Yes, am also looking hard at DGRW, wondering about it vs CAPE for placement of some burning cash. Although Malkiel now has me thinking about IEMG and ESGE....

I moved some DSENX into DLEUX a few months ago, a small amount to start. My thought was; I like the CAPE theory, so if there is better value in Europe then CAPE should work well there. Maybe better than US.
If I compare the US version to Europe, The U.S version has done better, but not by a lot. But I take that with a grain of salt because domestic stocks have all been on a tear. so maybe not a good comparison. If I compare it to FEU, a broader Europe ETF, it under performs substantially over the last 3 months, 1.7% to 6.1% for FEU and by about 5% over one year, 23% for DLEUX versus 28% for FEU.
I don't know what it all means over this short time, but I don't have a huge stake in DLEUX to give it much worry. I don't plan to move any more DSENX to DLEUX at this point, but I'm not going to sell either. Still an experiment.

@davidmoran: are you the only one on this board who owns this fund? I own a lot of DSENX, but I have been unimpressed with the European version of CAPE. What I did buy last year were BCVSX and MOTI.

As it should have. He was talking about stocks, and there's a big difference between being a customer of a company and knowing a company. It's the latter sense in which he meant one should know what (company) one is investing in.
Still, when it comes to industries, knowing means something different. Working in an industry can give you a good sense of the health of that industry if you are attentive.
I was wondering whether you had any thoughts about how the CAPE index model will be adjusted for the new sector since this is a thread about DSENX. When real estate was carved out of financials, the CAPE index was modified to use a non-SPDR index fund, IYR.
I imagine that was done because it needed an index fund with a ten year history, and by definition, XLRE was a new fund without a history. Though IYR might have been chosen because it was more inclusive, holding mortgage REITS such as NLY that XLRE excludes.
However, that might mean that the CAPE index added a new group of companies (mortgage REITs) that it had not tracked before. A discontinuity. Regardless, another imprecision arose - the old history of the financial sector included real estate, while the sector itself no longer did. Was any attempt made to correct for this (e.g. recalculating the financial index history after pulling out the real estate component)?
This time things are even more interesting. The CAPE index tracks XLK for technology, but XLK combines technology and telecom. That's why there are ten "sectors" that the CAPE index uses, while there are eleven S&P sectors.
It is possible that State Street will decide to keep XLK as it is, in which case the CAPE index won't have to do a thing (other than watch the technology+communications "sector" continue to grow in weight). But what if State Street does finally create a communications Select Sector SPDR? There won't be any history for the new SPDR (just as there was no history for XLRE). Would the CAPE index turn again to a non-Select Sector SPDR? Also, as happened with XLF, the history for XLK will no longer precisely represent the new XLK after communications companies are carved out.
DSENX in turn will need derivatives that track whatever index or indexes the CAPE index chooses to track. Will they exist?
And they say that a machine can run an index fund.

@Ted, Thanks for the article.
Last line from the article say it all:

“CAPE tends to be too pessimistic and PEG may be too optimistic,” Yardeni said by phone. “The truth may lie somewhere in between.”

FYI: By virtually any measure, U.S. stocks are expensive. Under one especially harsh lens, the cyclically adjusted price-earnings ratio popularized by Robert Shiller, equities relative to 10 years of profits are more stretched than any time in a century, save the dot-com era.
But there’s still a methodology that bulls can take comfort in -- price not just to earnings, but to earnings growth. Favored by legendary investor Peter Lynch and known as the PEG ratio, the technique takes the standard valuation snapshot and adds time -- time for a stock to grow into its price.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/forget-cape-ratio--peter-lynch-tool-has-s-p-500-getting-cheaper-36555.html?print

@Old_Skeet, your sector momentum strategy sounds exactly like that momentum news letter you used to link a few years ago. Are you copying that guy's strategy? Can't remember the name of the letter or the guy who ran it. Invest in the 3 leading sectors and replace sectors based on current strength.
Kind of why I like the CAPE strategy of DSENX albeit the opposite strategy. They do do it better than I could.

