Making alcoholic beverages is morally wrong
Certainly some ratings penalize (or exclude) the manufacture of alcoholic beverages for moral reasons. However, M*'s Sustainalytics concerns are not moral but (surprise) sustainability:

Based on assessments from Sustainalytics ... the biggest environmental, social, or governance risk for alcohol stems from water use. ... water isn’t just an ingredient. It’s critical to production, including cleaning, cooling, and packaging. And water is even more important given its direct impact on product quality and experience, as well as the growing of ingredients like barley, corn, and other crops.

https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1092686/hate-the-sin-love-the-stock-investors-esg-exclusions-leave-opportunities
With respect to mutual funds, I do consider diversity a virtue, but some investors like lack thereof, i.e. concentration.

Water is like that for more than alcohol production. Which is why I recently took a flyer on water ETF's. At worst I figure they will be little better than a utility type fund. OTOH . . .

Good post. The longer you check, and I'm talking about at least 20-30 years, a cheap index such as the SP500 beats most stock funds.
The SP500 is based on the best indicator, the price. The price never lies, regardless of any opinion.
The SP500 is global too, it gets about 40% of its revenues from abroad.

The S&P 500 index is a good representation of large-cap U.S. stocks.
Most active funds underperform this index over longer time periods.
Although many S&P 500 companies derive substantial revenue from foreign countries,
it may be prudent to also include foreign-domiciled companies in your portfolio.
I respect Warren Buffett and Jack Bogle but disagree with their views to avoid foreign investments.

Consider the JAVA ETF, run by the same manager, Clare Hart, as the VGIIX mutual fund. VGIIX is a five-star fund, even though it has a low active share in part because its expense ratio is a modest 0.69% but also because Hart takes small calculated risks. She is not a major contrarian, making big bets, but contrarian enough to get the job done. The JAVA ETF has an even lower 0.44% expense ratio and holds 153 stocks. According to Morningstar, VGIIX has an active share of only 63.5%, not very contrarian at all, but enough to win without any extreme swings that are significantly different from its benchmark the Russell 1000 Value. Of course, the Russell 1000 Value is contrarian by design and an ETF tracking that can be had for even less.

Scanned @bee’s linked article. Typical Marks. To me the take away is that market valuations follow a herd mentality. At any given time part of the price of a security rests on investor sentiment. Now, none of us has the research capabilities and analytic tools at Mark’s disposal. So it’s difficult trying to replicate his process or even come close.
Still, I think the herd mentality concept has legs - more so today than ever. Go back 8-12 months and read the threads posted on this forum. Certainly some anticipated the approaching storm and were taking steps to lighten up on risk. But the overwhelming number of posts remained quite bullish. People were eagerly buying. I nearly got into a spitting match with one fellow who insisted “buying the dip” was always a reliable investment approach, even with the DJI near 37,000 and the NASDAQ 20% higher than now,
So if (a big if) one can identify severely undervalued assets and if one can remain calm and allow time to do its work, than one can be more successful than investing in broadly diversified funds. It’s difficult to see how an extra 1 or 2% in fees would cancel out the benefits of a 2X or 3X appreciation in value over a few years time. BTW - Not long ago passive investing - mostly the S&P 500 was near conventional wisdom here and elsewhere. Doubters were faced with fiercely intense posts trying to prove its validity. Now many (including some D&C funds) are actually shorting that index. One problem some of my sources identify is the huge amount of passive investing coming from retirement plan contributions at the individual level. Much of that has been going into funds linked to the S&P index for decades.

