any negs or knocks on TIPX?

The 5 year TIPS/Treasury breakeven rate was 2.93% as of 01/04/22.
The long term average for the 5 year rate is 1.85%.
TIPS are "expensive" now.
If you believe inflation over the next five years will be greater than 2.93%,
you may want to consider purchasing TIPS instead of Treasuries.

I like CVSIX. It’s only about 4% of my total. But that’s a byproduct of being quite widely spread out. It is what it is - a “Steady Eddy” hybrid income fund with somewhat high fees. I doubt it can continue to crank out that “tepid” 4% - but it might. I was impressed that it managed to gain a bit Monday when bonds were largely hammered. Calamos is a very old house that has extensive experience with convertible bonds - their main tool in running the fund. I count it as a hybrid type income fund - somewhat riskier than a short term bond fund.
The darker shaded bars show the fund’s performance. Lighter shaded ones reflect its peer group per Lipper.

CVSIX - from Lipper / MarketWatch

But since I use MERFX as a cash substitute, 2%-3% per year is fine with me

The problem is for me a cash substitute fund cannot have sustained a loss greater than 2% in a year, and preferably no loss ever. Why take the risk with such meager returns? My cash subs include, SNGVX (1 off year in 31, so it gets a pass on my 2% rule); BBBMX; GILPX, VNLA (ETF) and even good old BSV (ETF). You can buy with confidence that any loss will be small and temporary. Not so clear with MERFX, which suffered a 5.67% loss in 2002 and 2.26% loss in 2008.

Not picking on anyone here, just remembering the statement that SNGVX had only one losing year out of 31. It's now 2 losing years out of 34, with nearly a 1% loss last year. Not much, but something one hopes not to see with a fund used in lieu of cash.
FWIW, BBBMX stayed in the green, gaining 0.01%.
GILPX did not, losing 0.07%. Likewise, MERFX lost 0.19%, VNLA lost 0.18% and BSV lost 0.12%.
These five funds, win or lose, came so close to zero that one might as well think of them all as having broken even. SNGVX was a different story.
Meanwhile, RPHYX kept chugging away, gaining 1.8% last year. Only 11 calendar years so far, but not a single loss.
I'm also taking a closer look at VMLTX. Only 1 losing year out of 34; that was just a loss of 0.16% in 2016. It normally maintains a higher than average duration to get higher returns. But it has shortened its duration to bring it in line with its peers, showing that it can be managed conservatively if conditions warrant.
My parents used this fund in retirement. Yes, this is still your father's VMLTX.

5x as many holdings (yes, not equally)

She does NOT like to pay TFs so any non-VG AA funds suggested should be NTF at VG
With $5M in this account alone, she gets 100 free trades (aside from the normally NTF funds) per year. Frenetic trader?
https://investor.vanguard.com/investing/transaction-fees-commissions/mutual-funds

@stillers: I think Vanguard Target Date funds could be used. If your friend wants maximum return and does not care about volatility, VTTHX, the 2035 fund, holds about 73% US and international stocks. 2035 is just an example; 2040 or 2045 will have even higher equity exposures. TDFs are not completely hands-off because as they approach the end date, the allocations change and become more conservative. If your friend is still doing well in five years, you could reassess her goals. In a tax-deferred account you can trade without penalty. VTTHX charges 0.14 % ER. Given the size of her account, I wonder if there is a cheaper share class.

>> foreign allocation. A drag over the past decade, could be a plus going forward
So Tillinghast has always thought too, over the decades, for some reason.
As I do my January rebalancings real and imagined, I'm trying to fathom what gaps (important gaps, not just on paper) VONG and DSTL 50-50 have for my (half or 2/3) equity holding.

