@Starchild,
do you mask?
you do know that vaccination is also for protection of all us others here, right?
maybe you don't realize that, actually.
I guess you must not know people who must live or move in close numbers either.
https://newrepublic.com/article/157773/pandemic-driving-conservative-intellectuals-mad

Let's not get obnoxious. You taking the first dose of the vaccine? Go for it.

@Starchild,
do you mask?
you do know that vaccination is also for protection of all us others here, right?
maybe you don't realize that, actually.
I guess you must not know people who must live or move in close numbers either.
https://newrepublic.com/article/157773/pandemic-driving-conservative-intellectuals-mad

Those are not global allocation funds, but instead standard global growth funds.

I’m tempted to say, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose ... “
Kidding aside, Ol’Skeet inadvertently reversed a couple key words in the title which do impact meaning (or at least emphasis) here.
- Ol’Skeet’s title: “Trending ... Top Three Global Allocation Funds”
- What the author had: “Trending ... Three Top Global Allocation Funds”
In the first case, Ol’Skeet’s title suggests that these three funds are “the top“ (best) funds in their class.
In the second case, the author intended to say only that these were “three among the best” in their class.
I also agree with @hmgodwin in that these three funds sound too aggressive to conform with my understanding of what a global allocation fund is. Here’s the dead giveaway from the article: “Global allocation funds tend to be highly volatile and are suited for aggressive investors.” That sentence makes one wonder just what assets the fund is allocating among?
The global allocation genre evolved long after I cut my teeth on investing. When I started out 50+ years ago the choices were pretty much: domestic equity, global equity, balanced. Pretty plain and simple. So my understanding of what a global allocation fund invests in is limited to some familiarity with RPGAX. That one is: 60% U.S. / international equity; 30% U.S. / international bond; and 10% in an out-of-house hedge fund. Likely, there are other variations elsewhere.

I don't think most people comprehend what we are up against.
1) How bad Covid can get. All these statements about "it only affects old people" ignore the fact that for example, here in CT the urban and suburban hospitals have been decimated. Not that there are refrigerated trucks like in NYC but the hospitals are almost completely full of Covid. 50% of the ICU beds are under 65. The only reason Yale New Haven Hospital was not overwhelmed was the social distancing and canceling of almost all other patient care. They are only now after three months tentatively restarting some elective surgeries, but only major ones.
Why won't Covid do to the poorer neighborhoods of San Antonio and Austin what it did here for example, if people don't take extreme precautions? And when it hits, most of the folks i these southern states have far higher risk factors for critical disease (especially obesity) than the NE, and they do not have insurance.
2) the pathetic federal response and the inhumane lack of leadership and even basic human decency from our commander in chief has forced states to do it on their own, perhaps permanently impairing the testing and contact tracing that other countries have used to open up somewhat safely. When the second wave hits, states with governors who lean to the "this is a hoax" ( ie Texas Georgia Florida Alabama) will have no position to reverse course without admitting they made a horrible mistake.
Until there is an effective vaccine that has been administered to 50% of the population I fear we are in for a rough ride

I doubt I'll get a vaccine shot. Big Pharma to the rescue? No thanks. I also find it disturbing people's dependency on drugs.
As for Covid, I let go of all the fear a while ago and never felt better. Fear is very unhealthy. Just be smart. If people washed their hands more, we'd have a lot less sick people overall.

Deleting this seems to be another one of M*'s "simplification" "improvements". I looked for the page a couple of months ago and what you found was the best I could do. I believe there's a thread (or more) on M*'s boards about this, but it's been awhile since I actually looked for this page.
It's a pain, but you can get the missing category averages out of M*'s basic fund screener. Pick a category, e.g. large cap blend. On the results page, flip to "Performance". At the bottom of the page it shows the YTD, 1, 3, 5, and 10 year category averages.
Right now that shows:
Large Blend Avg -8.73% (YTD) ;4.15% (1 yr); 7.01% (3 yr); 7.17% (5 yr); 11.39% (10 yr)
If you want to see all the funds in a category and sort, you'll need the premium screener, since many categories have more than 200 share classes. 200 is the max returned by the basic screener. But the premium screener performance page omits 10 year performance. One used to be able to coax this information out by using a custom view with the premium screener, but that feature no longer seems to work.

@sma3, @Mark I'm certainly inclined to agree (and I'm betting that way, my cash level is much higher than I'd like it to be) but at least two pretty brilliant center left economists (Paul Krugman in Bloomberg, Jason Furman in Politico) think a V shaped recovery is very possible.