I like Howard Marks’ long and thought-provoking pieces. The firm Oaktree Capital (AUM $159 billion) that he cofounded is big and successful in distressed credit areas. Gundlach's DoubleLine may not have happened without Marks. But the firm hasn’t done well in one area – general funds. It offers several private-equity funds, 1 FI interval-fund and 1 tiny EM equity fund. So, all we are left with is reading Marks’ great essays.
https://www.oaktreecapital.com/
https://www.businessinsider.com/marks-made-900-million-billion-investing-in-gundlach-2016-2
Oldtimers may remember VG Convertible Fund VCVSX that was closed in 2019 (AUM was still around $1 billion but that wasn’t not big enough for VG) due to outflows, lagging performance and manager turnover (Oaktree was the fund manager). Knowing about Marks and Oaktree, I followed VCVSX but never got into it as it wasn’t a great fund.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/906914/why-vanguard-killed-a-good-fund
https://citywireusa.com/professional-buyer/news/not-worth-the-hassle-vanguard-to-liquidate-almost-1bn-fund/a1188088
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/46677/vanguard-convertible-securities-fund-to-liquidate/p1
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/vanguard-to-liquidate-convertible-securities-fund-300772427.html

I listen to Marks several times a week. He’s so “right” and I find it so difficult to follow his advice. I held DKNG and ARKK at various points this year at well below what they closed at yesterday. Yes, I made a few $$ on those spec plays. But the incredible volatility of up 9% one day and down 9% the next scared me off. Took the small gains and ran. Had I clung to those longer I’d have been better off. Both closed yesterday at their recent high. DKNG was down to $10.66 at one point a month or two ago. Near $16 yesterday as I recall - or about 50% above its 3 month low. Bloomberg reports that TSLA jumped 50% last month! Who among us has the nerve to ride those broncos?
Oversimplifying Marks, the markets are a large casino. Outsmarting the “herd” is his mentality. He must drink better whisky than I do.
Thanks @bee for posting one of my favorite investors / writers. Sorry if I stole any of your thunder.

a couple of insights for Howard Marks...

In 1978, I was asked to move to the bank's bond department to start funds in convertible bonds and, shortly thereafter, high yield bonds. Now I was investing in securities most fiduciaries considered "uninvestable" and which practically no one knew about, cared about, or deemed desirable... and I was making money steadily and safely. I quickly recognized that my strong performance resulted in large part from precisely that fact: I was investing in securities that practically no one knew about, cared about, or deemed desirable. This brought home the key money-making lesson of the Efficient Market Hypothesis, which I had been introduced to at the University of Chicago Business School: If you seek superior investment results, you have to invest in things that others haven't flocked to and caused to be fully valued. In other words, you have to do something different.

and,

the total dollars earned by all investors collectively are fixed in amount, all active bets, taken together, constitute a zero-sum game (or negative-sum after commissions and other costs). The investor who is right earns an above-average return, and by definition, the one who's wrong earns a below-average return.

I Beg to Differ
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4526834-latest-memo-from-howard-marks-i-beg-to-differ

@Crash - 0n that Muted Response to ET's quarter. Sam Smith's thoughts at SeekingAlpha:
"While this might baffle some investors, the reason is clear: ET signaled that the "old ET" is still very clearly present and Kelcy Warren's hunger for growth spending is as strong as ever. While it is still very likely that ET will restore its quarterly distribution to pre-cut levels in 2023 or 2024, the likelihood of additional capital returns via additional distribution growth or unit buybacks just took a huge hit.
It appears ET does not get it: Mr. Market clearly wants ET to reign in its acquisition and growth project spending and instead focus keenly on debt reduction and unitholder capital return acceleration. However, ET appears to be dedicated to simply reaching a certain leverage target, restoring the distribution to pre-cut levels, and then focus heavily on growth spending. While this could pay off, ET's past track record does not bode well."

Under investigation.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/cfpb-is-investigating-goldman-sachss-credit-card-practices-11659640285?mod=hp_lead_pos2
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596363/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0
.....And yesterday, Wells (not Goldman) sent me a spam mailing, offering me a teaser ZERO percent rate on a credit card. After the teaser-term is over, the rate jumps to over 20%. It's ripped up and in the trash. They must think we're pretty stupid. Often enough, I am. But not about THAT kinda stuff. Not anymore. Schmucks.

@Crash, do you know that TRAMX has significant holdings in Saudi Arabia, mostly in the financial sector? From a pure investment approach that is not a problem of course. But I know you are a strong-on-ethics guy, so I thought I'd mention it in case you were unaware. I have no idea how to make geographical sector bets so personally I wouldn't use any non-diversified EM fund myself, especially as a buy and hold fund.