I avoided mentioning PONDX because I was trying to envision worst-case scenarios going forward. I concur in the take that the longterm future is unlikely to be like the bull past we have enjoyed. Looking chiefly at GOs' UI in Premium, I still think trying to achieve the $24k/y would entail over half but hopefully not two-thirds in DODIX or Vanguard equivalent, with the rest --- as much as comfort-bearable --- in TWEIX / SPLV / CAPE or a combo of them. 40% or more.
Else VWINX, though I do not think it will quite hit the almost 5%-withdrawal mark.
Or this might do best, since security is paramount:
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=1263&FundIntExt=INT&ps_disable_redirect=true
or
https://www.fidelity.com/annuities/immediate-fixed-income-annuities/compare

The other problem is this. VWINX is an excellent fund because of low fees and good management. These facts will likely continue into the future. But to project its past performance into the future is a mistake. Consider the author of the aforementioned seekingalpha article's premise regarding backtesting. He looks back to January 1, 1992.
These were the conditions for the market in January 1992:
Dividend yield of the S&P 500: 3%
multpl.com/s-p-500-dividend-yield/
10-Year Treasury yield 7%
macrotrends.net/2016/10-year-treasury-bond-rate-yield-chart
10-year Shiller P/E ratio 19
https://dqydj.com/shiller-pe-cape-ratio-calculator/
Here is where we are today
S&P 500 Dividend yield: 1.77%
10-Year Treasury yield: 2.4%
10-year Shiller p/e: 34
To back-test and assume the past from January 1992 is prelude for the future today based on these numbers I think is a mistake. We have lived through a historic period of falling interesting rates and rising stock valuations from 1982 onward. That period as far as interest rates goes is over and I'm not sure how much longer the rising valuations will continue. Creative thinking is necessary.

@LB, by equity-aggressive I meant proportionally, not the holdings themselves. I would avoid foreign for this person.
VWINX looks like the choice, yes. Interesting its UI is high-ish (greater than VOOG and DSENX, e.g.).
If someone was 'managing' >1 fund, I would consider a mix of TWEIX and DODIX if FPURX dents comfort level. SPLV or CAPE could be the equity position instead of TWEIX, of course.

Hi Guys,
Thanks one and all for a very stimulating and detailed discussion exchange.
Forecasting equity returns is an extremely challenging assignment. Separating "The Signal and the Noise"' is not easy work. The Signal and the Noise is an excellent book authored by Nate Silver. Here is a Link that accesses the full text:
http://www.stavochka.com/files/Nate_Silver_The_Signal_and_the_Noise.pdf
Developing some method to reasonably predict upcoming market returns from numerous historical data correlation candidates has escaped just about everyone, including industry giants like Vanguard.
Here is a Link to a rather exhaustive and comprehensive attempt reported by Vanguard that explored a wide array of potential correlating parameters:
https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/s338.pdf
Vanguard does honest work. All correlation attempts failed, including the use of last year's returns to project next year's equity rewards. See Figure 2 in the referenced document. I suppose one response to these forecasting failures is to accept prediction defeat and simply stay invested for the long haul.
Best Wishes for a happy and prosperous New Year.

Not much inflation fighting happening with STPZ; but if one can handle the big swings and have a feel for the markets; go play with the big dog/cousin LTPZ. Have played in this area before and escaped with a decent return, but one has to pay close attention. One could make a living playing this area.
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?stpz,ltpz

I am bullish for the upcoming year, but have just sold a patch of DSENX (post-runup) in a Roth just to be able to think clearly about cash needs (dau wedding) next fall and possible dip buying prior (CAPE vs NOBL vs QUAL vs DGRO).
Also about $200k <4% heloc with interesting nondeductibility looming. Do I care whether it is 3.75% deductible, or a bit higher?
Am tracking SOI to buy in Jan, maybe.
Will be running ORP several times w new tax situations to see about where to fund non-SS cashflow for the year too.

