A puzzle piece that might help solve the funding part of Biden's energy policy challenge:

Biden, who oversaw the Obama administration’s stimulus work as vice president, unknowingly left himself a down-payment for the work ahead: $40 billion in unused Energy Department loan authority awarded under the 2009 stimulus. That pot of money could offer a way to kick start his climate and infrastructure plan
the incoming Biden administration could simply tweak the loan program’s language to make it the backbone of a government-wide clean lending bank that enables the rapid deployment of new innovations, like the installation of batteries and other energy storage technology to support the growth of renewable power.

https://politico.com/news/2021/01/01/biden-clean-energy-453171

I had owned TAIL recently after instead using SDS for hedging earlier on. Such investments end up being somewhat expensive market "insurance", since equities tend to go up maybe 75%- 80% of the time.
Learned that I'd rather just own more conservative investments instead (or move to cash) if I'm getting nervous.

Please join us.
This Tuesday, 5 January.
First session will feature my colleague Lynn Bolin, who contributes regularly to Mutual Fund Observer and Seeking Alpha. Second session will be overview.
Register here.

You are confusing price momentum with growth. A value or blend stock can also beat the S&P 500’s returns. They can also have price momentum. Growth is about revenues, cash flow and earnings versus the benchmark and industry peers and it’s forward looking, not from five or ten years ago.

It did well during the COVID correction. How much do folks think they would need to hold to make a meaningful difference in a bear market? Charles Lynn Bolin has noted it several times in his nutrient dense articles. I think Meb Faber said he has 25ish percent of his money in TAIL although I feel like he was ambiguous as to whether this was personal portfolio vs his net worth since he own Cambria.

@Mark It seems likely that is at least partly due to it being a fund of funds. Here are the top holdings per M*. Also, per M* turnover is currently 389%. So, they keep active with their fund trading. That helped last winter.
Per their fact sheet "By using liquid investment products, opportunities can be seized and risk can be managed effectively." A "Monthly Strategy Focus Report" I got from them indicated their actively invested portfolio percent changed from 86.45% on 10/31 to 178.98% on 11/20!
Per M*:
Top 9/30/20 Holdings............................% Portfolio
Fidelity® Inv MM Fds Government .............40.83
AlphaCentric Income Opportunities ...........15.81
BlackRock High Yield Bond Instl.................14.15
Recv Nuveen Prf Secs Inc...........................13.79
Pimco Govt Mm Instl..................................10.55
Braddock Multi-Strategy Income Instl........10.36
Eaton Vance Floating.................................10.3
Columbia Mortgage Opportunities Inst3.....10
M* Link
Fact Sheet

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4396920-amplify-cwp-enhanced-dividend-income-etf-5-distribution
The Amplify CWP Enhanced Dividend Income ETF seeks to deliver cash flow of 4% to 7% gross of fees and commissions plus the potential for capital appreciation.
Since inception in 2016, DIVO has an average annual return of 12.5% with a beta of 0.78 compared to the S&P 500. TTM distributions are about 5%.
DIVO is strategically designed to offer high levels of total return on a risk-adjusted basis.
Mutual Fund Observer classifies DIVO as a Great Owl Fund in the Equity Income Category with a MFO Rating of 5 (Best) and MFO Risk of 4 (Similar to S&P 500).
Morningstar's new Crowd Sense metric rates DIVO as "High Attention" and "High Appeal". It gives DIVO a quantitative Five Star Rating and Bronze Medal Performance.

TMSRX has a drawdown -6.5% in March. Otherwise it has been quite good and managed to out-perform bond index. Let's hope it continue to do well in 2021.
If you don't mind the high ER, River Park Long/short fund is up over 50% this year with ER at 2%.

I use it (not nearly enough!) because it very slightly outperforms SP500 over 10-5-3-1y etc. (Same w/ CAPE, again not nearly enough, so faithless was I this last year.)

@bee - I'm wondering if you might use PRBLX instead of VONE if you were tying to replicate a Russell 1000 index fund.
Also, have some chosen to use that index instead of the S&P 500 index?

The other noteworthy AQR fund is Diversified Arbitrage (market neutral), ADANX, but the expense ratio keeps on rising; now at 2.32%. The rest of AQR funds are getting expensive to own. This fund, however, is leading two competitive funds in the same asset class:
AQR Diversified Arbitrage, ADANX YTD 25.5%
Arbitrage, ARBFX, 5.4%
Merger, MERFX, 5.0%
While the AQR funds are having high expense ratio, their performance in 2020 have not been consistently good versus their peers. The founder of AQR funds, Cliff Asness, a former hedge fund manager, lets his politics spill over his business in recent years. Wish he stay focus on the AQR funds and brings them to be more competitive in the mutual fund universe. Performance-wise, as note by AndyJ above, they are not consistently good.
Think I will stick with T. Rowe Price funds.

