Hi Guys,
These data are a great set that demonstrates randomness. If a pattern does exist it completely escapes me.
Does anyone see some semblance of a pattern here? If you do, your’e far more insightful than me Gunga Din. But that is too easy a challenge.
The references all provide terrific ways to present complex data in a meaningful and understandable way. Hooray for them all. Hooray for us potential users.
Best Wishes

Is there no ETF that does this? (some wack combo of SDOG, RSP, CAPE, and others, all under FD1k's magic touch ....)

Dr. Fauci said several months ago there is likely vaccine for COVID19 by end of 2020. Moderna, Pfizer, AstaZecca and several others are at Phase III testing. The more important question is the scale up (billions dosage) and distribution of them to people. Dr. Redfield said spring 2021 vaccines will likely be ready. I tend to agree with that timeframe. Remember Pfizer and Moderna vaccines require to keep frozen at least -2 C (dry ice temp) while flu vaccine is kept at refrigerator temp. Logistics on distribution will be a challenge but it can done provide the have a plan.
Watch for health care sector if the market is response to it. Otherwise it may signal that the election is done and everything is moving forward.
@davidmoran should be happy that CAPE is up 12%. IAU is down 4%. So are the bonds. Risk offnow?

One of the worst performing merger arbitrage funds around. Made a few coins before exiting. Escaped SPABX with a small profit as well.

I thought we had found the elusive MFOer who throws millions around at a time...
@davidmoran: Buying and selling CAPE requires a lot of attention as I have found a wide disparity between what the current price is and what the bid/ask prices are. I've only done this trading on Schwab, so your platform may be better suited to your needs. The often very low trading volumes also make your task trickier. FWIIW, the horror stories I've read about the risks in using ETNs give as examples pretty crazy strategies that wise old men would avoid anyway. (Some of us are old, some are wise, but do the twain meet?)

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.