I never look at ER particularly unless egregious.
Everyone might want to look at RPV and RPG too, but I understand the MC appeal of RSP. I would take CAPE over any of them. But it offers much less MC of course.

CAPE isn't difficult to emulate with etfs if you have the data to calculate their modified CAPE or you're willing to be off on your timing by about a month. It's just my guess, but because their version of CAPE looks at a sectors CAPE relative to its own history in order to determine whether its cheap or not, I think the chances of longer trends is higher and then being late by a month or so isn't as bad as if the turnover was higher. But that's just a guess.
DSENX is a lot harder to emulate because of the swaps. You can certainly do the same deal with the etfs and buy another bond fund but most people won't be able to do that with the same money. I think the people who can come close to using the same money twice will have to use futures for the equity exposure and then hold a bond fund that you can access very easily if you end up needing to meet a margin call.

I think this was discussed. Was there ever a conclusion about how to emulate (simulate) these with other, close-enough funds? M* is helpless, of course.

It is the volatility that spooks the markets. And when the oil price is high, big oil companies each spend tens of billions a year in capex. With low prices, they cut their capex bugets. Energy touches every aspect of the economy.

But the CAPE process does not permit discretion, really, right? It's just a system (algorithm).
Okay, so maybe it is sorta like Belichick...

@catch, it's a great observation that I have a few additional thoughts about having been a Patriots fan since the '70s and more recently a fan of Doubleline's Enhanced CAPE fund thanks to all the discussions here.
Both sports, especially football with so many guys playing during a game, and investments, with tens or hundreds of investments, are very complicated systems. The goal, I think, is to put pieces together that work extremely well TOGETHER rather than assembling a collection of 'star' performers that don't work as well together. Belichick has a system and he seems to be extremely good at taking lots of different players over the years and getting them to work together. Quite a few of these players aren't individual stars but he gets so much out of how he gets them to work together that they've been perennial contenders for many years. And, which I think is very important, he's very quick to part with anybody who causes or might cause disruption to the system because the value he gets out of cohesion is far greater than what he could ever get out of an individual star.
I think the same is probably true for fund managers but they have even more pieces to manage and they don't have the ability to 'teach' anything to their investments to get them to perform 'better' in their system. They do get it right sometimes, occasionally for long periods of time and I would suggest it's not easy to guess when they're going to lose it as Bill Miller did. In the case of the Doubleline funds, most of the performance is rules based and there's no reason to think a set of rules can't work extremely well for some period of time too. The bonds play an important role too and it seems both the math and the bonds have been working very well together since inception. Figuring out if and/or when the math won't work as well isn't easy but it's probably the key to knowing when it's time to move on.
In another more active example, the Primecap guys have had a team approach to their funds forever and the performance speaks for itself. Since the members of the team manage their pieces with a high degree of autonomy, at least according to what I've been able to read, it has to mean they've put team members together and taught them a system that has worked extremely well together for a very long time. As the team turns over, as it has some through the years, finding new team members who can employ the system and who mesh well with the other team members is probably the biggest source of their success. Since POAGX is my biggest single investment I'm hoping that continues for a long time.

The Beatles have already established the phrase of "Magical Mystery Tour", but the words appropriately describe some personal investing styles and active managed funds, IMHO.
Be it musical groups, sports teams, corporations, small private companies or your other choices; the stars do align from cosmic forces, a function of cyclical mathematics or some other energy that one may choose to attempt to define; or perhaps, just by chance; circumstances find certain people and events to discover one another and bind into a positive and overwhelming presence of intellect that is difficult for 99.99% of the world population to comprehend.
I suspect most folks here have and can define, to a point; a recollection of a sports team or musical group that "just had that superior edge", at least for a given time frame. Although I'm not a big time sports fan and don't fly U of Michigan or Michigan State flags at the house, I do pay attention. Superior head coaches and the selected staffs help build a successful program which results in attracting superior athletes to the sports team. These periods may run for many years and then get "clunked" for any number of reasons. The duration of success for many collegiate teams today is highly impacted by the money draw into professional sports, that finds superior college team players exiting after two years. These magic combinations of managers, staff and players may also be found in professional team sports. One must also consider the other side of the coin into the world of "can't get it right" for long time frames. The Detroit Lions football team comes to my mind for such a circumstance, and especially relative to the New England Patriots, eh?.
Well, anyway; you get the gist of my thinking, yes?; as related to active managed mutual funds.
Are these the circumstances behind the superior performance of DSEEX DSENX PIMIX PONDX (both classes noted for the purpose of one's purchase limits)?
Will this superior performance continue for 1, 2, 3, 5 or 10 more years? Your guess is as good as mine, I imagine.
Is the risk involved with the magic sauce formula of these funds over and above some threshold of personal investment risk tolerance? Only the individual investor can answer this question, yes? But, one can not argue against the skill of the use of the "magic sauce" by management, at this time, correct?, based upon performance.
We're investors and have exposure to many forms of investment risk beyond our control and vision. Tis the old adage of "get out of the kitchen, if you can't stand the heat".
Six month, after inception, slide report DSEEX / DSENX . You may find this document of interest, although the subject matter has been discussed here previously.
http://www.valuewalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/5-20-2014-CAPE-webcast-slides-Valuation-Its-All-Relative-mailing.pdf
Alright, the end of the early morning jabber from this house; and moving on to another cup of coffee before starting chores for this day.
Take care,
Catch

