@shipwreckedandalone : Found it or one would say part of the problem.
How did the Fund’s overall asset allocation shift from beginning to end of the semi-annual period?
At the end of September 2020, the Fund had a weighting of approximately 56% in stocks, 36% in fixed income securities and
8% in cash equivalents. This compared to the allocation at the end of March 2020 of approximately 62% in stocks, 31% in fixed
income securities and 7% in cash equivalents. After the U.S. equity market rebounded sharply from its first quarter 2020 lows,
we positioned the Fund more defensively by increasing its allocation to fixed income in recognition of the heightened
uncertainties faced by the market.
Thanks Derf

When a fund's performance suddenly takes a nosedive or soars into the stratosphere, there are a few things I check before even delving into the fund's details:
- Is the performance naturally volatile, bouncing from top quintile to bottom? Not here.
- Has the fund recently switched categories? Not here.
- Does the fund typically invest in a portion of the market that has done well long term, but has recently seen its fortunes change?
Yes. Of the 50%-70% equity allocation funds, fourteen distinct funds, including VLAAX focus on large cap growth funds. Of these fourteen funds, aside from the notable exception of Puritan (FPURX, FPKFX), these funds have pretty much all done miserably YTD, generally in the bottom quintile, despite over half being 4-5* funds.
Puritan sits on the blend/growth border so would tend to be less severely hurt by the rotation from growth to value.

LOL - Always controversial. I find it really cumbersome to track more than 15 (plus 2 or 3 cash accounts). So strive to be in the 15-16 fund ballpark.
Sure, you can compile a single list of 50 funds if you want - and track. Not hard to do. But when you start arranging those into meaningful sub-groups, portfolio sleeves, or whatever else you call them … that’s when the rubber hits the road and tracking difficulty intensifies.
Currently, I hold 15-16 traditional type funds which provide exposure to a variety of investment types & styles. Here’s a list of those types.
(1) domestic growth
(2) domestic value
(3 ) global growth
4) gold / pm miners,
(5) commodities
(6) EM bonds,
(7) global investment grade income
8 domestic investment grade income,
(9) high yield municipal
(10) 2 risk parity funds
(11) a hedge-type fund
(12) a conservative multi-asset “tracking fund” which I own and also against which I measure my own performance
Honestly, I don’t think it matters much. I’m always looking for ways to consolidate / lessen the number. I’d say let your allocation model, goals and personal style dictate how many funds - as long as you can track them well.

I would recommend reading each quarterly fund commentary from their website going back 1-1.5 years. I remember one of those commentary briefly discusses reducing their risk.

For Value Line Asset Allocation Fund, Inc.: Ranked by Morningstar in the 92
nd
percentile for one-year (666 funds), 11
th
percentile for three-year (641 funds), 12
th
percentile for five-year (574 funds) and 7
th
percentile for 10-year (412
funds) periods ended March 31, 2021. Four-star rating for 3-year (641 funds) and 5-year (574 funds) periods en
You will have to read between the lines ,sorry.
Stay Kool, Derf

Thank you. The chart is a good reminder. The 10 year treasury yield is lowered to 1.53% today. Feel like the rates are being manipulated despite higher inflation is expected this year.

@little5bee I'm not sure if you're joking but I don't think that's the strategy and only reflective of current positioning. This fund has outperformed its peers every single calendar year since its December 2013 inception with a very high expense ratio and little explanation as to why it has managed to do that. There were a number of years it's outperformed when there was no liquidity crunch.

Old filing as of 2/12/21:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1355064/000158064221000669/alphacentricstratincome485a.htm
Prospectus as of 6/8/21:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1355064/000158064221002688/acstrategicincome497.htm