Hi @rforno & @sma3, Thanks for making comment.
I've been trolling through some commodity strategy funds and find Blackrock's commodity strategy fund of interest. It uses both equities and futures to gain its exposure to commodities.
Investment Approach
Invests in two strategies, approximately equally. One strategy focuses on commodity-linked derivatives, the other focuses on equity investments in commodity-related companies, including mining, energy and agricultural companies.
Exposure Breakdowns
Sectors as of 30 April-2020
Name / Equity Exposure / Commodity Index Related Instruments*/ Total / Benchmark
Energy / 9.84% / 10.68% / 20.52% / 21.07%
Agriculture /20.92% / 19.23% / 40.15% / 37.94%
Industrial Metals / 13.36% / 9.39% / 22.75% / 18.53%
Precious Metals / 5.19% / 11.39% / 16.58% / 22.46%
TOTAL / 49.31% / 50.69% / 100.00% / 100.00%
Below is the funds link
https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/products/227413/blackrock-commodity-strategies-class-a-fund
BCSAX is the commodity straegy fund that I am currently leaning towards purchasing. The above link takes you to the A share fund details; however, the fund is available, for purchase, in other fund share classes as well. It would have been nice to buy this fund at its 52 week low ($5.08) as it is now at $6.22.

Just received an email about the fund closing:
May 27, 2020
Dear Fellow Investors,
We are announcing today that the Grandeur Peak International Stalwarts Fund (GISYX/GISOX) will close to new investors through intermediary platforms after June 10, 2020. The Fund will remain open to existing investors. Retirement plans and financial advisors with existing clients in the Fund will still be able to invest in the Fund for existing as well as new clients as long as their clearing platform will allow this exception. The Fund will remain open to new investors who purchase directly from Grandeur Peak Funds.
The International Stalwarts Fund recently reached $1 billion under management, and the investment strategy in total is now roughly $2 billion. As you know, we carefully review capacity at the firm level and strategy level. We are committed to keeping all of our investment strategies small enough to be able to fully pursue their investment strategies without being encumbered by either their individual asset base or the firms’ collective asset base. Achieving performance for our clients will always be our paramount objective.
The International and Global Stalwarts Funds will reach their five-year anniversary this September. When we launched the Stalwarts Funds, we talked about capacity across the Stalwarts line being in the $5-7 billion range given the Stalwarts’ focus on more liquid SMid-cap (Small- and Mid-cap) companies. We also hoped that the Stalwarts Funds would therefore be able to stay open to clients longer than many of our small/micro-cap funds. We are moving the International Stalwarts strategy to soft closed to protect existing investors’ continued access to the Fund.
We have been very encouraged by the performance of the Stalwarts Funds and the value they have added to our collaborative research process over the last 4½ years (click here for Fund performance). We are excited to have recently added the US Stalwarts Fund to the Stalwarts line. The Global Stalwarts and US Stalwarts funds both remain open to new and existing shareholders. Part of the decision to close the International Stalwarts Fund is to preserve space for future assets in the Global Stalwarts strategy. Managing “sister” funds like the three Stalwarts Funds allows us to provide investment opportunities to a diverse breadth of investors.
Thank you for your continued interest and trust. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to reach out to me or a member of our Client Relations Team.

CE funds can do the same thing, but the problem for some investors is they don't like the discounts they trade at to NAV. There is also an agency problem with CEs in that investors' capital is permanent and thus "trapped" in the fund unless investors are willing to accept the discounted price the CE's shares trade at on the market. Managers who are greedy for fees take advantage of the trapped capital and collect fees regardless whether the fund does well or poorly. The interval fund solves the problem by allowing shareholders to redeem their shares at their full underlying NAV value, albeit slowly--5% of assets per quarter--so it doesn't require much forced selling on the manager's part. Unfortunately, most regular CEs employ leverage too. Sometimes that works in a bull market. Other times it's disastrous. And many funds also collect fees on the leveraged assets, creating that conflict of interest where the manager is incentivized to employ leverage to collect fees on a larger asset base.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834420011509/fp0054235_497.htm
497 1 fp0054235_497.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
SUPPLEMENT DATED MAY 27, 2020 TO THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS AND PROSPECTUS FOR THE GRANDEUR PEAK INTERNATIONAL STALWARTS FUND (THE “FUND”) DATED AUGUST 31, 2019
Effective as of the close of business on June 10, 2020, the Fund will close to new investors, except as described below. This change will affect new investors seeking to purchase shares of the Fund through third party intermediaries subject to certain exceptions for financial advisors with an established position in the Fund and participants in certain qualified retirement plans with an existing position in the Fund. The Fund remains open to purchases from existing shareholders, and to new shareholders who purchase directly from Grandeur Peak Funds.
The Fund retains the right to make exceptions to any action taken to close the Fund or limit inflows into the Fund.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
******* From GP website: International Stalwarts has Total Net Assets as of 5/26/2020:$1 Billion

