Hi, guys.
Two quick notes.
(1) Teresa Kong, the manager, projects high single- to low-double digit returns in 2021.

We think EM corporates will outperform EM sovereign credits ... EM investors are still largely invested in EM sovereigns, not EM corporates. The EM hard currency corporate market is dominated by Asian issuers, of which more than half are China issuers. Given the V-shaped recovery of China and the positive spillovers onto much of the region, we expect Asia to outperform other EM regions. We also expect Asian corporates to outperform corporates from all other EM regions. When you take into account a yield of about 7.4% in Asia high yield, with help of some credit spread tightening, we are looking at returns of high single digits to 10% next year.

Corporate Emerging Market Debt Poised to Shine in 2021 (12/15/2020)
(2) Ms. Kong is pretty good at her job. I did a quick check at MFO Premium and she's pretty much consistently above average for returns, downside, and risk-adjusted returns. Typically, mid-single digit annual returns. The fund has an R-squared of just 6 against the US bond market and 40-ish against US equities, which likely reflects their corporate bond orientation.
I've owned the fund since launch as a diversifying holding in my fixed income sleeve; T. Rowe Price Spectrum Income is the other fund in that box for me. That's not particularly an argument that the fund (a) is great or (b) makes sense for you, but a potential 9 or 10% fixed-income return has some attraction.
As ever,
David

Links to charts and videos all in one place: MFO Webinars - 20210105

It's time to invoke the 25th amendment.

Probably the only time I can ever say “ I agree with you”

@Derf Perhaps the domestic oil patch experienced enough carnage in 2020 and midstream suffered (and changed) enough over the course of the past 1/2 decade that both are poised to serve as good multi-year investments at this point. That's my generalist's assessment. Time will tell if it is correct.
2020 investments in high income portfolio included:
**RTLR in April and some more in September
**FANG, KMI, and ENB from August to November
(FANG has more than doubled since purchase to become the portfolio's largest holding. It just passed AVGO and is nearing 5% of the portfolio. So it may soon be time to consider a little trimming. But, no thoughts of more selling than that.)

And here's link to chart deck of afternoon general overview session given number of new users.
And attendant video.

Here's link to video of our morning session with Lynn: Morning Webinar Video

This article looks at the potential impact of Democratic control of the Senate on Biden's climate proposals. Manchin's chair of the energy committee will soften the potential blows to carbon based fuels.
https://news.trust.org/item/20210107110130-qn5pf/

Thanks for setting up the Webinar @Charles and to those who joined in. Explaining how the systems works and what it means makes me think things through. As I mentioned, I just set up the three trending buckets. Since the Webinar, I realized that I need to fine tune them. Here are the recent changes that I made:
Trending Bucket
The Trending Bucket did a good job of showing the funds that have high 3 month trends, 3 month returns, and cash inflows, but I would buy the funds because "I was late to the party." I changed the Trending Bucket to only show funds that were less than 7 points above their 10 month moving average. Upon due diligence, these would be worth considering by some investors.
Name, Symbol, MaxDD, APR, Rtn 3 mon, Trend, Flow, SMA10
VanEck Vectors Fallen Angel High Yield Bond ETF, (ANGL), -14.1, 14.9, 9.5, 3.8, 8.5, 1.6
Vanguard Intern Div Appreciation Index ETF, (VIGI), -18.8, 20.9, 13.8, 7.4, 7.4, 5.3
Vanguard Intern Div Appreciation Index Admiral, (VIAAX), -18.8, 20.9, 13.8, 7.4, 7.4, 5.3
Vanguard ESG International Stock ETF, (VSGX), -22.9, 18.1, 16.1, 8, 11.5, 3.8
Nuveen ESG Small-Cap ETF, (NUSC), -30.8, 24.8, 29.3, 11.3, 9.4, 5.9
Crossing Bucket
I simplified this bucket and fine tuned it to be based more on three month trends to better identify trending funds that are near their ten month moving average. As I pointed out in the Webinar I have owned VGWAX and VEUSX since the 2020 market correction and the adjustments identify these funds. The funds crossing their ten month moving average are value and global funds.
Name, Symbol, MaxDD, APR, Rtn 3 mon, Trend, Flow, SMA10
Vanguard Windsor Inv, (VWNDX), -28.1, 18.4, 23, 9.5, 10.6, 0.6
American Funds Capital Income Builder F1, (CIBFX), -15.5, 10, 9.5, 5.1, 3.2, 0
Vanguard Global Wellington Admiral, (VGWAX), -15.6, 14.6, 10, 5.1, 6.9, 1.9
Nuance Mid Cap Value Inst, (NMVLX), -19.2, 17.1, 15.3, 5.5, 1, 1.7
Vanguard European Stock Index Admiral, (VEUSX), -25.7, 15, 16.4, 9.3, 11.3, 0
Bottom Fishing Bucket
The Bottom Fishing Bucket is where I made the most changes. I added that the funds must not only have positive 3 month trends, returns, and money inflows, but added that the trends have to beat some percentage of the median trend and inflow and now look for the ones furthest below the ten month moving average. Of the funds that I track, real estate is showing the biggest signs of recovering.
Name, Symbol, MaxDD, APR, Rtn 3 mon, Trend, Flow, SMA10
American Century NT Global Real Estate G, (ANRHX), -22.7, 14.8, 9.6, 5.5, 3.2, -6.1
Cohen & Steers Realty Shares Inc L, (CSRSX), -23.7, 13.6, 8.6, 4.9, 5.1, -6.5
Vanguard Real Estate Index ETF, (VNQ), -25, 10.8, 9.2, 5.1, 5.6, -7.8
BlackRock iShares US Real Estate ETF, (IYR), -25.6, 10.2, 8, 4.5, 12, -8.2
Virtus Duff & Phelps Global Real Estate Secur, (VGISX), -25.7, 13.3, 13.4, 6.9, 1.5, -7.9
Have a great weekend.

