Prospectus for both funds:
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/935015/000119312522048212/d473071d497.htm

Beating a dead horse, and yet it continues to kick.
I used to have an individual 401(k) with TRP, but closed it three years ago. Really, really closed it - informed TRP that I was terminating the plan, filed a final 5500 with the IRS.
Got a mailing last week saying that I had to file papers restating the plan. This is something that happens every few years for plans that are open. Not plans that are closed, terminated, kaput.
Called TRP (with the now typical 20 minute hold). They insisted that while I had zeroed out the account, the plan was still open. I asked how I could now terminate the plan. I was told I didn't have to do anything, I could just leave the plan dormant. Alternatively, TRP did have a way to formally close the plan - please wait while we put you on hold.
When the rep came back, I was told that, sure enough, my plan really was closed. But that happened some time ago and she had to look into the records. (What was she looking at up to that point?)
That still left me having received legal paperwork for a plan that was terminated years ago. What next? 5498s for IRAs that were closed out a decade ago? 1099s showing zero income?
It appears you can check out any time you like (with a lot of effort) but you can never leave.

Not wanting to “step on” all the excellent info from those above who know a lot more than I do …
But the comment by @Observant1,“Multi-alternative funds tend to be pricey, complex, and opaque”, rings true here. IMHO if you’re going to use these types of funds, stick with those from larger established houses with a lot of name recognition and, of course, demonstrated integrity. I track perhaps a dozen similar. But most of my allocation is to TMSRX and BAMBX (purchased recently). Another “black-box” I own is Invesco’s ABRZX - again, putting my faith in an established provider - albeit higher fees.
Why? These large firms have a lot more to loose if they screw up. And, hopefully have better compliance divisions. Also, their profitability isn’t concentrated in just 1, 2 or 3 funds, lessening the incentive to cut corners / play games.
Thanks @TheShadow for the important update!

We've seen something similar before. Several years ago two funds in another fund family mispricing securities. When the prices were corrected, the funds suffered one day drops of 44.0% and 69.4%.
That mispricing was not done by tweaking computer models as here. Rather, according to the SEC charge the mispricing was aided and abetted by the independent pricing company. Of course the charge included fraud and lack of transparency. Oh, and insider trading.
JR suggests that in order to pull something like this off, the fund has to be investing in esoteric, exotic instruments, otherwise one could just read off market prices. A security doesn't have to be exotic to be thinly traded. The other funds invested in junk munis. Not your run of the mill vanilla bonds, but not exactly esoteric either.
WSJ, 2011, Mutual Funds' Muni-Debt Prices Are Questioned
He also says that this could not happen in a fund company with compliance officers and supervisors. Not necessarily. They could be complicit. With these two funds, not only did the SEC charge the CEO and founder, but also the COO, the general counsel, the senior VP of trading, the treasurer, three independent directors and an associated director.
The upshot? The CEO retained that position until he handed it over to his son in 2013. He remains chairman. He's still managing the fund family's original fund. Five years after the charges were filed, the SEC told the parties not to do it again ("cease and desist") and fined the fund family and the CEO a joint amount of $3.5M. Other participants were each fined a lesser amount of $95K or $25K.
The CEO was William J. Nasgovitz. The funds were Heartland High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund and Heartland Short Duration High-Yield Municipal Fund. Given that the board did nothing and allowed Nasgovitz to retain his position for two decades, I will never invest in a Heartland fund.
SEC press release detailing charges
SEC complaint
Paragraph summary of SEC administrative action with link to SEC doc
From MFO's briefly noted:

As part of Heartland Advisors’ succession plan, founder William (“Bill”) J. Nasgovitz intends to transfer a controlling interest in Heartland Advisors to Will Nasgovitz, the Chief Executive Officer of Heartland Advisors, in 2022. The elder Mr. Nasgovitz launched the firm, and the Heartland Value Fund, in 1984.

https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2022/01/briefly-noted-63/

As of about 10 AM CT, major averages are below/at/near late-January lows. Only R2000/IWM is well above (it had been beaten down quite badly already). Is this the "flush" that the current Barron's mentioned? Stay tuned.
https://stockcharts.com/h-perf/ui?s=$SPX&compare=$COMPQ,$INDU,$TRAN,IWM&id=p74263540530

M* JR https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1080326/infinity-q-diversified-alpha-worst-fund-ever
"The Verdict
Is Infinity Q Diversified Alpha the worst mutual fund ever? Many funds have lost more money. Indeed, three dozen registered mutual funds have 10-year annualized returns worse than negative 20%. (All 36 funds use short strategies, most of them leveraged.) But to my recollection no other fund has so effectively combined marketing arrogance, high fees, investment inscrutability, and failed ethics. That it did so while possessing enough assets to cause real damage only adds to its tally.
For me, Infinity Q Diversified Alpha takes the prize."