I don't think most people comprehend what we are up against.
1) How bad Covid can get. All these statements about "it only affects old people" ignore the fact that for example, here in CT the urban and suburban hospitals have been decimated. Not that there are refrigerated trucks like in NYC but the hospitals are almost completely full of Covid. 50% of the ICU beds are under 65. The only reason Yale New Haven Hospital was not overwhelmed was the social distancing and canceling of almost all other patient care. They are only now after three months tentatively restarting some elective surgeries, but only major ones.
Why won't Covid do to the poorer neighborhoods of San Antonio and Austin what it did here for example, if people don't take extreme precautions? And when it hits, most of the folks i these southern states have far higher risk factors for critical disease (especially obesity) than the NE, and they do not have insurance.
2) the pathetic federal response and the inhumane lack of leadership and even basic human decency from our commander in chief has forced states to do it on their own, perhaps permanently impairing the testing and contact tracing that other countries have used to open up somewhat safely. When the second wave hits, states with governors who lean to the "this is a hoax" ( ie Texas Georgia Florida Alabama) will have no position to reverse course without admitting they made a horrible mistake.
Until there is an effective vaccine that has been administered to 50% of the population I fear we are in for a rough ride

I think a second significant peak is inevitable and this equity bounce will crash. The behavior of people last weekend is clear evidence that most covididiots will get infected and soon. There are already rising case and hospitalization rates in many states, mostly in the south and midwest where people seem deluded by Drump.
If Missouri is lucky and escaped the massive infections NYC suffered because they did not commute by subway, the people in Lake of the Ozarks just took a long NYC subway ride without protection. What do they think will happen? A church in Germany just had dozens of cases despite social distancing.
AS the second wave hits, it will be at least a year and probably two before people are comfortable going back out in force, and consequently at least two and maybe longer before our consumer driven economy is back to where it was in 2019, and I suspect at least 20% of those businesses will not return.
If we had massive testing and aggressive robust contact tracing we might cut isolated outbreaks off quickly but when many governors and a large number of people do not believe this is real I don't see this happening. The politicians in Georgia Florida and Texas are already trying to cover up the true case numbers and death rates
Consequently, I would not have any money in stocks that you need for the next five years. There will be buying opportunities along the way.
My cash allocation is 50% conservative bond funds 30% and equity 20% I am buying small positions in what seem to be safe dividend equities with some long shots in energy.

Been thinking (pondering) of adding a modest holding in a commodity strategy fund (PCLAX) to my hybrid income sleeve since commodities have been beaten up in the recent stock market swoon. My outlook is that PCLAX can turn a 25% to 35% gain over the next 12 months as it has had better than a 20% gain over the past 30 days. It's TTM dividend yield over the past twelve months = 3.3%; and, its current price is $3.64. I'm thinking that it can make it back to its 52 week high which is in the $5.00 range over the next year, or so.
I have owned this fund in the past and received some good payouts. Naturally, it is nice to buy it why it is on the floor. This spiff would be a position cost average one and not a bulk buy all in type purchase.
I'd welcome the comments of others about this thought.
If you have some thoughts on a good spiff position (to play) I'd be interest in hearing about it.
Old_Skeet

I've been eying its sister fund PCRIX (PIMCO CommodityRealReturn Strategy Fund) because it's got noticeably less exposure to energy. Granted it's got more exposure to duration risk on the bond side (1 mon vs 1 year) compared to PCLAX but for someone with enough energy exposure already, that might not be a bad trade-off.

This week’s edition will focus on global allocation funds. These funds seek capital appreciation by investing in a variety of asset classes including equities and bonds from emerging and developed markets across the globe. These funds typically come with a basket of mixed market cap equities across different sectors.
https://mutualfunds.com/news/2020/05/26/trending-three-top-performing-global-allocation-funds/?utm_source=MutualFunds.com&utm_campaign=dbe5abc6d1-MF_newsletter_engage_all_may_6_2020_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_83e106a88d-dbe5abc6d1-295927797

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/935015/000119312520152307/d895980d497.htm
497 1 d895980d497.htm ARTISAN PARTNERS FUNDS, INC.
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
File Nos. 033-88316 and 811-08932
ARTISAN PARTNERS FUNDS, INC.
Artisan Thematic Fund
(the “Fund”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED 27 MAY 2020
TO THE FUND’S PROSPECTUS AND STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
DATED 1 FEBRUARY 2020
Effective 27 May 2020, the name of Artisan Thematic Fund is changed to Artisan Focus Fund.
Accordingly, each reference in Artisan Partners Funds’ prospectus and statement of additional information to Artisan Thematic Fund is hereby replaced with Artisan Focus Fund.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

