bought a huge amount of CAPE today, toward but not at the close, so a loss already :(

FWIW, futures are up nicely after-hours.

bought a huge amount of CAPE today, toward but not at the close, so a loss already :(

Out of tax considerations I also decided to take a modest 2020 distribution from the Traditional side, even though that was not required in 2020. Didn’t need the money. So it went into Price’s PRIHX - a “limited term“ HY muni fund that I think is probably a better fund than M* and the others currently rate it. ... As to the tax considerations, I’d rather write the IRS a check next April 15 than have to wait in line for a tax refund. Building up the non-IRA assets may prevent having to take an unwanted withdrawal from the Roth someday

I have an inherited Roth that requires me to take unwanted distributions. The only reason why I don't want those distributions is that after sticking the money into a taxable account all the future earnings are taxable. Aside from moving money out of a tax-sheltered account, I don't see anything unwanted about Roth distributions.
It's a different question when comparing T-IRAs and Roths. There are several reasons for keeping at least some money in a T-IRA (QCDs, lower tax bracket for heirs, leave to charity, etc.) But given a choice between adding eligible money to a Roth or leaving it in a taxable account, I'm not aware of a reason to keep it in a taxable account. So I'm not clear on your thinking here.
The muni bond fund does let you escape federal taxes (it's still substantially subject to state taxes). However that comes at a cost - muni bond yields are less than taxable bond yields (which would be tax free in a Roth).
For example (this is just the first one I picked, not necessarily the best comp), RPIHX is a taxable junk bond fund with a duration of 3.58 years and an unsubsidized SEC yield of 4.94% (subsidized is 5.08%). PRIHX is a muni junk bond fund with a duration of 4.44 years and an unsubsidized SEC yield of 1.40% (subsidized is 1.84%)
Though most multi-sector funds don't hold equity worth mentioning (5%+), about 1/8 of the nearly 100 funds do. They can get a fair amount in dividends plus a small growth kicker, but at the expense of higher volatility.
When Kathleen Gaffney left Loomis Sayles, it seemed she tried to outdo her mentor Dan Fuss at LSBDX by upping the equity to 20% in Eaton Vance Bond (EVBAX). That resulted in a fund even more volatile than LSBDX.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/23855/wealthtrack-preview-guest-kathleen-gaffney-manager-eaton-vance-bond-fund
PRIHX appears to merit a 2* rating because of its below average returns. This in turn is likely because it has one of the shortest durations of any high yield muni fund. A problem with M*'s ranking of junk bond funds is that it groups funds together regardless of duration - no short term, intermediate term, long term breakdown. There are only five muni high junk bond funds with durations under five years. Four have 2 stars; only ISHYX which has done slightly better, has a 3* rating.

>> You're writing about, to use @davidrmoran's term, what you "feel". I'm writing about numbers.
That is Bengen's word, only about inflation. (From your above quote from his nice article [p3], entire thing starting here:
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/choosing-the-highest--safe--withdrawal-rate-at-retirement-57731.html?section=308&page=1)
I was wondering only whether his conclusion from the 2008 article might be different in such a high-CAPE era, whether he would so conjecture even though as you note he does not do conjecture.

I like simplicity. We never had CAPE > 30 and interest rates so low which isn't a good start from here.
For my portfolio sustainability I always add inflation. The last time CAPE was over 30 was in 01/1998. I'm trying to be fair and not start at much higher CAPE such as 01/2000.
PV(link) shows that 4.5%(withdrawal)+ 2.5%(inflation) = 7% withdrawal in PV isn't good enough. I know, it's not 30 years but almost 23 years is still a good one.
It's worse now because bonds future returns will be worse in the next 30 years.

It's the eternal question, speculating about future data.
>> You can hope that he revisits his partitioning of CAPE ranges in a few years when he has more high CAPE data points to work with.
Yup. I wonder what the wisest advisers are telling clients now and for the last several years of CAPE needle jamming. 'Sure, go ahead and plan w 5%? 4.5%' -- ?
>> One's "feeling" about immutable historical numbers does not change.
Har, not the case, or not invariably, with historians I read, including science historians.