FYI: It is that time of year, when the financial industry engages in its annual ritual of making forecasts, which is usually little more than the prelude to looking foolish. Titles like “Outlook for 2018, “What to expect in the new year,” or some variation thereof litter the landscape. Over the years, it has been my distinct privilege (and truth be told, pleasure) to point out how silly this process is.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-15/wall-street-wises-up-to-the-folly-of-forecasting

Of the 128 alternative & mixed asset funds launched this year, here are the top performers in each: Arabesque Systematic USA (ASUIX), Measured Risk Strategy I (MRPIX), Gotham Master Long (GMLFX), GMO Climate Change III (GCCHX), DoubleLine Shiller Enhanced International CAPE I (DSEUX), Driehaus Multi-Asset Growth Economies (DMAGX) ...

Is this an error, or what the heck happened? DSENX down -6.45%. That's what I see on my Schwab account.

Couldn't resist the visual look to satisfy my curious brain. I also have been watching as to or if the "value" area is going to receive a more aggressive bump up.....and there is a bit here now.
Nov. 2013 to date:
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?DSEEX,CAPE,JKF,JKE&n=1023&O=011000
Last 6 months to date:
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?DSEEX,CAPE,JKF,JKE&p=3&O=011000

Interesting. If you graph CAPE $10k growth over 4/3/2/1y/ytd you could argue CAPE tracks JKF (meaning its wiggles) rather more closely than JKE --- except for the last year, when CAPE has moved more like JKE. Fwiw.

@LLJB - nice description. I agree that the writer probably doesn't understand the fund or the index. I suspect that cause of the mischaracterization can be laid at M*'s feet. They're the ones classifying this fund (and the CAPE ETN) as LCV.
There's another part of the description that's wrong, though it seems almost everyone gets that wrong. The CAPE index does not pick among the 10 S&P sectors. For one thing, the index added real estate, which is not an S&P sector, but (per prospectus) comes the Dow Jones U.S. Real Estate Index.
There are 10 S&P sectors, so that would seem to add up to a pool of 11 sectors. But the index combines two S&P sectors (technology and telecom) into one.
Here's a table of those 10 "real" S&P sectors along with dated info on their CAPE ratios.
http://siblisresearch.com/data/cape-ratios-by-sector/

Another guy writing stuff that's misleading, probably because he doesn't understand it. Do an instant X-ray on the 4 sector etfs in the fund and you'll find out it is NOT a value fund. I haven't tried to test that over its entire history but I'd be surprised if it's ever been a value fund based on M*'s definitions and how other funds are classified. When I've done that in the past it has always ended up as a growth fund or a blend fund close to the border with growth. People naturally think investing in the 4 lowest CAPE sectors (excluding whichever one of the "cheapest" 5 has the worst momentum) is a value approach and maybe it is, but that's not what this fund is doing. It's investing in 4 of the cheapest 5 based on the CAPE ratio relative to it's own history. So if technology has traded at an average CAPE ratio of 400 over the last 10 or 20 years (sorry, can't remember the precise details) and its only trading at a CAPE ratio of 300 today while Energy is trading at 25 today but has historically traded at 20, then technology is the "cheaper" sector in ranking terms for determining the funds investments.
The approach has worked very well and may continue to work but it has not led to a "value" portfolio based on the definitions M* uses to categorize other funds, it's not necessarily invested in sectors with the lowest traditional CAPE value and it's the traditional CAPE value that has proven more predictive of future (long-term) performance than most other things.
Outperforming value funds when it has "growth" investments is meaningless even if people keep writing about the fund that way. Buyer beware!! For transparency sake I do own the fund and I like it. I just don't appreciate the way it tends to be written about because I think it's likely to make people believe they're getting something that they really aren't.