Some history, courtesy Edward Luce, Financial Times:
In 1832, the British aristocracy saved itself by agreeing to loosen its grip on power. … The [passed] bill widened Britain’s electorate and diluted the political stranglehold of its landed elites. This was a key reason why Britain escaped Europe’s wave of 1848 revolutions. …
Much the same thing happened again in 1911 …. Once again, the Lords … opted for compromise over the threat of extinction … [voting] in favour of the Parliament act, which deprived the aristocracy ever again of the power to block fiscal legislation. This was how British welfare state was born. Meanwhile, the country’s peers continued to enjoy their status at the top of the ladder. It seemed like a reasonable trade-off. The working classes received social insurance; their social betters got to complain ad nauseam about “Le weekend”.
I was reminded of these key turning points — and indeed of the New Deal … — a few days ago when Ray Dalio, the hedge fund billionaire, wrote a plea to reform American capitalism…. few people have benefited more from today’s capitalism …. The system will never change unless more people like Dalio come round to his way of thinking. One or two others, including JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon, are also making similar noises, which is good news. But too many still belong in the camp of Steve Schwarzman, the private equity billionaire, and Howard Schultz, the former Starbucks chief executive, both of whom have likened the idea of a wealth tax to Venezuela. A few years ago, Schwarzman compared the proposed — but still unenacted — closure of the “carried interest” loophole to Hitler’s invasion of Poland. I wish I were making that up. Alas, he really did.
As long as the bulk of America’s superwealthy continue to equate progressive taxation with fascism, or communism, they will hasten into being what they most fear. History tells us that elites who do not share power are ultimately doomed (see French revolution). Those with the wisdom and foresight to bend find they are far less likely to eventually break. The question America’s financial and tech elites must ask is “what price social peace?” I would say social peace is worth several carried interest loopholes.

Hi Guys,
I just returned home from a lecture that was purportedly given by an equity investment expert. He made some interesting and valid market observations, but also claimed an investment selection accuracy that I believe compromised his credibility. He claimed and showed a few charts that documented a positive selection accuracy in excess of 80%. If that is an accurate scorecard, he is exceptional and has powers that exceed a host of famous market experts.
Here is a Link that summarizes the performance of a huge number of famous gurus:
https://www.cxoadvisory.com/gurus/
Even the best of these gurus failed to have a 70% accuracy score. The average success ratio for this elite group failed to reach a 50% score. Investing is a challenging task. Success over a reasonably large number of decisions escapes the experts and likely escapes most of us. We do need to be somewhat lucky. Good luck to all of us. We need it.
Best Regards

@catch22: that’s a great chart! In addition to demonstrating the CAPE strategy’s long term dominance, it also shows how much DSENX declined when the market went south. Several members wondered aloud here about the prospects of the fund in a down market; maybe this chart has the answer.

Yeah, the last couple years many value-ish ETFs have outperformed (hardly clocked) DSE_X and CAPE; I have posted about this a couple of times as I have been seeking alternatives to CAPE, although not specifically mentioning MOAT.

Recent discussion here decried the absence of online Category Kings on the WSJ site. Today the compilations appeared in the "Investing in Funds" monthly section, albeit with only 5 entries per category. Hiding at #2 in Multicap Core we find the Van Eck Morningstar Wide-Moat OEF, MWMZX. Don't rush out to buy it unless you have $1M or can avoid the restricted status. I wonder why it exists and why the WSJ can't do a better job of bringing us funds we can actually buy. The leading performing fund this month is a Fidelity fund almost no one can access. The Van Eck OEF appears to be a clone of the very successful MOAT ETF that I have mentioned here before. MOAT has outperformed the SPY over 3 and 5 year periods and it has also clocked the favorites of a couple of board members, DSEEX and DSENX over almost any time period.
I have not researched this comparison, but my conclusions are that the M* wide-moat strategy is by far the most successful of those affiliated with an investment publication. I looked at Barron's BFOR, the MotleyFool funds, the ValueLine funds, and Eddy Effenbien's Crossing Wall Street. There must be others I don't know of. The MOAT ETF strategy has spawned MOTI, DURA, and GOAT, although the latter three have not attracted many investors. I'd suggest the global GOAT to any member who is reeling from poor NCAA bracket choices. BTW, am I indeed the only MFO discussant to own MOAT? For the record, I also hold DSENX and CAPE.