>> I wonder if he still feels this way.'
One's "feeling" about immutable historical numbers does not change. Though one can add more historical data as time passes. What I illustrated is that today, all the historical data, including the additional dozen data points since Kitces' piece, (probably) does not change the Kitces' result. Of course all the additional data since Bengen's original work does not change his conclusions, as he reiterated them (with refinements) in his current work.
>>My curiosity, as I said, is about what the scenario might look like
That's a different question. You're asking what they would speculate about future data. I addressed that in writing "Bengen doesn't make market predictions."
The curiosity is understandable. The closest you're going to come to an answer is Bengen's observation: "Unfortunately, as Michael observed in his 2008 article, the “CAPE needle” has been jammed against the upper valuation stops for almost all of the last 25 years. As a result, almost the only choice for safe withdrawal rates has been the highest CAPE value in each table."
That means that there are now a few 30 year spans that started with high CAPE ratios. Obviously not enough for Bengen to break out into a separate (higher CAPE) bucket, else he would have done so in his current paper. You can hope that he revisits his partitioning of CAPE ranges in a few years when he has more high CAPE data points to work with. Though as I've tried to show, the 4.5% withdrawal rate still works with the first few periods that have rolled in since Kitces' paper.
I expect the 4.5% withdrawal rate to succeed with the next data point (1991-2020) as well. PV shows that after 29 years (1991-2019) one would be left with 4.2x one's starting value.. For the annual inflation-adjusted withdrawal at year end (Dec 31, 2020) to exhaust that portfolio would require an incredible market swoon in the last two months of the year.

Michael Kitces is my favorite writer: a better choice is to start with lower % in stocks in early retirement years and increase the % with age.
As I've posted before, this work by Pfau and Kitces work breaks down when rates are low. Dr. Pfau acknowledged this, writing that

It does indeed seem that retiring at times with particularly low bond yields, which can be expected to increase over time, may not favor rising equity glidepaths during retirement. It essentially causes the retiree to lock in low bond returns and even capital losses on a bond fund as bond yields gradually increase (on average) over time.

Kitces, incorporating CAPE P/E 10 data, concluded that the safe withdrawal rate is never less than 4.5%, and can be increased if the ratio at the start of retirement is under 20.
The only enhancement that Bengen made to Kitces' work was to incorporate inflation, i.e. part of what you are concerned about.

Inflation directly affects the periodic withdrawals, as it is assumed that dollar withdrawals are increased annually by CPI. If inflation is high, it results in rapidly increasing withdrawals. ... the inflation trend hints at a reliable cause-and-effect relationship. As inflation (defined as the trailing 12-month Consumer Price Index at retirement) increases from top to bottom, SAFEMAX correspondingly declines.

Now he says SP500 performance will be around 7%.
You may have misread Marketwatch's writing: "Historically, he says, the average safe withdrawal rate has turned out to be about 7%." Bengen doesn't make market predictions.

I should also issue the usual cheerful disclaimer that this research is based on the analysis of historical data, and its application to future situations involves risk, as the future may differ significantly from the past. The term “safe” is meaningful only in its historical context, and does not imply a guarantee of future applicability.

Also on point regarding predictions, he writes: "if you have strong feelings that the inflation regime will change in the near future, you can choose another [presumably more conservative] chart".
Thanks to @bee for having posted Bengen's article yesterday, so that one could read what he actually wrote.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/57156/william-bengen-revisits-the-safe-withdrawal-rate-at-retirement

@msf and some others including FD1k have posted solid thoughts about this area, the former in particular giving lists of current CD links and similar
BUT ... if you really have enough for current cashflow (plus some years of equivalent savings, or maybe that is taken into account), then I would do what I am doing, so to speak: wait for future dips and DCA back into all equities.
I intend to do VONE and CAPE 40-40 w some aggressive Akres ETFs, and pray that the overpriced market does not simply keep chugging upward ...
(I ruled out VONG, since as everyone knows the tech big six have carried the day for this year and longer)
If my take is too rich, then DCA into VLAAX, VALIX, JABAX, and/or FPURX.