@MikeM
I'm glad for your message.
You're correct. Saudi Arabia = 38.67% of the portfolio in TRAMX. It's the biggest single-country bet in that fund. Saudi National Bank = 8.08% of its portfolio.
Prince M.B.S. is a filthy skunk. A murderer, in fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_bin_Salman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi
And do women in that country still possess the right to even drive a car? The Saudi ethical record is dreadful. I do feel besieged, trying to invest ethically. It almost can't be done, even domestically. Wifey is just back from The Philippines. The voters in that country are at least as stupid as voters everywhere else: they elected Ferdinand Marcos' son as President. And now there is a move afoot to change the name of Manila's airport. It is known as the "Ninoy" Aquino International Airport. You may recall that the elder Marcos personally arranged the assassination of Ninoy as he walked off the airplane which brought him to Manila, back in August, 1983. And Israel is running an apartheid state, and still occupying Palestinian land in the West Bank--- doing all they can to see that a viable Palestinian State never happens. Between the Palestinians themselves, there is a huge credibility problem in the leadership. And Burma? "Fugg-ed-about-it." Africa is a mess, too. I try to be ethical. But if I wanted to remain pure, I'd never be able to invest a dime, anywhere. The Human Condition.

+1. I'm still holding TRAMX. Africa/Middle East. Still underwater this year, but not by much....Yesterday was a nice bump-up, but investing is a marathon, not a sprint.

Thx for the explanations, appreciate it.
@Derf, ya it does seem wonky but...opened 5 year $90k Goldman Sachs, CD thru Schwab 1/19 @ 3.50% APY, matures 1/23, value stated a few days ago as $90,491...opened others thru Schwab during 11/19 @ 3.55%... 5 yr CDs were offering decent APYs back in late '19 etc.
Best,
Baseball Fan

So, one by one, the OLD Nuveen mutual funds are disappearing. Last time were the old Nuveen EM fund that was just liquidated, and some old Nuveen bond funds and target-risk funds that were merged into similar TIAA-CREF funds (see links below). Now, another, the Nuveen International Growth is being merged into a similar TIAA-CREF fund.
It is surprising how slow TIAA has been on doing this (after all, TIAA bought OLD Nuveen in 2014; later, to confuse the matters, it rebranded its entire fund arm as NEW Nuveen). They may have made promises to keep the old Nuveen operations going on for a while. Old Nuveen CIO Bob DOLL retired in 2021 and joined a faith-based investment firm.
Going forward, TIAA may only keep muni CEFs and OEFs from the old Nuveen and may liquidate or merge most of its mutual funds into TIAA-CREF funds. No point in running 2 middling groups of mutual funds.
At the M* TIAA forum, it was also noted recently that TIAA has plans to get rid of CREF name and operations and fold all of those into TIAA. So, all the TIAA-CREF mutual fund names may soon change to just TIAA.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/59626/nuveen-emerging-markets-equity-fund-is-to-be-liquidated/p1
https://www.nuveen.com/en-us/investments/reorganizations

“ However, compared with Morningstar Category peers historically, the strategy is less exposed.”
@Crash asked “What does this refer to?”
Poorly composed for sure. Best guess is they’re referring to the tendency of investors to “bolt” in mass and flee when a fund begins underperforming (which they alluded to in the preceding sentence). Apparently, PRNEX’s investor base is more loyal to the fund than the average for its category across industry.
Sounds like somebody with “just enough” knowledge of this fund (perhaps scanning some documents laid before them) sat at a computer and responded to a dozen or more pre-generated questions tossed at them requiring some type of numerical rating or affirmative / negative response. Liken it to those satisfaction surveys your mutual fund sends out after you’ve interacted with one of their live reps.
These questions often begin like this ….
- “On a scale of 1-10 rate the following …”
- Which of the following best describes …”
It saves an immeasurable amount of work if the one person in the organization most knowledgeable about mutual funds (or a committee) prepares all the questions and writes possible responses in advance. Why duplicate that process for every single fund? An underling can than throw the whole nearly incoherent body of the review together in minutes by sitting at a keyboard and selecting (clicking on) the “right” responses. Perhaps the best description - Computer generated with minimal human assistance.
PS - I hope no one is paying for this type of garbage.