What ever happened to indexes that actually measured something as opposed to defining investable portfolios? Oh well.
Saying that the AO* series just invest in various combinations of IVV, IJH, IJR, IDEV, IEMG, IUSB, and IAGG doesn't answer the question about why there's so much cash in these ETFs. It just pushes the question down a level: why is there so much cash in IUSB (and why is IAGG short cash)?
De facto, these underlying funds have particular cash allocations. But are those allocations what they're supposed to be? (Part of the answer may be the difference between how M* and BlackRock count cash, but I haven't looked more closely into that.)
S&P Target Risk Index Series Methodology
IUSB portfolio allocation, per M* 6.44% cash
IUSB portfolio allocation, per BlackRock 0.69% cash
(That must be net; the top holding of IUSB is BISXX, 10.07% per factsheet.)
IAGG portfolio allocation, per M* -0.24% net cash
IAGG portfolio allocation, per BlackRock 0.88% cash

Thanks for the replies.
I listed everything that I thought posters would need to know but based on some responses...
VHNW woman with well over $5M in this account alone who will likely never spend a dime of this money but would like it to be as large as possible for her gift to charity upon her death.
Amounts will only be w/d from this a/c because of RMDs.
There are NO required or even desired target stock/bond or domestic/foreign allocations.
She does NOT like to pay TFs so any non-VG AA funds suggested should be NTF at VG.
She desires AA funds in tribute to her beloved, deceased husband who always told her she should have "some bonds" in her portfolio after he passes, with AA funds being the simplest way for her to ensure that she does.
To repeat though...
Perhaps the most important "Particulars" to note are
Total Return investor seeking maximum TR over the next 5-??? years (via AA funds)
Tax-deferred account
Also of note...
I've been investing in OEFs since 1980 and there really aren't many (any?) GREAT AA OEFs that I am NOT aware of and/or own personally. SO I'm REALLY NOT looking for DETAIL of any given suggestions or WHY they were suggested or how they did during this/that period.
I'm REALLY just looking for poster's LISTS of 2-3 AA OEFs (NOT listed in the OP) that they believe will be amongst the BEST TR funds for the at least the next 5 years or until she becomes mentally incapacitated or passes. I can do the DD on them if I don't already know what I/she need to know about them.
Sorry for any confusion.

VSCGX did have a hard 2008. It was a different fund then, with 25% in an asset allocation fund (VAAPX) that could shift between 100% stocks and 100% bonds.
In 2008, VAAPX was (judging from its performance) completely allocated to stocks. It returned -36.39%, vs. the S&P's -37.00%, and vs. the -19.21% return of its blended (stock/bond) benchmark.
With a 25% allocation to VAAPX, it is not surprising that VSCGX underperformed its benchmark by 4.7% (close to 25% x 17.2% VAAPX underperformance).
To go back to 2008 is to look at two funds that no longer exist:
- a VSCGX fund holding anything other than total (stock or bond) market index funds, and
- VAAPX - a dynamic allocation fund that was merged into VBINX in 2012
2009 VSCGX prospectus for 2008 composition and performance/benchmark data
2009 VAAPX prospectus for 2008 data and for dynamic nature of fund
VAAPX 2012 prospectus supplement - completion of merger into VBINX

See my concluding sentence in the thread Seeking Suggestions for Vanguard Asset Allocation Funds: "Or even push it to a 30/70 fund (VTINX)."
This vanilla Vanguard fund of funds returned more than AOK over one day (YTD), one year (5.03% vs 4.37%), three years (9.46% vs. 9.20%), five years ( 6.78% to 6.66%), and 10 years (5.81% to 5.41%).
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=VTINX (compare with AOK)
Its volatility (std dev) was lower over three years (5.87% vs. 6.34%), five years (5.02% vs. 5.25%), and ten years (4.42% vs. 4.62%).
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/ratings-risk.action?t=VTINX
The main area in which VTINX (or more generally, retirement income funds) falls short is tax efficiency. These funds are designed to generate income, and are thus not great in taxable accounts.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/tax-analysis.action?t=VTINX

Given the limited number of other VG AA funds available, would you attempt to suggest
(1) any non-VG AA funds and if so, what would they be

My suggestion would be to check out FMSDX, a Great Owl fund with an excellent risk/reward profile that would also bring a significant element of diversification to the the portfolio.
Here is the latest data of FMSDX's composition:
Equities ex. Preferred Stock 46.54%
U.S. Treasury & Government Related Securities 17.75%
Investment-Grade Corporate Bonds 0.24%
Mortgage Backed Securities 0.01%
High-Yield Investments 14.70%
Bank Loans 6.23%
Convertibles 6.78%
Preferred Stock 4.52%
Emerging-Markets Debt 3.26%
Cash & Net Other Assets -0.03%
Good luck,
Fred