Hi davidrmoran,
Well, I seemed to have hit a nerve. That was never my goal. In my closing remarks I did attempt to praise you: quote “I believe you are an experienced, knowledgeable investor.” I meant it. I hope that you didn’t consider that I was a “windy dimwit” when I made that observation.
It’s good to know that I’m only sometimes a windy dimwit. By your analysis, I sometimes manage to escape that classification. I hope to improve and extend those non-dimwit periods. I’ll keep working the problem, and with help from the MFOers perhaps I will succeed.
Regardless, your post gave me (and probably a host of other MFOers) some insights into your thinking and evaluation process. Name calling is a Loser’s game.
I still wish you success in your investing and other decisions. Differences in analyses and decisions indeed make the marketplace work better.
Best Wishes

My thinking is that if you can't manage what you have then you've got to many funds. Being a prior corporate credit manager for a regional distribution company I had to have a receivable system in place to manage a fairly large customer base. This skill set lead to my development of my sleeve management system to better manage my family's investments. Through the years it has worked fairly well. You can read more about this below.
Sleeve Management System ... Last Revised on 03/01/2019
Now being in retirement here is a brief description of my sleeve management system which I organized to better manage the investments held within mine and my wife's portfolios. The consolidated master portfolio is comprised of two taxable investment accounts, two self directed retirement accounts, a health savings account plus two bank savings accounts. With this, I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves ... an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consist of two sleeves ... a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves ... a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. And, then there is the growth area where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five sleeves ... a global growth sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, a specialty/theme sleeve plus a special investment (spiff) sleeve. Each sleeve (in most cases) consist of three to nine funds with the size and weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds held along with their amounts. By using the sleeve system I can get a better picture of my overall investment landscape. I have found it beneficial to Xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly for analysis. My positions and sleeves can be adjusted from time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets through using my market barometer and equity weighting matrix system. The matrix system is driven by the barometer. All my funds with the exception of those in my health savings account pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio. This automatically builds cash in the cash area to meet the portfolio's disbursements (when necessary) with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. Generally, in any one year, I take no more than a sum equal to one half of my portfolio's five year average return. In this way principal builds over time. In addition, most buy/sell transactions settle from, or to, the cash area with some net asset exchanges between funds taking place. In addition, my rebalance threshold is + (or -) 2% from my target allocation for both my income, growth & income and growth areas while I generally let cash float.
Consolidated Master Portfolio
Here is how I have my asset allocation broken out in percent ranges, by area. My neutral allocation weightings follow. They are cash area 15%, income area 35%, growth & income area 35% and growth & other asset area 15%. I do an Instant Xray analysis of the portfolio quarterly and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assessment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc. I have the portfolio set up in Morningstar's portfolio manager by sleeve, by area and the portfolio as a whole for easy monitoring plus I use brokerage account statements, Morningstar fund reports, fund fact sheets along with their annual reports to follow my investments. I also maintain a list of positions to add (A) to, to buy (B), to reduce (R) or to sell (S). Generally, funds are assigned to a sleeve based upon a best fit basis.
Currently, my INVESTMENT FOCUS is to increase my portfolio's income stream through positioning new money into income generating assets while letting equities run on the high side to their upper threshold limit.
Target Asset Allocation (Balanced Towards Income): Cash 20%, Income 40%, G&I 30% & Growth 10%
Consolidated Master Portfolio Asset Allocation: Cash 16%, Income 39%, G&I 32% & Growth 13%
Rebalance Action Needed: Decrease Growth Area 1% and Increase Income Area 1%
CASH AREA: (Weighting Range 10% to 20%)
Demand Cash Sleeve ... Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual
Investment Cash Sleeve ... Money Market Funds: AMAXX, GBAXX, DTGXX, PCOXX, CD Ladder(A) &
Cash Savings(A)
INCOME AREA: (Weighting Range 30% to 40%)
Fixed Income Sleeve: CTFAX(A), GIFAX, LBNDX(A), NEFZX, PONAX(A) & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: APIUX, AZNAX, BAICX, DIFAX(A), FISCX(A), FKINX, ISFAX(A), JNBAX, PGBAX & PMAIX
GROWTH & INCOME AREA: (Weighting Range 30% to 40%)
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX, DWGAX & EADIX(A)
Global Hybrid Sleeve: CAIBX, TEQIX & TIBAX
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX, INUTX(A) & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, FBLAX, FRINX(A), HWIAX & LABFX
GROWTH & OTHER ASSET AREA: (Weighting Range 10% to 20%)
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, AMCPX & SPECX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: AOFAX, NDVAX & PMDAX
Global Growth Sleeve: ANWPX, NEWFX & SMCWX
Miscellaneous, Specialty & Theme Sleeve: LPEFX, PCLAX & PGUAX
Ballast & Spiff Sleeve: No position held at this time.
A credit manager's belief is that there are safety in numbers so spread the risk and limit how much any one account class can have on open credit. And, for those with a bad debt write off history ... it's CIA (cash in advance).