Putin is into 2 "independent" Ukraine regions for "peacekeeping" and the world is reacting with limited sanctions. This is a start of something bad.
Futures started out deep in red Monday evening but started turning around 1:30 AM CT.

I'll place this again.........global futures indices........11:30 PM, EST.
Markets are a bit twitchy.

Not a big Zweig fan. But this one’s pretty good - provided the link pulls it up. I’ve found I can sometimes access a complete article on the first try - but that repeated attempts often fail. Published in the Wall Street Journal February 19, 2022 (but extracted elsewhere for posting). Note: Contains some discussion of John Hussman and HSGFX.
“ Don’t look at me. … That’s just about every investor’s motto when something goes wrong. In the old days, you could blame your stockbroker or fund manager for losing your money. Now that your stockbroker is your phone and your fund manager is an index, it’s a lot harder to point your finger at somebody else.”
https://www.livemint.com/market/stock-market-news/stock-market-got-you-worried-write-a-d-day-note-11645261228704.html

Russia market down -4.8% Monday
Russia market futures down -17%, but not trading at this time 9pm EST.
I.G./Gov't bonds, of course; are positive in pricing, as well as commodities.
For Vlad, The Madman:
Madman Across The Water.......Elton John/Bernie Taupin.....partial lyrics
I can see very well
There's a boat on the reef with a broken back
And I can see it very well
There's a joke and I know it very well
It's one of those that I told you long ago
Take my word I'm a madman, don't you know
Once a fool had a good part in the play
If it's so would I still be here today
It's quite peculiar in a funny sort of way
They think it's very funny everything I say
Get a load of him, he's so insane
You better get your coat dear
It looks like rain, yeah

Early Monday evening Dow futures are off more than 400 points (about 1.4%). S&P futures are off 1.6% , NASDAQ futures down 2.25%. Gold well above $1900 at the moment, it’s highest level in a year. Asia’s down big of course. Bonds gaining. U.S. 10 Year treasury now at 1.87% - just slightly ahead of the 5 year (1.77%).
Rate inversion coming?
Still too early to dip in equities?
Tuesday may be a day only Hussman could love.

To davidrmoran's point: https://thenation.com/article/politics/inflation-price-gouging/?custno=&zip=&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%2021.02.2022&utm_term=daily
And yes, the Democrats will pay the overinflated political price for this sort of corporate gouging in the mid-terms if they don't speak up about it. Two basic points could reinvigorate the party: 1. Inflation comes from many sources, including gouging, and 2. taxes pay for stuff you actually need--military, roads, bridges, schools, healthcare, social security. The former point they might make. The latter they never will.

When a fund house (VG) can tumble from #3 to #43 in a year there’s something wrong with the gage being used.

When the cause of that decline is laid (in part) at the foot of VPMAX, there's more wrong than just the gauge.

Vanguard's drop occurred, in part, because of weaker relative performance in two of its three biggest funds, the $72 billion Vanguard PrimeCap (ticker: VPMAX) and the $59 billion Vanguard International Growth (VWILX).

At the end of 2020, the fund had $70B in assets (per quarterly filing), so its weighting didn't change much.
Its one year performance in 2020 put it at the 93rd percentile of LCG funds (per M*). Its one year performance in 2021 put it at the 88th percentile of LC Blend funds. M* changed its category in 2021, but its portfolio had been blend since 2018. If it had been ranked against LCG fund in 2021, it would have been ranked at the 54th percentile (same 2021 performance as BLYRX).
No matter how you slice it, Primecap's relative performance in 2021 matched if not exceeded its relative performance in 2020. So, rather than pulling Vanguard's 2021 ranking down, Primecap should have either had little effect or raised Vanguard's 2021 position. Poor performance both years, but slightly less poor from a ranking perspective in 2021.