Been thinking (pondering) of adding a modest holding in a commodity strategy fund (PCLAX) to my hybrid income sleeve since commodities have been beaten up in the recent stock market swoon. My outlook is that PCLAX can turn a 25% to 35% gain over the next 12 months as it has had better than a 20% gain over the past 30 days. It's TTM dividend yield over the past twelve months = 3.3%; and, its current price is $3.64. I'm thinking that it can make it back to its 52 week high which is in the $5.00 range over the next year, or so.
I have owned this fund in the past and received some good payouts. Naturally, it is nice to buy it why it is on the floor. This spiff would be a position cost average one and not a bulk buy all in type purchase.
I'd welcome the comments of others about this thought.
If you have some thoughts on a good spiff position (to play) I'd be interest in hearing about it.
Old_Skeet

@hank: I always pay attention when you write anything here. I did not ever even see the term "interval funds" before. So, I went looking. What Investopedia offers-up here doesn't sound like my cup of meat. Apologies to Bob Dylan.
Yes, ALL my investments are in open-ended funds. Portfolio is still 58% in bonds. I'm getting somewhere between 3.5 and 4.0% yield on them. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/120516/what-interval-fund.asp

Bond Investors Are Better Off in ‘Interval Funds.’ Here’s Why. - Lewis Braham
“In the world of bond funds, one major underappreciated risk is the liquidity imbalance that exists between funds and their shareholders. Traditional bond mutual funds and ETFs must provide their shareholders with daily liquidity—in other words, investors must be able to withdraw any part or all of their investment on any day. That’s a mismatch to what the funds own, such as bonds that can have maturities of up to 30 years, or bonds that don’t trade daily.”
By Lewis Braham, Barrons May 25, 2020
https://www.barrons.com/articles/bond-investors-are-better-off-in-interval-funds-heres-why-51590152400
(Good luck with above link. Better idea - Buy a copy of Barron’s or subscribe. Amazon lets you cancel digital subscriptions anytime.)
There seems to be an increasingly loud chorus of premonitions concerning bond funds of late. I’ve taken the liberty of adding a couple warning shots from two other seasoned observers. Notwithstanding: Lewis’s article is unique and approaches the issue from a different direction.
- - - Plague Investing - Ed Studzinski
“So, for your investable assets, I am sticking with my recommendation for a barbell strategy. For fixed income, limit yourselves to short-duration, short-maturity investments where the funds are managed by experts who have been doing real credit analysis for years. You can find them by paying attention to the reviews that David has written. These situations are to be differentiated from those fixed income funds run by generalists who did things based on rating spreads in quality rather than real analysis. They are nothing more than high-yield tourists.”
Edward Studzinski - Mutual Fund Observor May 3, 2020
- - - What You Don't See Might Be What You Get - Bill Fleckenstein
“ (For) those who have any bond funds, you have to be very careful unless they are all government bonds, because there's a lot of garbage in these funds and a lot of the credits -- which were probably overrated to begin with -- have certainly now deteriorated.
Thanks to one of our longtime readers, who runs a bond shop, and pointed out what happens when these funds see redemptions, which is that the most liquid bonds tend to get sold first, and they also tend to be the highest quality. In his words:
‘Without any change in investment strategy, such investors are left with a portfolio of assets that can be very different to the same portfolio at the time of investment … It is imperative for investors to ensure that they are not left in funds that are deteriorating in asset quality due to such redemptions.’
So, any of you in bond funds need to make darn sure that you know what you own. If you don't, it might be a good time to exit stage left.“
Fleckenstein Capital .com (Subscription Required) Excerpted from March 26, 2020 edition
https://www.fleckensteincapital.com/home.aspx
“In the tranquilly resounding corner, listening to the echoing footsteps of years” - Charles Dickens

I’m in my 3rd year of retirement - during the 2000-2002 and 2008-09 years I was working and simply continued to dca into my/our 403bs and IRAs. I kept my head down and ran with it as buying opportunities. This time (for me) is different. With a 35/63/2 (equity/bonds/cash) allocation prior to CV-19 and feeling flush, I drank the koolaid with mad money to DSEEX, JMUTX, PIGIX, PIMIX, PCI, OPTAX, ORNAX with approximately 6% of PV. Still holding PIMIX, PIGIX, PCI, and DSEEX. I’ve looked at the loss as a learning opportunity, and will sell the others if/when they recover. My allocation sits at 30/59/11 (E/B/C) and I’m slowly deploying the cash to VBILX, VWIUX, VIG, and VTI.

>> I’ll go by those reported closing prices - and I gets what I gets.
Per M*, your conclusion is erroneous, and from close 3/20 to close last Fri it is up ~21.57%. ~$155 lower than SP500 on $10k.
Suggest learning to enjoy this:
https://quotes.morningstar.com/chart/fund/chart.action?t=dodgx
Although perhaps it's wrong somehow.