Hi guys: As @hank noted ... Here is how Old_Skeet rolls and manages a consolidated portfolio of 49 funds. My thinking is that if you can't manage what you have then you've got to many funds. Being a prior corporate credit manager for a regional distribution company I had to have a receivable system in place to manage a fairly large customer base. Thus, I developed my sleeve management system to help manage my family's investments. Through the years it has worked fairly well. You can read more about this below.
Sleeve Management System ... Last Revised on 03/01/2019
Now being in retirement here is a brief description of my sleeve management system which I organized to better manage the investments held within mine and my wife's portfolios. The consolidated master portfolio is comprised of two taxable investment accounts, two self directed retirement accounts, a health savings account plus two bank savings accounts. With this, I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves ... an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consist of two sleeves ... a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves ... a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. And, then there is the growth area where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five sleeves ... a global growth sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, a specialty/theme sleeve plus a special investment (spiff) sleeve. Each sleeve (in most cases) consist of three to twelve funds with the size and weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds held along with their amounts. By using the sleeve system I can get a better picture of my overall investment landscape. I have found it beneficial to Xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly for analysis. My positions and sleeves can be adjusted from time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets through using my market barometer and equity weighting matrix system. The matrix system is driven by the barometer. All my funds with the exception of those in my health savings account pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio. This automatically builds cash in the cash area to meet the portfolio's disbursements (when necessary) with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. Generally, in any one year, I take no more than a sum equal to one half of my portfolio's five year average return. In this way principal builds over time. In addition, most buy/sell transactions settle from, or to, the cash area with some net asset exchanges between funds taking place. In addition, my rebalance threshold is + (or -) 2% from my target allocation for both my income, growth & income and growth areas while I generally let cash float.
Consolidated Master Portfolio
Here is how I have my asset allocation broken out in percent ranges, by area. My neutral allocation weightings follow. They are cash area 15%, income area 35%, growth & income area 35% and growth & other asset area 15%. I do an Instant Xray analysis of the portfolio quarterly and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assessment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc. I have the portfolio set up in Morningstar's portfolio manager by sleeve, by area and the portfolio as a whole for easy monitoring plus I use brokerage account statements, Morningstar fund reports, fund fact sheets along with their annual reports to follow my investments. I also maintain a list of positions to add (A) to, to buy (B), to reduce (R) or to sell (S). Generally, funds are assigned to a sleeve based upon a best fit basis.
Currently, my INVESTMENT FOCUS is to increase my portfolio's income stream through positioning new money into income generating assets while letting equities run on the high side to their upper threshold limit.
Target Asset Allocation (Balanced Towards Income): Cash 20%, Income 40%, G&I 30% & Growth 10%
Consolidated Master Portfolio Asset Allocation: Cash 16%, Income 39%, G&I 32% & Growth 13%
Rebalance Action Needed: Decrease Growth Area 1% and Increase Income Area 1%
CASH AREA: (Weighting Range 10% to 20%)
Demand Cash Sleeve ... Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual
Investment Cash Sleeve ... Money Market Funds: AMAXX, GBAXX, DTGXX, PCOXX, CD Ladder(A) &
Cash Savings(A)
INCOME AREA: (Weighting Range 30% to 40%)
Fixed Income Sleeve: CTFAX(A), GIFAX, LBNDX(A), NEFZX, PONAX(A) & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: APIUX, AZNAX, BAICX, DIFAX(A), FISCX(A), FKINX, ISFAX(A), JNBAX, PGBAX & PMAIX
GROWTH & INCOME AREA: (Weighting Range 30% to 40%)
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX, DWGAX & EADIX(A)
Global Hybrid Sleeve: CAIBX, TEQIX & TIBAX
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX, INUTX(A) & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, FBLAX, FRINX(A), HWIAX & LABFX
GROWTH & OTHER ASSET AREA: (Weighting Range 10% to 20%)
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, AMCPX & SPECX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: AOFAX, NDVAX & PMDAX
Global Growth Sleeve: ANWPX, NEWFX & SMCWX
Miscellaneous, Specialty & Theme Sleeve: LPEFX, PCLAX & PGUAX
Ballast & Spiff Sleeve: No position held at this time.