It's time to invoke the 25th amendment.

In a somewhat more forgotten corner of the Constitution is the Disqualification Clause (Section 3) of the 14th Amendment.

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies an individual from serving as a state or federal official if that person has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the United States. Although the clause was written in the context of the Civil War, it would theoretically still apply for members of future rebellions or insurrections against the United States.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourteenth_amendment_0
Congress put teeth into this by passing the Enforcement Act of 1870. Section 15 reads:

And be it further enacted, that any person who shall hereafter knowingly accept or hold any office under the United States, or any state to which he is ineligible under the third section of the fourteenth article of amendment of the constitution of the United States, or who shall attempt to hold or exercise the duties of any such office, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor against the United States, and, upon conviction thereof before the circuit or district court of the United States, shall be imprisoned not more than one year, or fined not exceeding one thousand dollars, or both, at the discretion of the court.

There's an interesting footnote, literally, to this section of the Amendment. It says that in 1885 the Attorney General issued an opinion that this disqualification from holding federal office does not apply to those receiving Presidential pardons before this Amendment was adopted. Which suggests that even a pardon is insufficient to permit someone who has engaged in insurrection to hold federal office.
Just something to keep in mind in case you're the town's lowly dog catcher (who has taken an oath of office) and are thinking about storming, say, the Library of Congress. Or perhaps more relevant to this forum, looting the US Treasury.

Totally concur with the 25th amendment.

Frank Bowman, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Missouri, said Trump “arguably fomented sedition,” or an attempted overthrowing of the U.S. government.
But Bowman said Trump could also be impeached for a more general offence: disloyalty to the U.S. Constitution and failing to uphold his oath of office. Congress has discretion in defining a high crime and misdemeanor and is not limited to actual criminal offences.
“The essential offence would be one against the Constitution - one of essentially trying to undermine the lawful results of a lawfully conducted election,” Bowman said.

https://reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-removal-explainer/explainer-can-trump-be-removed-from-office-before-his-term-ends-on-jan-20-idUSKBN29C01I?il=0

It's time to invoke the 25th amendment.

Will this executive order have an effect on China funds you may own ? I believe it took effect today.
Stay safe, Derf

Here's the updated Asset Allocation Quilt:

updating-my-favorite-performance-chart-for-2020

https://www.gafunds.com/our-funds/dividend-builder-fund/
As of today - Jan 5 2021 - GAINX is still a mutual fund. Any update on ETF conversion? Thanks.

"Historically" VWINX has held close to 40% equities (did I say that :-)). It's a traditional 40/60 fund. Its extra equity all but guarantees a better longer term performance than a fund that's closer to 30/70.
(Though according to M*, AOK is actually closer to 30/60, meaning it has more cash dragging its performance down even further. M* says that 5% of the fund is in BISXX alone. You won't see this in the AOK holdings unless you dig for it. For example, 58% of AOK is in IUSB and 9% of IUSB is in BISXX. That would seem to account for the bulk of BISXX - but not all of the cash - in AOK.)
AOK current allocation: 30/61 (with 1% "not classified")
VWINX current allocation: 38/57 (with 2% "not classified")
Figures are from M*, "current" means most recent portfolio reported to M*.