I own PONDX (PIMIX) and PTIAX.
I've avoided OSTIX, despite its admirable record/returns, as it seems to be junk-focused --- and with corporate credit-spreads so tight, that just is not a place I am personally interested in being right now. Besides the spreads being tight, junk does have a high correlation to equities. So if we enter turbulent times for equities, junk proxies will likely swoon in sympathy. Moreover, the Fed seems to be on a path to yield curve inversion.
Its true PTIAX currently emphasizes munis taxable and tax-free. OTOH, PIMIX has some EM exposure. In the case of both funds, I am relying on management to navigate through the fixed-income landscape. PTIAX in particular, due to its (relative) diminutive size, should be nimble enough to move in/out of sectors with some aplomb.
My current bond OEF strategy is to give prominet positions to PIMIX & PTIAX, with some 2dary emphasis to DBLTX and PMZDX. Those latter 2, both mortgage-centric, I view as more defensive than the former two.
Equities are not cheap. Bonds are not cheap. So which OEF of the 3 to choose may depend on which bond sector you view as "least worst" -- junk (OSTIX), munis (PTIAX) or EM (PONDX). Pick your poison!

No mention of NOBL and OUSA. An interesting analysis of how they parse their space, but all (I think, did not check in detail) are beaten by CAPE (yes, not notionally a div play per se).

@bee,
Unless I am missing your point, is it not that etf charts are nav or close, no reinvestment, while mfund $10k-growth charts show reinvestment of everything? Compares apple vs apple tree.
I always start w mfund chart (some SP500 fund, say), and then add whatever I want to analyze. That's the (only) way to see $10k growth of CAPE or AOA or DVY compared w OAKBX and TWEIX, for example.

I'm not confident the style dot means anything. I took sector etfs from a couple different companies and did an instant X-ray based on the sectors the fund currently holds. They all came out large blend and more on the growth side than value. I can't imagine any way the fund is on the border between small and mid cap ever, they'd have to be inverse market cap weighting the smallest X% of stocks in the sector or something crazy like that, and while I'm a little surprised at the growth leaning I guess I'd chalk it up to the difference between CAPE ratios and current statistics.

See
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=DSENX&region=usa&culture=en-US
Last year style was deemed LC b/w G and V, and this year MCV, deep value actually.
Is that because the lower SP500 holdings are typically 'smaller' companies?
M* category remains LV. Benchmark = Russell 1k Value.
fwiw, M* CAPE entry has almost no data. LV is category.

Andy, wouldn't you like to have lunch with her and CapeCod?

Ha! I think I'd prefer to be a fly on the wall - any closer, I could get buried by the fur flying ...

Andy, wouldn't you like to have lunch with her and CapeCod?

It would be very cool to see what CAPE held and when wrt being in and out of those 5

I'm more interested right now in timing overweighting small value. Using PVFIX as my barometer. If even PVFIX is going down, I'm not touching any other SV. While I will admit, like I've said before, small+energy is actually hitting PVFIX hard.
If it is one thing I've learnt it is to be patient. I did do some movement around S&P 500 in my IRAs. Overweighted international switching some money to target funds. Eliminated Mid Cap Value, and overweighted growth with TRP Inst LG Growth (symbol escapes me).
I have "Jennison Private Account" or some such fund. Thinking might be close to HACAX, but I don't like investing in funds without ticker.
In an IRA I'm overweighting using TRBCX. I still have some money in cash because my ANALysis says Mid/Small is rolling over. So not fully invested.
PS - 275 Pound New York ....WTF? Mail Chauvinist Pig OverTheHill (MCPO)? I really need to understand your Nick...

I'm not doing timing, and regardless, the arguable appeal of the RG_ set is that they are the opposite of megacap, being equal weighting of the SP500.
RPG wins over the last decade, while MGV lags even SP500. Interesting.
Over 5y it's RPV, with all the others bunched.
So maybe a timing strategy would be the way to go. If only we knew how to do that.
Over its last 4.5y, CAPE beats all.
For all these spans, the performance of the two MG_ is inferior.

FYI: (Click On Article title At Top Of Google Search) "A Different Perspective on Global Income"
As a teen, Nick Clay earned money painting landscapes and selling them to American tourists from a store in London’s Covent Garden. He toyed with going to art school but decided it would be more financially prudent to study economics and philosophy at the University of Leeds. Although economics helped him launch his investment career, critical thinking and logic are the basis for most of the work he does today.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=A+Different+Perspective+on+Global+Income
M* Snapshot DEQAX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/DEQAX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot DEQAX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/deqax
DEQAX Ranks #36 In The (WS) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/world-stock/dreyfus-global-equity-income-fund/deqax

It appears worthwhile to track RPG vs RPV vs SP500 over various intervals the last 11y, since the RP_ inception. (Growth wins over that span.)
Being equal-weight, they also beat the cited Vanguard ones over the 11y span.
I did not check shorter spans in detail, though it looks as though the Vanguard ones outperform for some and maybe most spans.
Then compare all with CAPE, the last 4.5y of its existence.

I take its CAPE portion to be simply rules-based, so not active the way my other actively managed funds are. I also wouldn't call CAPE black-box. The bond sauce, maybe.