I sold my large position last week. Vanguard had to contact them one or two times because they did not report back.

My apologies for forgetting that you too had invested in the fund. Glad to hear you've managed to escape intact.

huh, no mention of the 'value' auto-churn strategy for SP500 that, so far as I can see, outperforms at every interval for the last ~6.5y
iow a non-secret for beating the market, or #7
graph CAPE vs FXAIX since fall of 2012 and any sub-period thereafter

Yeah, DSE_X is becoming our only equity holding, >>50% of everything, and seems to do little worse in drops than IVV, say.
Take a look yourself via MFOP at DSEEX, TRBCX, IVV, and CAPE for the last 5y, their close UI and other measures (IVV notably lagging in growth of course).
You will almost certainly not go wrong w/ TRBCX if you hang in and don't track during slumps. (I may move some DSE_X moneys to it in the next slump, not sure; as I say, I'm trying to fight such excess or at least bootless diversification impulses, to return also to such old faves as YACKX, JABAX, PRBLX, FLPSX, TWEIX, plus some SC.)

Actually, CAPE is wrong. CAPE can be off by years so why use it. Sure, eventually stocks will be down at some point, they always are. There is no indicator that can predict when prices reach tops or bottoms so the best way IMO to use a mechanical method.
The easiest way is using asset allocation rebalance. Suppose you have 60/40 stock/bonds, when they are off by 5% just rebalance. No need to listen or follow any adice/experts/indicators.
I use the following for years since portfolio preservation is the most important to me because I just need 4.5% annual return for the next several decades.
The only indicator that works in real time, 100% guarantee, must relate to the price. Here is my simple formula. When the price of the SP500 goes under 50 days MA(moving average) and stay there several days I reduce my stocks % to under 5%, when the price goes under 200 days MA my stocks % to under 2%. Then the reverse.
So, how did the above work last time? Since the top at 09/2018 to today, my portfolio is up more than 3%. Last year, when the SP500 lost 20%, my portfolio lost just -0.9%. My portfolio volatility on the worse days was only 5-10% of the SP500.

This article discusses why the author thinks an inflection point has been reached that will begin to draw the P/E ratio back down towards long term historic norms. The focus on interest rate trends ties into the argument Gundlach makes in a video I posted a few minutes ago....

Here’s the problem that the CAPE highlights. Earnings in the past two decades have been far outpacing GDP; in the current decade, they’ve beaten growth in national income by 1.2 points (3.2% versus 2%). That’s a reversal of long-term trends. Over our entire 60 year period, GDP rose at 3.3% annually, and profits trailed by 1.3 points, advancing at just 2%. So the rationale that P/Es are modest is based on the assumption that today’s earnings aren’t unusually high at all, and should continue growing from here, on a trajectory that outstrips national income.It won’t happen. It’s true that total corporate profits follow GDP over the long term, though they fluctuate above and below that benchmark along the way. Right now, earnings constitute an unusually higher share of national income. That’s because record-low interest rates have restrained cost of borrowing for the past several years, and companies have managed to produce more cars, steel and semiconductors while shedding workers and holding raises to a minimum. Now, rates are rising and so it pay and employment, forces that will crimp profits...The huge gap between the official PE of 19 and the CAPE at 30 signals that unsustainably high profits are artificially depressing the former and that profits are bound to stagnate at best, and more likely decline. The retreat appears to have already started.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cape-fear-bulls-wrong-shiller-151355864.html