@hank, sorry about the confusing title.
She questioned the possibility of recession. Given the last quarter's GDP of over 4%, it has to get much worse to go negative. She mentioned high inflation but did not elaborate consequences.
As for us, changes were made last year. They are bearing fruits now: rotated from growth to value funds (both US and oversea), added precious metal and commodity funds, moved bond funds to short duration bonds and TIPS, and cash. Otherwise, our portfolio is down modestly. Considering the market condition, it would be down even more.

Thanks for the nice summation. Being “down a bit” comes with the territory if you’re invested for capital appreciation / growth. I don’t mind being down a few % some years. Limiting losses is about the best one can hope for unless you go into cash or some types of fixed income. In 2008 I lost 21%. Hurt a bit. But time horizon was much longer then and made it up in subsequent years. Situation much different today. Age forces some of us to take less risk and protect against double-digit losses.

@hank - do you know what happened to DraftKings. That was quite an owiee they took Friday.

DKNG? I’d averaged in (3rd time) at around $21 early in the month. Became concerned as it began to swing up and down by 5-10% daily. Sold out at $22.33 Monday. On Friday it was down 15% before the market opened. And finished the day off 18-20%.” Current price: $17.29 - No plans to reacquire.(Probably should knock it out of my tracker before end up buying again).
Why did it tumble? The ostensible reason was their earnings report released early Friday. While revenue was OK, new users acquired were lower than anticipated. And the cost of incentives (cash give-always to attract new users) had reached epic amounts as these firms fight for market share. I think it’s deeper than that. (1) Nobody thinks they can be profitable until about 5 years out. So they’re bleeding cash. (2) Firms like this rely on cheap funding to keep growing. With interest rates rising that’s bad news (3)Taxes imposed by states are high already (over 50% in NY) and it’s likely that when states need additional revenue they’ll turn to the online gamers first.
There’s a body of opinion suggesting DKNG is a good takeover candidate. An offer could overnight lift the price by $5 - $10 per share. Suspect that’s true. But I’m not in the merger / arbitrage business.

Thanks. The source of imported oil changed significantly from Middle East to Canada. So there is less geopolitical risk in that region.

To the degree the U.S. does still import oil, more of it is coming from our closest ally. Canada was the source of 51% of U.S. petroleum imports in the first 10 months of 2021, compared with 8% from the Persian Gulf.

+2 / That’s hilarious. Thanks @bee :)
I’m almost inclined to think that was done intentionally somewhere along the editing / publishing road - for what purpose one might only speculate. My spell-checker seems to want nothing to do with “rentension.”
“This article appeared in the the Summer 2010 issue of the NW Snowsports Instructor, which you can download from this website here: https://www.psia- “
Possibly a dim-witted or unhappy employee pulling a “snow-job” on Snowsports?
I’ll toss out an updated model and see if anyone can find a misspelling in it. I hope my point about drawing from a variety of opinions and projections and than charting your own course isn’t lost. I cannot remember a single time when all the articles in a copy of Barron’s viewed the outlook for different investment assets in the same way or all the business executives & money managers interviewed on Bloomberg over a 24 hour period were in agreement. So if one can’t form their own independent judgments and act on those they’re in a lot of trouble.
(Since they couldn’t spell retention, they shifted to “remembering“ second time around.)

@bee +1

@mona, Fido AM40 FFANX and VG LS-Conservative VSCGX would be appropriate for that mix (34% Cash, 34% US Stocks, 6% Non-US Stocks, and 26% Bonds). Clearly, no benchmark would have that much cash but you can evaluate later how your decision to hold that much cash turned out. BTW, does that cash include some SVs?

YTD it has been the right decision as my portfolio is down 3.96% vs 4.80% in FFANX an 4.81% in VSCGX. Longer term, holding 34% cash can only be the wrong decision.

expectations
https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?campaign_id=116&emc=edit_pk_20220218&instance_id=53626&nl=paul-krugman&productCode=PK&regi_id=22268089&segment_id=83212&te=1&uri=nyt://newsletter/6ea057b2-dbc2-5aed-aaa2-666856b0fe39
and related optimism
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/17/opinion/biden-economy-inflation-growth.html