near the 30% low end of the 30-50% category
"near" is good. It allows for fuzziness and the possibility of bouncing around the figure in a way that "on" 30% and "holding" 30% don't.
holds 30% equity
sitting on the lowest edge of 30-50% category
The iShares AOK website shows the benchmark index is S&P Target Risk Conservative Index. This Index construction shows a 30% equity allocation (2020 prospectus p. S-2)
Quoting from that section of the prospectus:

As of July 31, 2020, the Underlying Index included a fixed allocation of 30% of its assets in Underlying Funds that invest primarily in equity securities and 70% of its assets in Underlying Funds that invest primarily in bonds. As of July 31, 2020, the Fund invested approximately 32.27% of its assets in Underlying Funds that invest primarily in equity securities, 66.98% of its assets in Underlying Funds that invest primarily in bonds and the remainder of its assets in Underlying Funds that invest primarily in money market instruments.

Actually that isn't quite correct with respect to the index holdings. The Underlying Index did not have a fixed allocation of 30% of its assets in ... equity securities as of July 31, 2020
As with anything else, if you want an authoritative definition, go to the source. According to S&P, the index had a 30% allocation in equities as of April 30, 2020. It rebalances only semiannually, at the end of April and at the end of October.
Equities tend to outperform bonds. So between semi-annual rebalancing dates, statistically equities will be above the target allocation (and bonds below) on more dates than the opposite. Of course that wasn't true during the GFC, hence the low equity numbers for 2009-2010. Since then (a lot more years), equities have outperformed.
Regarding the annual statements - it would help if you would provide links to validate your figures. As it turns out, your "equity" figures in the early years are off because you didn't count real estate securities. For example, in the 2009 annual statement, instead of looking at the Management's Discussions section (p. 3) you could look at the actual details of the holdings in the Schedule of Investments for the fund (p. 16).
That shows iShares Cohen & Steers Realty Major Index Fund grouped under Domestic Equity (17.86%). Add in the International Equity holdings (5.81%), and one gets 24% equity. Still a far cry from 30%, but enough to illustrate why all figures are subject to verification.
(M* also considers real estate to be equity; it says that VGSIX is virtually 100% U.S. equity.)
Look at 2018. While M* may say that only 28% of the fund was in equity that year, the SEC filings tell a different story. The 2018 Annual Report says that equities amounted to 30% of the fund as of July 31. And the Semiannual Report says that equities came to 32% of the fund.
As I've explained above, the first year or so of this fund are outliers because bonds outperformed the equity market. (Also the fund was tinkering with its allocations as evidenced by the fact that it invested in real estate back then.) Likewise, you have implicitly labeled these years as outliers. Whether it's because they're not "near" 30% equity or they're not "on" the 30% edge, they're outside of your normal historical range.
Finally, as to the point that funds that bop around a boundary between categories could show up in a different category from what you're expecting: sure, I explained that in my first response. That goes for global vs. domestic, value vs. blend, etc. One can even use this to one's advantage as I illustrated in another thread. In looking for value funds near the value/blend boundary, one might search for value funds with a current blend portfolio style and for blend funds with a current value portfolio style. This doesn't catch all funds, but it's a good start.

Absolutely delightful and informative morning session with Lynn and friends!
As promised, here is link to chart deck. Will post video shortly.
Afternoon overview session starts in abut 30 minutes. Can still register here.

M* Historical stock style for AOK shows:
2020 30% equity allocation
2019 30%
2018 27%
2017 28%
2016 29%
More samples:
2015 31% Form N-CSR p.7 SEC filing
2013 30% Form N-CSR p.4
2010 22% Form N-CSR p.3
2009 21% Form N-CSR p.3
AOK clearly sits historically near the 30% low end of the 30-50% category.
The iShares AOK website shows the benchmark index is S&P Target Risk Conservative Index. This Index construction shows a 30% equity allocation (2020 prospectus p. S-2). M* places it in the 30-50% category. Takeaway: keep your eye out for funds historically near the category weighting limits as it might still be within your risk tolerance and more importantly possibly could provide good performance metrics you are seeking.

Low Interest Rates are here to Stay (thru 2021):
Some Quotes from the article (linked):

The economy is poised for a robust recovery in 2021, particularly in the latter half, but Bloomberg Economics does not expect quantitative easing to be scaled back until 2022, leaving interest rate liftoff closer to 2025.

How Central banks are planning for the year ahead:
ultra-low-interest-rates-here-to-stay-2021-central-bank-guide

Pretty good reminder of what we have forgotten:
inflation-truthers