https://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/investment_help/investment_research/etf_research/etfs.html?path=%2FProspect%2FResearch%2Fetfs%2Foverview%2FoneSourceETFs.asp%3Fsymbol%3Dundefined
Above is the no cost ETFs from Schwab.
Can anyone explain why they use managed mutual funds that cost you 1-2% to own when the same or likely better returns can be had with these no commission index funds? The selection is huge. I own managed funds but I often wonder why.
There are many here that collect 30, 40, 50+ mutual funds. That just has to dilute any manager affect. Wouldn't it? Why do we continue to believe we get better returns from a collection of higher cost investment vehicles when most all data suggests otherwise?
In saying that, I argued for a long time managers could "steer the ship" for a smoother, higher return ride. I don't believe it anymore. I have not totally jumped on the ETF band wagon myself but I may. I still believe for very specific funds a manager or formula can add value, for example I wouldn't give up the management at PRWCX just yet or the secret ingredient in the CAPE fund DSENX. But other than that I think I have to break away from this paradigm in believing managers can beat these no cost ETFs.
What do others think? What are the reasons to use managed funds over free ETFs?

I went and graphed Oct-Dec $10k change for CAPE, DSEEX, SP500, low-vol LC ETFs, plus DOD, MMTM, QUAL, SCHD, VIG.... And yeah, everyone has already beat me to the point: DSEEX and CAPE did not do any better, to the contrary, did somewhat worse.
(I too have wanted to use CAPE for Merrill no-cost trading but cannot.)
I was v impressed to see how comparatively well TWEIX, YACKX, and PRBLX did during that significant slump. Yay for active management sometimes.

@Sven, DSENX is not a balanced fund (as thoroughly discussed in past discussions here. msf I believe had some good info on that point) so that comparison you gave ends up being apples to oranges. I suppose it could be called a "hybrid" type fund for whatever that means. For me it's just a large cap fund that has a really good return record and does better than the index, whether that's the LC Value or S&P 500 index. And what is meant by your comment that the 2018 drawdown is sizeable? In 2018 per M* the fund lost -4.3% while the LC value index lost -8.5% (S&P500 was -4.4%). It is a little more volatile if you are basing that on the STD, but does that matter if your holding the fund long term and not trying to get in and out to time the market? Higher STD is a bad thing if you don't hold on to your funds. In any case, there is nothing to say this fund is significantly more risky than your typical large cap fund. Take a look at the upside/downside capture ratio. Again DSENX has more upside than the S&P500 index and less downside. It blows the LCV index out of the water by that measure.
@MikeW, didn't really pay much attention before, but per M*, DSENX lost -15.6% and in comparison the S&P500 lost -13.5% in the 4th qtr. The CAPE ETF also lost about the same as DSENX so apparently it relates to the S&P500 low valuation sectors the CAPE formula was invested in at the time. It is not a low-volatility fund if that's what you are looking for.

Old Skeet provided a good analysis. I too hold DSENX for awhile. The 2018 drawdown is sizable as indicated by Derf. The fund 2018's total return was -4.0% while the 60/40 balanced index lost -2.9%. The international version, DSEUX, performed even worse and yielded -12.9% in 2018. The only saving grace of these tow CAPE-oriented funds is their large bond positions that provide the monthly dividend.
Interesting products from Gundlach but the risk is significant. Perhaps TRP Capital Appreciation would be a better vehicle with respect to both risk and reward.

I hold both CAPE and DSENX, using the former for trading when the price is right. Up until the market drop late last year, performance of the two vehicles was similar; however DSENX dropped much more than CAPE during he turmoil. I used M*'s chart function to compare performance, so maybe I missed something important.

David, why would you need a CAPE stand in?
You turned me on to DSENX years ago and it remains one of my top holdings. FDSAX seems a poor substitute for DOD and it hasn't even kept up with the S&P500 let alone DSENX. Some times more is less. Maybe not even sometimes.

CAPE, again, has outperformed DOD the last 6/5/4/3/1y periods. (Slightly.) I shoulda considered it when looking for a CAPE standin, instead of QUAL and MMTM and a few others. DOD sure has a higher UI, though, and by some degree.