A June 8th good morning, @hank et al.
This chart is a permanent chart-link I set a number of years ago, for a quick reference; whenever I want to take a peek at U.S. gov't. yields.
The default at the bottom of the chart is "200 days". You may double click this number to change the "days", or right click to pull up a default range list; or you may drag the "200 day" or whatever date range you have set, to look at various year periods going backwards. You may stretch or shrink the "days" box by pulling or pushing either end of the box.
Also, you may hover the cursor over any line to discover the yield on a given day. Keep in mind, this is not a performance chart; although the percentage of change in the yield is indicated along the right edge of the chart.
Side note: bond investors and traders who are skilled at their observations, may make a decent living. The "take a walk on the wild side" (not the Lou Reed song) for a bond trader/investor could be the buys/sells of TBT and TMF etf's. There are other products in this investing sector, too.
One year chart here.
--- TBT is a choice for levered bets on rising interest rates. Using a combination of swaps and futures, TBT gives investors -2x exposure to daily moves in T-bonds with more than 20 years left to maturity. ... As a levered product, TBT is not a buy-and-hold ETF, it's a short-term tactical instrument.
--- TMF provides daily leveraged (3x) exposure to the ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index. Using a combination of swaps and futures, TMF gives investors 3x exposure to daily moves in T-bonds with more than 20 years left to maturity. The daily reset means investors shouldn't expect the leverage factor to hold constant over investment horizons greater than one day. In short, the fund is a valid option for tactical positioning/hedging against rising interest rates, but it's important to keep in mind that the 3x leverage results in greater impact from the effects of compounding. As a levered product, TMF is not a buy-and-hold ETF, it's a short-term tactical instrument.
Hey, set up a paper trade game and discover your skills. One may find another method of making some extra money on the side with a few 1,000's of cash. NOTE: I personally wouldn't do real trading in a taxable account. I don't want to think about the "tax time" and how much fun that accounting would become.
Regards,
Catch

10 year treasury bond slid to 1.54% this morning (June 8), down from around 1.57% yesterday morning.
While financial stocks (like banks) have soared this year on the expectation longer term interest rates would rise substantially, the circuitous path of 10-year tells a different story. Peaked near 1.7% about a month ago, but falling since.
(Schwab apparently called attention to the above inconsistency in an advisory of some sort today.)
The retrenchment of bond yields may be a short term aberration. Many market observers still expect the 10 year bond to hit 2% by year’s end. Some of the decline might be due to Fed meddling at the long end.
This does have some implication for value oriented funds, since they’re often loaded with banks and other financials. However, I wouldn’t make too much of it yet.

It's checkenshit. Corps need to pay a FAIR share. 15% is a sell-out. Ireland continues to undercut the rest of the world at 12.5%. THIS Irishman thinks that's totally unethical. Sweetheart deals. Bad. Corps ought to be paying a high-end middle-class rate, AT LEAST. ....Oh, wait! Yes, that's where the rate was before--- at 38%. Jayzuz H. Christ. ....The claim will always be made that "corporations don't pay taxes; they just pass along the tax in the cost of their goods and services." Ah, but that is a specific business decision. It's not inevitable. Just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be done.

Could some Fido fan tell me why Fido has 2005 &2010 retirement funds ? I would have thought the glide -path for these two would have them rolled, glided, into Retirement income by this time.

From Fidelity: Allocating assets among underlying Fidelity funds according to a "neutral" asset allocation strategy that adjusts over time until it reaches an allocation similar to that of the Freedom Income Fund approximately 10 to 19 years after the target year. Ultimately, the fund will merge with the Freedom Income Fund."
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/315792689
If you're asking why the runway is that long, that may be answered in this T. Rowe Price presentation of "to" vs. "through" glidepaths.
Slide 16 presents longevity risk - the odds of at least one member of a 65 year old couple living thirty more years or longer ranges from 1/4 to 1/3. A 20/80 portfolio in a period of 2% bond yields isn't going to cut it for 30 years.
Fidelity's glide path settles into this mix around age 85. See graph here:
https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/mutual-funds/how-fidelity-freedom-funds-work.pdf

These new laws would benefit the "under saved" more than the "over saved".
The "under saved" essentially by definition aren't maxing out contributions. So they're not the ones who would benefit from increased catch up limits. It's the "over saved" who would "over save" even more. To avoid tax traps, they'll put those extra dollars into Roths. There that extra money will grow tax free for decades until their estate passes to their heirs, who will then have another ten years of tax-free growth.
The "under saved" won't benefit from being able to delay RMDs because they're "under saved" - they already need to draw from their IRAs for economic rather than legal reasons. Without benefiting at all, it's hard to see how the "under saved" will benefit more than the "over saved".
I consider this to be a bit of a tax trap.
The "over saved" could between age 72 and 75 take the same withdrawals as they now take under the current RMD regimen. Thus they can easily avoid aggravating the tax trap for heirs. But rather than being forced to keep that money in a taxable account as they are now, the "over saved" would be allowed to redeposit that money into a Roth. (RMDs cannot be converted into Roth dollars.)
But wait, it gets better (for the "over saved") ...
legislation that would shut down the step up in basis
With this new ability between ages of 72 and 75 to move those (formerly RMD) dollars out of taxable accounts and into Roths, the "over saved" can now permanently shield appreciation of those dollars from taxation. No more would they have to worry about potential legislation that would do away with a step up. With the dollars in a Roth, who cares?
And better still, by paying taxes on the newly allowed conversions from a taxable account, one would effectively shelter more money and simultaneously reduce one's taxable estate.
Since 2010 when income limits were removed, Roth conversions have been suggested to avoid a tax trap. Advancing the RMD start age to 75 turbocharges this strategy.

