@hank, what blends?
upon any dip I am going to buy QUAL and MMTM with some XRLV (and CAPE if I can)

Hi Old Joe,
Disrespectful, disrespectful, and more disrespectful.
Your comments that you design to degrade my contributions to the MFO board say much more about you and your character than about me. This goes way back to FundAlarm days. The reason escapes me. Regardless, I still extend you.....
Best Wishes

You're missing a number of points and writing what it seems you want to be true: that the 4% figure "is based on multiple studies that included using Monte Carlo analyses". It wasn't.
If what you meant to say is that subsequent Monte Carlo simulations validated this figure, then there's a different problem with the narrative. Because that would also validate the use of historical data - something you say has an intrinsic shortcoming.
Of course the odds are virtually nil that the next thirty years will match a previous thirty year period. Just as the odds are virtually nil that the next thirty years will match a performance pulled out of a hat (aka a Monte Carlo iteration). This is a red herring.
In the typical Monte Carlo simulation, patterns are abstracted away. You seem to regard this as a virtue, writing disapprovingly that historical returns are used "sometimes in the precise order in which these returns were registered." (Orderings weren't preserved merely "sometimes" but always when Bengen came up with his 4% figure. See his original paper.)
Again I suggest reading the AAII piece. You'll find a concrete example of how ignoring some patterns can affect results. Bengen notes there that if one rebalances much less frequently than yearly, " you can actually add about a quarter of a percentage point to your withdrawal rate" He attributes this to persistence of performance. That's a kind of pattern that simplistic Monte Carlo simulations abstract away.
"Monte Carlo simulations continue to grow in popularity." When all else fails, cite popularity for validation. I'm sure VHS's popularity meant that it was the superior technology, that the more popular Windows is better than Mac, etc.
There really was some interesting stuff that you didn't discuss. Like how "there is an inverse relationship between the long-term valuation of the stock market and how much retirees can withdraw without running out of money."
How does that historical data fit into your Monte Carlo simulations? How do you map CAPE into means and standard deviations for large cap stocks, small cap stocks, and bonds? Those are the inputs for the simulators you're linking to.

I think Monte Carlo engines are fine tools. Just so long as they're not simplistic, matched to the right task, and employed by knowledgeable users. Used as you suggest, they have lots of issues.

There are no constraints to Monte Carlo simulation, only constraints users create in a model (or constraints that users are forced to deal with when using someone else’s model). Non-normal asset-class returns and autocorrelations can be incorporated into Monte Carlo simulations, albeit with proper care.

David Blanchett and Wade Pfau,The Power and Limitations of Monte Carlo Simulations, 2014.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2014/08/26/the-power-and-limitations-of-monte-carlo-simulations

Hi @bee, My portfolio is comprised through many years of investing and there are guidelines in place but no hard rules. For instance, the two largest fund holdings are also my oldest at about six percent each (FKINX & AMECX). I decided ... enough is enough ... and, I don't want to keep expanding these two funds so I split some off and open other funds with these being my seed funds for the others. With new money, some gift and inheritance transfers, and taking what the existing funds generated I built what you see. With this I'm thinking new positions to complement the core. Also, a good amount of what you see is also held in taxable accounts. So, I have to consider the tax angle as well.
An exapmle. Currently, NEWFX is the largest position in it's sleeve so I'm thinking of splitting some of it into another fund (DWGAX) through a nav exchange process. This will rebalace NEWFX's sleeve while adding some diverfication to the sleeve that will hold DWGAX. As you can see I have another fund under review for a nav exchange buy (INUTX). So, this is an on going process and done when I felt warranted. Again, gudelines but no hard rules. Generally, no fund starts at less than 5% of its sleeve and becomes no more than 60%. For instance AOFAX is currently 15% of its sleeve, NDVAX 15% and PMDAX 70%. When AOFAX gets built AOFAX is tatgeted to become 20%, NDVAX 20% & PMDAX 60%. PMDAX is held in a taxable account and has been a long term position and through the years of growth become an outsized position within its sleeve. The strategy is not to sell any of PMDAX but to grow the other positions to balance the sleeve with some more buys and natural growth as they should grow faster than PMDAX.
That is why it is important to Xray what you have before starting to tweak.
The below outlines the process and was not posted with the portfolio. Again, no hard rules just guidelines about my sleeve management system.
Old_Skeet's Sleeve Management System
Now being in retirement here is a brief description of my sleeve management system which I organized to better help manage the investments held within mine and my wife's portfolios. The master portfolio is comprised of two taxable investment accounts, two self directed retirement accounts, a health savings account plus two bank 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, there is the growth area where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five slleves ... a global 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 picutre 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. 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. The matrix 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.
See the portfolio for asset allocation ranges for each area. Sleeve and fund weightings are known but not listed.