Thanks for the contribution to this thread. I tried to retrieve/search the T Rowe Price Report Fall 2004 article referenced without luck. Behind a wall. Wish I could find it. The article would give us more clarity and specific allocation holdings. However, I did notice the column headings from the 4/2021 article 1949-2013 study is using 20% equities 50% bonds and 30% cash producing the 6.8% annual number referenced. The Nov 2014 article used column headings of 30% Short (assume to be in error?) also producing 6.8% annual return. (not the 20/80 allocations we have been discussing).
As far as what is held within the bond holdings of the 80% (or 50%)...... references are made to Fidelity Asset Manager series and RPSIX for comparisons but as you said we do not know what TRP used in the study.
Interesting subject matter.
References are also made to M* Conservative Retirement Saver Portfolio using the Lifetime Allocation Indexes. Christine Benz wrote an article providing suggested funds with allocation %'s which I plan to analyze for metrics.

I think you meant: Your job, should you decide to accept it ... This portfolio will self destruct in five years :-)
While active management (I'm a big fan of Wellington) can add some value its impact is marginal compared with the effect of allocation decisions. I'd focus on that, and then just pick the fund or funds that best match the chosen allocation.
For example, Life Strategy Conservative Growth (VSCGX) and Wellesley (VWIAX) are both 40/60 funds. VWIAX has done better over the past 1 and 10 years, while VSCGX has done better over the past 5. Over the past 3 years the difference was minuscule (0.04%).
With respect to the allocation of foreign securities, the portfolio is underweighted. I might try to increase that. (OTOH, given the long term underperformance of foreign holdings, this suggestion might be analogized to eating one's vegetables.)
Vanguard's neutral foreign allocation is 40%. (I'll dig up a source for that if needed.) VSCGX seems to target that, with 40% of its equity holdings being foreign. It also has a healthy slug of foreign bonds. So that's one way to boost foreign exposure. VGSTX (30% of equity is foreign) is another.
The point is not to pick funds at the start, but to identify a target allocation (stock/bond, domestic/foreign) and then pick the funds that most simply come close to that target.
FWIW, if the cash really is not needed over the next decade, and the target time frame is 5-10 years, a traditional 60/40 allocation would be reasonable. If the cash might be used in under five years, I'd think in terms of bond funds. Since the friend wants allocation funds, one could use a 20/80 fund (VASIX) and overweight it. Or even push it to a 30/70 fund (VTINX).

Is the object is to get the maximum return for the minimum volatility (which IMHO is not the same as risk, but a subject for another day) with a traditional fixed allocation? That seems to be what's implied by the observation that a 20/80 allocation has the potential for 60% of the returns with 25% of the volatility.
Again using Portfolio Visualizer, one can see that the optimal allocation (using 20/20 hindsight) varies depending on the calendar years used. "Optimal" here meaning highest reward/"risk", i.e. highest Sharpe ratio. Using VTSMX and VBMFX as proxies for the US stock and bond markets, the optimal allocations (per PV) are:
Jan 2019 - Dec 2021 (3 years): 20.4/79.6, Sharpe ratio 1.64 (same as 20/80)
Jan 2017 - Dec 2021 (5 years): 21.8/78.2, Sharpe ratio 1.28 (vs. 1.27 for 20/80)
Jan 2012 - Dec 2021 (10 years): 26.5/73.5, Sharpe ratio 1.35 (vs. 1.33 for 20/80)
Jan 2007 - Dec 2021 (15 years): 13/87, Sharpe ratio 1.15 (vs. 1.11 for 20/80)
Even though the optimal allocation varies widely (from 13% stocks to 26% stocks) depending on years and time frame, a fixed 20/80 allocation appears to come very close to optimal in all periods. So it's likely not productive to try to vary one's allocation based on future predictions.
The Sharpe ratios (per PV) over 3/5/10/15 year periods for VASIX, FASIX, and BACPX are lower than the fixed 20/80 Sharpe ratios above:

Period	VASIX	FASIX	BACPX
3 years	 1.43	1.28	1.46
5 years	 1.15	1.01	1.10
10 years 1.22	1.10	1.27
15 years 0.86	0.76	0.66

https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio
If one periodically rebalances one's portfolio, then there's no additional work in buying two index funds and maintaining a 20/80 mix. But if one wants a set-and-forget portfolio, then a single fixed allocation fund (or a target date fund if one wants the mix to gradually change) or a cheap robo advisor that uses basic broad market index funds could be the best and simplest choices.