Sadly VVPSX was one of the top funds cited in the October 3, 2021 WSJ article, "Big Hasn’t Been the Best for Fund Investors." VVPSX was second for the quarterly ranking for twelve months.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1041673/000119312522211741/d371429d497.htm
497 1 d371429d497.htm NUVEEN INVESTMENT TRUST II
NUVEEN INTERNATIONAL GROWTH FUND
SUPPLEMENT DATED AUGUST 4, 2022
TO THE PROSPECTUS AND SUMMARY PROSPECTUS DATED DECEMBER 1, 2021
Proposed Reorganization of
Nuveen International Growth Fund into
TIAA-CREF International Opportunities Fund
The Board of Trustees of Nuveen Investment Trust II (“NIT II”) and the Board of Trustees of TIAA-CREF Funds (“TC Funds”) have each approved the reorganization of Nuveen International Growth Fund (the “Target Fund”), a series of NIT II, into TIAA-CREF International Opportunities Fund (the “Acquiring Fund”), a series of TC Funds. In order for the reorganization to occur, it must be approved by the shareholders of the Target Fund.
If the Target Fund’s shareholders approve the reorganization, the Target Fund will transfer all of its assets and liabilities to the Acquiring Fund in exchange for Acquiring Fund shares of equal value. These Acquiring Fund shares will then be distributed to Target Fund shareholders and the Target Fund will be terminated. As a result of these transactions, Target Fund shareholders will become shareholders of the Acquiring Fund and will cease to be shareholders of the Target Fund. Each Target Fund shareholder will receive Acquiring Fund shares with a total value equal to the total value of that shareholder’s Target Fund shares immediately prior to the closing of the reorganization. It is expected that the reorganization will qualify as a tax-free reorganization for federal income tax purposes and that Target Fund shareholders will not recognize any gain or loss as a result of the reorganization. However, Target Fund shareholders will receive a distribution of substantially all net income and/or realized gains, if any, prior to the reorganization.
A special meeting of the Target Fund’s shareholders for the purpose of voting on the reorganization is expected to be held in early October 2022. If the required approval is obtained, it is anticipated that the reorganization will be consummated approximately 15-30 days after the special shareholder meeting. Further information regarding the proposed reorganization will be contained in proxy materials that are expected to be sent to shareholders of the Target Fund in September 2022.
The Target Fund will continue sales and redemptions of its shares as described in the prospectus until shortly before its reorganization. However, holders of shares purchased after the record date set for the Target Fund’s special meeting of shareholders will not be entitled to vote those shares at the special meeting.
PLEASE KEEP THIS WITH YOUR PROSPECTUS
AND/OR SUMMARY PROSPECTUS
FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

For the week ending on 8/3/22, Sentiment improved significantly: Bearish remained the top sentiment (38.9%; above average) & bullish remained the bottom (tie) sentiment (30.6%; below average); neutral remained the middle (tie) sentiment (30.6%; near average); Bull-Bear Spread was -8.3% (low). With all Sentiments in 30s (last times 1/5/22, 3/23/22, 6/1/22), future flip-flops in ordering are expected. There is widening belief that the worst is behind for the Sentiment and markets; mid-June may have been the worst. Investor concerns included recession/slowdown; inflation & supply-chain disruptions; the Fed/FOMC; market volatility (VIX, VXN, MOVE); Russia-Ukraine war (23+ weeks); geopolitical. For the Survey week (Thursday-Wednesday), stocks were up sharply, bonds up, oil down sharply, gold up sharply, dollar flat. #AAII #Sentiment #Markets
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/141/aaii-sentiment-survey-weekly?page=7&scrollTo=731

EFCU Financial, out of Baton Rouge. 3.75% for 5 years. (Scroll down the page.) For a "jumbo," you can get 3.85%. That's a $100,000.00 minimum.
https://www.investopedia.com/best-5-year-cd-rates-4801473
https://www.efcufinancial.org/media/201852/august-2022-rate-sheet.pdf
I did not look to see about membership eligibility.