@kings53man: you were not the only one who bailed on DSEEX last spring.

nah, I disagree, it doesn''t even out...I'd take my chances with a slowly rising sea way before I went into some rat hole crime infested city led by Marxists and politco cronies looking to suckle of the teet of other's savings and hard work. Criminals and punks wilding and looting...ya that's a good idea, let's defund the cops...
I'll be putting my house up for sale outside Chi town in the next two months after 25 years...sell into this epic bubble....property taxes are 5x as in home in Asheville, for 1/5 the land and 1/3 the home value...too many taxing districts, now local school looking for more, more , more thru tax referendum, putting out feelers. Good Luck, they are insane asking for more tax revenue when so many out of work etc. Selling more video gambling licenses, trying to build large casino, selling weed...needs the tax monies to keep the socialism going...as all the folks with means and companies leave...
So ya, I still wave old glory and believe in living right and being free.
Good Luck to all,
Baseball_Fan

That wasn't the point. It's very probable that one of those 5 sectors will lag badly, Why allocate to it at all? Nobody expects 100% equality at all times.

This year 5 stocks in the S&P 500 accounted for a 35% gain. The other 495 stock together accounted for a collective 5% loss. That's changing...see article linked below:
the-biggest-market-comeback-of-the-year

Follow up filing (see link for more information):
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1444822/000119312520329459/d78353d497.htm

Some thoughts about right sizing solar farms....

Solar is so cheap, we need to build far, far more than we need.
Solar panels have become so cheap that the true cost of electricity is shifting from solar arrays themselves to the steel and land needed to house them.
That shift means it’s now cheaper to overbuild, even if producers don’t always sell the power. With the price of panels set to continue falling over the next decade, the economics will only grow stronger.
The low cost overcame renewables’ traditional weakness: the intermittency of supply if the sun or wind fails to appear. Oversizing a system by a factor of three, they found, was optimal.

https://yahoo.com/now/time-start-wasting-solar-energy-171845386.html

It was a nice find, while recognizing that the material is just marcom. Unlike legal filings, it's not to be taken literally. Does anyone think that FGDFX literally "has 'equal weight exposure to the five five [sic] Disruptive Funds'"?
Of course not. As early as the end of August, a mere four months since inception (4/16/20), the fund had veered substantially from equal weighting, weighting one underlying fund 1/5 more heavily than another.
So what exactly does "equal weight exposure" mean when appearing in promotional literature. Does it mean approximately equal, as in the prospectus I quoted above for another fund? Or is it merely a broad objective, a neutral position where management has significant discretion in setting actual targets?
The former describes traditional old style balanced funds and funds of funds like the example I gave previously. For those funds of funds, "the work to accomplish that [would be] deminimis". But for funds of the latter type, more modern asset allocation funds, there would be significant management risk. Some investors may not "understand [the] concern on the team [management] and allocation." That lack of understanding doesn't make the risk any less real.
Again I suggest contrasting prospectuses to understand this. The prospectus of that other fund doesn't include management as a risk factor. Understandable, since the fund must hew closely to its target allocations of underlying funds.
Contrast that with the prospectus of FMRHX, another Fidelity fund of funds. At any given moment in time, this fund has a "neutral allocation" (quoting the prospectus). But the fund's manager ("the Adviser") is given wide latitude in deviating from this target. Consequently, one of its "Principal Investment Risks" is

Asset Allocation Risk.The fund is subject to risks resulting from the Adviser's asset allocation decisions. If the Adviser's asset allocation strategy does not work as intended, the fund may not achieve its objective. ... The selection of underlying funds and the allocation of the fund's assets among various asset classes could cause the fund to lose value or its results to lag relevant benchmarks or other funds with similar objectives. In addition, the fund's active asset allocation strategy may cause the fund to have a risk profile different than that portrayed above from time to time and may increase losses.

Underscoring added. It should be clear that management for this fund matters.
So which type of fund does FGDFX more closely resemble? Its prospectus provides the answer (despite the fact that it also asserts that "The Adviser does not intend to trade actively among underlying Fidelity ® funds") :

Asset Allocation Risk. The fund is subject to risks resulting from the Adviser's asset allocation decisions. The selection of underlying funds could cause the fund to lose value or its results to lag relevant benchmarks or other funds with similar objectives. In addition, the fund's active asset allocation strategy may cause the fund to have a risk profile different than that portrayed above from time to time and may increase losses.

Underscoring added. What's different, and where the concern lies, is that while Fidelity assigns real managers to FMRHX to actually manage the fund, Fidelity merely names the underlying funds' managers for FGDRX. AFAIK it does this with no other fund of funds and thus appears to be using these manager names as placeholders to meet the letter of the law.
Bottom line: the glossy is a nice find, as it suggests the fund's neutral allocation. But it's promotional material and as such is allowed a measure of puffery. Such material is often "preceded or accompanied by a prospectus."

Just a few thoughts about EM with a few fund suggestions. (I own MEGMX and TRECX in that area.) From the article:

Emerging Markets remain one of the best positioned areas of the market from a risk-return perspective.
EM debt and EM equity are likely gaining traction with investors from the falling dollar and large variance in valuation between them and the US.
Within EM debt, the analysis and decision making is much more difficult as currency choices need to be made.
What am I buying in EM equity?
Artisan Developing World Investor (ARTYX)
Emerging Markets Internet & E-Commerce ETD (EMQQ)
Templeton Emerging Markets (EMF)
What am I buying in EM debt?
MFS Emerging Markets Debt A (MEDAX)
Vanguard EM Bond (VEMBX)
TCW Emerging Markets (TGEIX)
Morgan Stanley EM Debt (MSD)

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4396512-updating-thesis-on-emerging-markets