For long-term investors, which in aggregate retirement plans are, even if their individual employees may not be, climate change will have a huge impact on the investment landscape no matter what the current ostrich head in the sand chief says.
I think ultimately the big traditional energy players will acquire the alternative energy ones as the competition from solar and other players becomes more viable as it has already been each year. Then ESG investors will really be scratching their heads as to what to own. An affordable electric car isn't far off, yet I don't necessarily think Tesla will be the one to make it. Telecommuting thanks to climate change and covid will become the norm to reduce traffic, carbon and office space. Avoid office real estate. Avoid insurers of coastal properties in Florida.
Anecdotal story I heard from one realtor who does business in Florida, that most mainstream insurers no longer want to insure Florida's coastal homes and the insurers that do charge exorbitant rates and actually model for a binary situation--either disaster doesn't happen and they're hugely profitable or it does happen and they go bankrupt and screw policy holders. Bankruptcy is modeled in.
But I wonder if the investment thesis is really what matters at this point. There needs to be real government regulation--on a global level--to reduce the inevitable destruction.

Yeah, so ... like many I am thinking when (no longer if) to get back in,
and thinking even more sadly that the DJ drop to 24k or even 26k simply is not going to happen
Therefore is the fact of the runup drivers being the mega top 6 an argument for RSP? or CAPE?
Or is it an argument against, meaning the biggest kids get ever stronger during this time, and hence smarter to stick w QQQ and VONG?

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/935875
COVID-onomics: Should You Invest in Biotech Stocks Now?
Dennis Murray
August 18, 202
Many physicians are looking for ways to replace lost income and save for the future. At the same time, partly as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, developments in technology and biotechnology, including potential vaccines and treatments, have prompted many to consider biotech as having sound possibilities for successful investing.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/investmentu.com/invest-covid-19-stocks-biotech/?amp
Could be a long way to go before heading down

Interesting that over the last 7y MTUM has also outperformed (a little) VOOG (tho not VONG), also CAPE, also all of the hot div ETFs.
All shorter periods however show victory goes to VOOG, though again VONG hammers everyone including it ---
that is, everyone except TRBCX, which beats even VONG except on occasion. So that last TRP worthy is the exception that proves the whatever the fool phrase is.

fwiw, for the last 4m and shorter, as with the last 4y+ and longer, DSEEX has outperformed FXAIX nontrivially.
So it arguably remains a good option for buy-hold. It has been doing its 'black box bond' thing for coming up on 7y.
I would not recommend, to a holder, bailing out, nor switching to it from FXAIX either, necessarily. It is v hard to sustain an edge, as we all know.
Yes, if you look at M* risk measures for 5y, you see its SD, return, and bear ranks are all higher than FXAIX and its Sharpe and Sortino both slightly lower.
The bond sauce is spicy. Just compare DSEEX w/ CAPE for 3m vs ytd.
https://quotes.morningstar.com/chart/fund/chart.action?t=dseex

I noticed that and didn't feel it was worth investigating. A guess is that "live" meant that Shiller was done designing his index. After Sept. 3, the design was set in stone and in front of the world for people to follow in real time. In contrast, it probably took another month to launch the CAPE ETN.

>> the “Index Live Date” September 3, 2012
Interesting that M* appears to track CAPE from (only from) 10/10 of that year.

FWIW, and this is not advice, I'd consider it a hold or slight sell.
As I asked in a recent thread on PIMIX, have your reasons for holding it changed? It's a 2x fund, 100% stock exposure + 100% bond exposure. That's always been true, it hasn't changed. If that was an appealing concept, it should still be. That fact that the some risks recently manifested shouldn't change one's perceptions - the idea of risk is that sometimes bad things actually do happen.
If one bought it because one thought that an index-ish fund, a "smart beta" could beat market returns, then one should examine why one believes (or believed) that. Is this time really different, or is the market simply going through a different phase?
Note that I'm not the one calling the CAPE index smart beta - Doubleline is. Doubleline acknowledges that pre-2012 performance of the index is just backtesting; and that Barclays is motivated to use to that present the index in the best possible light:

Shiller Barclays CAPE® U.S. Sector Total Return Index..., a non-market cap-weighted, rules-based (aka “smart beta”) index.
...
Pre-inception index performance refers to the period prior to the index inception date (defined as the period from the “Index Base Date” (September 3, 2002) to the “Index Live Date” September 3, 2012)). This performance is hypothetical and back-tested using criteria applied retroactively. It benefits from hindsight and knowledge of factors that may have favorably affected the performance and cannot account for all financial risk that may affect the actual performance of the index. It is in Barclays’ interest to demonstrate favorable pre-inception index performance. The actual performance of the index may vary significantly from the pre-inception index performance.

From the same 2019 page as cited previously.
The reason I might consider selling the fund if I owned it is because something has fundamentally changed - interest rates. Even with the use of swaps, the leverage to get 100% bond exposure is not free. That presents a hurdle, small in a normal interest rate environment, but significant in a near ZIRP world.
Compare and contrast three large cap oriented 2x (equity + bond) funds: PXTIX, DSENX, and MWATX.
Historically, PXTIX has performed as promised, beating its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Value, by half a percent for the past five years (in a low interest environment), 2% over ten years, 3% over 15. But falling about 1% short YTD.
DSENX, excluding this year, beat CAPE by 2% in a couple of years, roughly matched CAPE in a couple, and then a -1% year followed by a +1% year. That's around a half percent a year, until this year, when it looks like it made a bad bond call. (To see the blow by blow comparisons, use this page, and then add CAPE as a fund to compare with.)
It's fair to compare CAPE with the S&P 500, since that's the universe from which it is choosing sectors. M* shows that CAPE and DSENX over their lifetimes, more or less (10/31/13 to present) to have done better than the S&P 500. Both have cumulative returns around 130% vs. 110% for the S&P 500. More recently (3 years or less), they've underperformed. Whether this is just a market phase and that their outperformance will resume is fodder for a broader discussion about smart beta.
MWATX is instructive because it doesn't use smart beta, just a 2x strategy. It significantly underperformed the S&P 500 in 2008, not catching up to the S&P 500 until the end of 2016. It took a much lighter hit this year, and is now within 1% of the index on performance since Feb 20. IMHO this shows that the leveraging works, but there's real risk and one needs to be patient. Also, it's an extremely tax-inefficient strategy.

The DoubleLine Shiller Enhanced CAPE®, [is] an investment strategy pairing Shiller Barclays CAPE® with an active fixed income strategy (DoubleLine Short-Intermediate Duration Fixed Income, or SHINT. ...

Introducing DoubleLine Short-Intermediate Fixed Income Strategy (“SHINT”)
To construct portfolios across multiple sectors of the fixed income universe, including SHINT portfolios, DoubleLine applies a macroeconomic framework, led by portfolio managers and analysts who look across the spectrum of different asset classes. ...
SHINT is a diversified fixed income strategy that, at present [April 2019], targets duration of one to three years while pursuing a yield of 3% to 4%. That yield target appears feasible in the current market environment, allowing the investment team to take a measured approach to both interest rate and credit risks. Freedom to allocate across multiple sectors of the fixed income universe also allows the team to construct a diversified fixed income portfolio with what DoubleLine believes to be the most attractive investments on a reward-to-risk basis. The two-pronged approach of coupling top-down macroeconomic views with bottom-up security selection provides potential benefits from both risk management as well as return-seeking opportunities.
Actively managing the credit risk [non-AGG bond sectors] and interest-rate risk [IG bonds] of the portfolio is a key element to the asset allocation process. DoubleLine tilts the portfolio in the direction of one risk versus another based on the investment team’s macroeconomic forecasts and views on return and risk prospects within the sectors. ...
Sector rotation of SHINT portfolios has tended to be gradual, due to the gradual shifts in the macroeconomic landscape.