She knows nothing independently, is just assigned to see that the new HNW (ha) transferrer-in is happy and 'why don't I do the same for the rest of my Fido holdings'. I try to speak with her as little as possible, though she always says she will relay my complaints and suggestions. I got my $1k bonus already for the transfer. The CAPE "reason" she was reciting to me was bullshit, sure, and upon reflection unsurprising.
I may email them the questions / examples you suggest, but those C/S responses are no good either. Fido people at least are frank, ime.
Great etn list. So Barclays doesn't physically hold livestock, huh. I wonder who uses 3x inverse natgas.

VOO is better yet, and yes, it was the four months preceding Aug 15 that initially gave XRLV the nontrivial leg up.
Same with the last month.
So you get performance very close to VOO (or IVV) with possible added value of outperformance under rising rates. Win-win. All I was saying. No kidding anyone.
Hard to beat VOO. If there were significant downsides to QUAL, XRLV, and CAPE (none shown thus far), they would not be of interest. Yet they seem close to equal to VOO and, often enough, better than. That's why my discussion title was what it was.
But you do you, and stay argumentative.

I am told by my ML handholder that etn status is not the reason, but its use of derivatives. Or something like that.
$7 is good; Fido is $5, if I am reading correctly; dunno why I balk, sez the guy who drives 3 miles to save $3 on scotch.
That Elements link is the single funniest piece of financial writing I have read in very many months.
But these are highly comical too, directly or indirectly.
https://www.etf.com/sections/blog/23314-the-worst-etf-in-the-world.html
https://www.elementsetn.com/ElementsETNUI/SPECTRUM-U.S.-ETN.aspx
Up a dime today. $4M in assets, sez M*. Strategy almost CAPE-like, har.

Yes, Vanguard will sell CAPE to some of its investors for free (minimum presence requirement).
Vanguard won't sell CAPE for free to all of its investors. CAPE is not an ETF but an ETN, and thus not part of the "commission-free ETF" program above. But at least all investors can buy it at VBS, for $7 or less.
Merrill Edge (ME) investors can't buy an ETN at any price, not even Merrill Lynch's own Elements ETNs.

Outdone by ML? (Perhaps minimum presence requirements.) And will Vanguard let you buy CAPE for free?

@Ted,
You can do way better than SPY (cash drag, as uit). Let us compare with the very best, VOO.
Since the day after it launched, 4/7/15, 3-1/3y ago, $10k in XRLV has risen to $15,020 and change.
VOO, which handily beats SPY, has increased to $14,709 less change.
>$300, XRLV beats VOO, and forget SPY.
But for 3y, its outperformance is slight. And 2y shows underperformance, 1y the same but less so, and for increments thereof, ditto, ... except for the last month.
So: if not longterm, you won't go wrong with VOO (Ted, you might change your reference point).
But anyone can probably do slightly better than VOO, adding slightly more value, with no more volatility and likely less volatility. As LB notes.
Nothing approaches CAPE, though, alas.
So at ML it looks as though I will need to do something like 50-50 XRLV and QUAL.
Other suggestions (with backup) welcome.