Premise:
You are gratuitously managing the portfolio of a 70-year old dear friend in great health with NO income or cash needs.
Friend has been sitting on about 20% cash for the past several years and has decided she now wants to invest some/all of it.
Friend particulars:
Total Return investor seeking maximum TR over the next 5-??? years
Tax-deferred account
Volatility is NOT an issue
Diversification is NOT an issue
Already owns sizeable chunks of VWENX, VBIAX, VWIAX and VGWAX and does NOT want to add to those positions
ONLY wants to own VG Asset Allocation funds
No heirs, entire estate is being willed to charities
Friend has never and you trust will never hold you accountable for anything related to her portfolio performance
Your job:
You are trying to compile a suggestion list of at least 2-3 funds but know there are not many more VG AA funds available.
Given this premise and these particulars, what VG Asset Allocation fund(s) would you suggest?
EDIT: I have compiled my suggestion list but don't want to present it here yet and possibly affect other suggestions.
Given the limited number of other VG AA funds available, would you attempt to suggest
(1) any non-VG AA funds and if so, what would they be
(2) simply adding to existing holdings?

FASIX 1/3/5/10/15y = 3.76 7.66 5.53 4.78 4.46
VASIX 1/3/5/10/15y = 1.56 7.49 5.61 4.92 4.60
(if I am reading the M* data right)
so for me no

I believe the unnamed article referenced is one from Prof. Snowball:
Investing in 2022: The Indolent Portfolio (Jan 2022), citing
The case for a stock-light portfolio, version 4.0 (April 2021), or
Mutual Fund Commentary Nov 1, 2014
They all reference the same T. Rowe Price analysis of data from 1949 to 2013. For more current data and something a bit more interactive, Portfolio Visualizer has an efficient frontier tool.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/efficient-frontier
Worth noting is that the TRP analysis probably uses either Treasuries or total US (IG) bond market for the fixed income portion. Those have virtually zero correlation with the US stock market.
This matters because as one uses "junkier" bonds (moving from IG funds to core-plus funds, multi-sector, and ultimately to HY funds) the correlation with stocks increases substantially. This in turn reduces the diversification effect of the bonds and thus does less to temper the equity volatility. Interestingly, according to PV, using HY rather than IG bonds results in a lower return efficient frontier. That is, for a given target volatility, HY + equities returns less than IG + equities.
This PV output shows the efficient frontiers and optimal allocations (i.e. highest Sharpe ratios) using data from 1987 through 2021.
The higher efficient frontier (EF) curve, i.e. the one with the higher return for a given level of volatility, is the IG + equity portfolio. Mixing HY and equity doesn't do as well. An 80/20 IG/equity mix, according to the curve, has a standard deviation of around 4.4%, or around 30% of the 15.3% volatility of a pure equity portfolio. It also has an average return of 7%, which is about 60% of the 12.3% return from the equity portfolio. Figures that are consistent with the TRP results.
You can play around with this, e.g. using a portfolio of HY, Intermediate Treasuries, and equities. The result of that experiment suggests that once one goes above 40% in equities, one is better off leaving out the junk bonds.

fyi.. ...
since inception VASIX vs SPY runs 56% of CAGR and 29% of SD. 10/1994. Lo as 16% Equity.
since inception FASIX vs SPY runs 55% of CAGR and 31% of SD. 2/1993. Hi as 25% Equity.
since inception VBMFX/SPY vs SPY runs 60% of CAGR and 28% of SD. 2/1993.
The 60/20 may also be a good trade off depending on market valuations, business cycle and future perceptions of return (or loss). 100% equity portfolio in retirement normally not used.

A 15-85 or 20-80 stock-bond portfolio is also called parity portfolio that means that the SDs of stock and bond portions are nearly equal.
There are several funds/OEFs that offer this mix - FASIX, VASIX.
Hedge-fund managers may put high leverage on such parity portfolios.
Some may use these as next level of risk up from core bond funds; another way is core-plus. Idea is to add some stocks or HY to core/inv-grade bonds.
There are some multisector and HY bond funds with up to 20% equity, RPSIX (MS), FAGIX (HY).
So, there is something to this 15-20% equity solution.