@JD_co : Thanks for the link. Could some Fido fan tell me why Fido has 2005 &2010 retirement funds ? I would have thought the glide -path for these two would have them rolled, glided, into Retirement income by this time.
Stay Kool, Derf

The Comment section is worthwhile to see the new proposal in different situations. For example,

professor Kelly, "But Munnell objects to increasing the age for RMDs to 75. Employees are permitted to save pretax dollars so they can have a decent retirement, she says. Postponing RMDs to 75 would permit wealthy people to build up
big cash piles that they don’t need to touch, she says."
I consider this to be a bit of a tax trap. With the new rules for heir requiring a 10-year withdrawal window, it's quite possible that heirs will be forced to withdraw a lifetime's accumulated savings in just a few years, throwing them into punitive tax brackets, depending upon the number of children heirs involved. For the non-super-rich, Roth conversions in retirement are becoming more and more important.
Reply
20
KENNETH MORALES
Professor Kelly
15 minutes ago
You hit on the rational objectively. These new laws would benefit the "under saved" more than the "over saved". The over saved crowd can't take it with them and the Secure Act, "secured" taxes will be paid by their heirs. If Biden gets his way, he would sign legislation that would shut down the step up in basis on those inherited assets, there by increasing thd tax load.

The increase in starting RMD age would apply to all tax-sheltered plans, including 457 plans and regular IRAs (as contrasted with individual retirement annuities). The article lists only 401(k)s, 403(b)s and individual retirement annuities, leaving one to wonder about the rest.
Many (not all) people working more years already have a mechanism to defer RMDs until they retire.
As for everyone else, the ability to put off RMD for more years would benefit primarily those better off, those who don't need the additional tax break.

[T]his is only an issue for about 20% of people because most people already take out the required minimum amount or more annually... That’s “because they need the money to live on” — or they don’t even have a retirement account to begin with.

Here's What's Wrong With Raising RMD Age to 75, According to Retirement Experts
https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2021/04/16/heres-whats-wrong-with-raising-rmd-age-to-75-according-to-retirement-experts/

Hey catch, thanks for your suggestions.
Yes, in the past I paired up some equity funds with bond funds for a desired allocation mix. Beginning in 2006 mainly switched to moderate allocation funds, primarily PRWCX, but also a few others. One reason then as now and going into the future was for simplification. My wife is not interested in investing, so I needed a plan that could largely run itself if something happened to me. We are 57 & 54 and have largely saved what we will probably need for retirement and are pretty much just looking for moderate growth for the next 5-7 years.
I'm guessing Giroux is around 10 years younger than I which may mean another 13-18 years at PRWCX before his retirement, fingers crossed. After which I would still be looking for a one stop fund of some sort. From my minimal research, current allocation ETFs (AOR for example) are pretty lousy compared to PRWCX.

hank. This T-note etf may be a bit past what you're looking for......I've tracked this for a number of years. This Pimco TIPS etf is listed as 1-5 years, but generally only holds 2-5 year maturity. E.R. is .20%, so; doesn't cost much to buy.
This is the etf.com link below; and you can discover more when logged-in at Fido. Tis available at Fido.
STPZ

“I believe you could have sold 99% of your shares. Though as you said, you couldn't ask TRP to raise cash equal to 99% of yesterday's close, because there was no assurance you had enough shares for that.”
I didn’t try very hard. Perhaps. It was part of a distribution (RMD+). I like to deal in round numbers. Plan was to draw the amount needed for the distribution and than exchange the small remaining balance into something else next day. A message popped up telling me I could only exchange X dollars out. When I ran the math, I believe it was around 3% they wanted to retain. To keep it simple, I pulled a (lesser) round number from that fund and the rest from another.
@msf - thanks for clarifying the other issue for me. I have a lot to learn about brokerage trading vs direct at a single fund house. But the wider selection is kinda nice. :)
On another point … A Fido phone rep referenced a “good faith cash advance up to $25,000” available for certain situations. Sounds like you ran into something similar elsewhere. At Fido you do need to phone that one in.

Fido added a "Historically Stable Performers" category to its Mutual Fund Research search. You have to click "Fund Strategies".
121 funds show up. I think this must be pretty new.
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/fund-screener/results/table/overview/averageAnnualReturnsYear3/desc/1?beta=LS,0.75&order=standardDeviation,sharpRatio3Year,beta&sharpRatio3Year=1,GT&standardDeviation=0,10&strategy=historicallyStablePerformers