I have found the DSE_X funds to do a very good job, as anyone who reads my posts knows, and have often touted the great etn CAPE in addition or instead. But some don't like to deal in etfs / etns whose processes are not easy to understand, and for others it is unavailable, for example at ML.
So using MFOP and other sites, I am always looking for other seemingly consistent small improvements over VOO to sub for CAPE. (Straight low-vol indexes often do not show any outperformance.) This has led me to examine QUAL and LGLV (SP500 subclasses / subscreens, so to speak) and similar.
My latest discovery, while not CAPE (which is GO and HR), is XRLV, which tracks the SP500 Low-Volatility Rate Response Index, whose purported and so-far-so-good advantages are explained here:
http://www.indexologyblog.com/2018/06/06/maintaining-risk-reduction-while-reducing-interest-rate-risk/
https://investorplace.com/2018/06/4-funds-that-will-help-protect-against-rising-interest-rates/

btw ... i exited ge this week after it dropped below my purchase price of around $12.7 ... had jumped quickly on announcement of selling off oil and health sectors ... but then repeated its decline. extraordinary reversal of fortune for this once great company. not sure if current leadership inspires enough confidence in employees and investors to escape selling off the company wholesale. c

Here's M*'s latest story on HSAs: How to Escape a Lousy Health Savings Account It talks not only about a once a year rollover, but about more frequent periodic direct (custodian to custodian) transfers which may unfortunately be subject to fees.
And @bee 's blast from the past: Best HSA Provider for Investing HSA Money
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/36141/best-hsa-provider-for-investing-hsa-money
M* hasn't updated its report from 2017. It still omits Saturna and Lively, two inexpensive alternatives.

I invest directly with Bruce Funds (BRUFX) for my HSA. My only fees are the funds ER (0.71%) and a $15/yr account maintenance fee. Returns have average 6% since I started. Other HSA providers offer a host of investment choices. If your employer's HSA plan has limited investment choices or high fees you can complete a once a year rollover or a trustee to trustee transfer to another HSA providers (of your choosing).
how-to-rollover-an-hsa-on-your-own-and-avoid-trustee-transfer-fee
Here's a M* report:

Health savings accounts are a very under-researched corner of the market. Investors have few resources available to help them navigate the hundreds of plan providers that exist. Health savings accounts have recently grown in popularity, but the lack of resources has likely contributed to their under utilization as a savings vehicle despite their valuable tax benefits. To provide a comprehensive resource for investors and employers selecting a plan, we assessed 10 of the largest HSA plan providers in this report. We evaluated the plans through two separate lenses: using them as a spending vehicle to cover current medical costs, and using them as an investment vehicle to save for future medical expenses.

Link for full Report:
2017_Health_Savings_Account_Landscape

Thanks for suggesting CAPE. It is a unique idea but I will stick to the basics.

>> I also like the fact that by the nature of the SP500 index it gradually picks the winners for me and discards the losers
Speaking of that slow process, you sound like one who might enjoy having part of your SP500 holding be the CAPE etn.

There are a few differences between a sector fund as bee compared too versus DSENX. In theory, CAPE will rotate sectors within the fund, not stay stagnant with 1 sector. In that it holds a 'diversified' selection of 4 (or is it 5) sectors also sets it apart from a comparison with a specific sector fund. You may not be broadly investing with a fund like DSENX, but you certainly are more diversified than a sector fund like FSMEX. I don't think you can compare returns from the 2.

Yours are all niche (sector) endeavors, right?
The article is about broad investing.
You can always find sector good stuff. I sure wish I had been in 4-5 Fido sectors since they came out in the 1980s.
Are there truly any other CAPE-based funds?

For some reason FSMEX, FSRPX & PRNHX received no love...that's o.k., please ignore their out performance.
@davidmoran...I kinda of agree, but CAPE (DSENX) is still not the only "CAPE crusader"...since 2013 (FSMEX has been pretty good):

yup
one year is about nada, and one year-plus where growth really exploded (compare any of these with CAPE the last 18 months, say) means only that you shoulda bought a namebrand growth fund xmas of '16.