less and less of a role. The reason for this is compounding, i.e. multiplying, rather than adding returns.
Worth a mention: None of these items obscure the general pattern. Tinker with them all, and inflation still comes out as the largest factor, followed by profits, then dividends, then multiple expansion
He looked at a 45 year period. But when we take the longer view, more than double that time, i.e. a century, the general pattern shifts. Dividends are more important than inflation.
Over 45+ years, annualized inflation is 3.51% and average dividend rate is 2.75% (I get 2.77%).
Over a century, annualized inflation is 2.77% and average dividend rate is 3.83%.
I won't bore you with the formulas, but I will make it easy for you to reproduce and check. Using Shiller's spreadsheet, here are the four expressions needed:
Jan 1976 - March 2021:
inflation =POWER(E1811 / E1268,1/45.25)-1
av div rate =SUMPRODUCT(C1269:C1811,1/B1269:B1811)/(45.25 * 12)
July 1921 - June 2021:
inflation =POWER(E1814/E614,12/1200)
av div rate =SUMPRODUCT(C615:C1814,1/B615:B1814)/(100 * 12)

I loathe dealing with Vanguard.
The last time I tried to make an XFER in, the rep kept directing me to open an online account. When I explained that I do not want to do an online account due to some recent experiences with identity theft, she proceeded to try to open an online account for me -- without really telling me what she was doing. When I figured out what she was doing, I kept asking: "please just send me a PDF form via email or regular mail". She kept saying in response "I can't do that ... and, we're trying to save you money by doing it all online"; to which I replied "I've spent over 45 minutes dealing with Vanguard today, which is taking away from my other work and thereby costing me money".
She kept refusing to help me in the way I was asking, so I finally put it her "...do you understand that I'm trying to transfer money into Vanguard -- I'M TRYING TO GIVE YOU MONEY -- and you are making it hard for me to do business with you....your way of performing this transaction is a disincentive for me doing future business with you".
She finally, finally, finally emailed me a partially filled-out PDF (something that at first she said she couldn't actually do). I never completed the transaction, and have not since transferred any more money over to Vanguard.
I really really loathe working with Vanguard. I have repeatedly directed family members away from investing with them.

But FIDO hopes you've at least thought about an exit strategy. I consider this thoughtful of them.
One may imagine the message you would have received from a RobinHood account.
"Don't you want to buy some more?" "You call yourself an investor?" "Looks like a pretty chicken s#*@ trade to our system."

Robinhood: "buy more! Don't you want to earn some confetti animations and more badges!"
[producer, to the director's earpiece]: "Because RH needs the order flow since 80% of quarterly revenue came from it."

WTF are badges? I've been using RH for more than 5 years and never heard of them.
I really don't get the hate on RH. People using the platform do benefit from PFOF in aggregate; I've also used Fidelity for 10+ years and have cumulatively saved less than $1 for "price improvements" because of their "better" execution.

@BenWP - You are mostly correct. (But it has to do with moderating potential losses on the long end.) The rationale was explained somewhat better in my comment in @davfor’s recent thread.

A short South China Morning Post article with a few examples of how these terms are being put to work by Chinese regulators. The depth, breadth, and expected duration of the crackdown somewhat surprise me. But, suspect most Chinese businesses will adapt and continue to thrive. Still have the shares of MEGMX (30% China/Hong Kong per latest report) purchased when it opened for trading in mid spring 2020. Nothing so far is making me think about selling.
Xi Jinping says Big Tech crackdown is making progress, calls for Communist Party to ‘guide’ companies