https://doubleline.com/dl/wp-content/uploads/DoubleLine-CAPEinRisingRateEnvironments-March2019.pdf
That contains a lot more, including a graph of the bond sector allocations over time.
DSENX tracked CAPE until March, when it underperformed by about 6%. The gap has held steady since then. This suggests that the bond component was fairly flat (neither helping nor hurting) through February, and also after March. But that it dipped 6% in March.
We've seen funds that have not recovered well, notably junk securitized debt. But those also fell much harder than 6%. So without peeking, I'd guess that DoubleLine had a mix of low grade securitized bonds and enough higher grade bonds to temper the dip. Taking more credit risk would also be consistent with trying to maintain that 3%+ yield while keeping a short duration.. Strangely enough, the bond fund I find with the closest match for that 2020 performance is TPINX. The portfolio is consistent with my guess: BBB credit rating, 2 year duration.
Looking at the linked doc on the Enhanced CAPE strategy, it seems that DoubleLine missed a macro call in 2019. The doc is entitled: A Potential Solution for Investors in Rising-Rate Environments.

Given indications that yields on the 10- and 30-year Treasuries put in a durable bottom in 2016, ending of the 35-year bull market in government bonds, investors have good reason to think about how to position portfolios for the next regime in fixed income. The investment team at DoubleLine is not calling for the advent of a secular bear market in fixed income. ... However, DoubleLine sees numerous fundamental factors presaging a rise in interest rates over the long run. Investors should study strategies that may not need the tailwind of declining rates to provide positive returns and perhaps have the potential to outperform in the face of rising rates.

Finally (and why I was curious about this fund), M* started classifying it as a blend fund in 2019. Not all that surprising, since CAPE rotates among sectors that are most undervalued relative to their own prior valuations, not relative to the market. So it can easily rotate into more "growthy" sectors.

I regard this Blackrock page about two of its funds as a sales blurb. Still worth keeping posted here as it can serve as a starting point on how to examine these pitches and how to examine numbers.

I wasn’t going to read this just based on the blurb JohnN posted. Sounded terribly elementary. But after looking at msf’s excellent comments, I decided to read / skim it. There’s a lot of good sense in it. I suppose anything an investment house (including TRP) puts out has “sales pitch” in there somewhere - but largely the writer is on-target. The asset breakdown for that income focused ETF certainly qualifies as “diversified” - if nothing else. Reminds me somewhat of RPSIX (when all the funds it holds are broken down).
“The iShares Morningstar Multi-Asset Income ETF (IYLD) is designed to do just that. IYLD seeks to track the Morningstar® Multi-Asset High Income Index which seeks to optimize a combination of iShares ETFs to maximize yield per unit of risk. The index rebalances back to a 60% fixed income, 20% equity and 20% alternative allocation on a quarterly basis.”
Pick your own poison, but I find myself slowly tilting in the direction of equities, hedge-like instruments and hard assets and seeking to “escape” most types of bonds in any concentration. As a retired senior, I can’t exit bonds completely - but it’s a tough call whether I dislike bonds or equities more at this moment.
Nice visuals in article. I always loved color-coded pie charts. I guess the ones here are better termed donut charts. But I like them nonetheless.

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk01srMZj2IX_eWzrfjWRskgbTPbnxw:1593454260683&source=hp&ei=tC76XvmbJ5b6-gS06oGQDg&q=Assessing+Opportunities+across+the+Risk+Spectrum+June+8,+2020&oq=Assessing+Opportunities+across+the+Risk+Spectrum+June+8,+2020&gs_lcp=ChFtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1ocBAMOgcIIxDqAhAnUNsbWNsbYL4paAFwAHgAgAGpAogBqQKSAQMyLTGYAQCgAQKgAQGwAQ8&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp
Assessing Opportunities across the Risk Spectrum
June 8, 2020
While recent market performance would suggest that investor optimism appears to be in full flower, there are still a great many uncertainties associated with how economies and markets will respond to pandemic-related developments in the months ahead. Long-term investors weighing their options for such an environment may be well served by employing an active manager offering a breadth of carefully constructed strategies to navigate the changed investment landscape of a post-coronavirus world.
After the March sell-off and the spring rally, where should investors focus their attention? Here, we outline four strategies that may align with different levels of risk tolerance in this uncertain environment.