Wouldn't it be more honest if people who boasted of not paying taxes also boasted of the consequences such as saying "I've stiffed soldiers, police officers, firemen, teachers, etc. of their salaries since 2012 and I found a way to keep stiffing them for 5 to 10 more years," even though I've benefitted from their services? Or "I found a way to avoid helping children and the elderly have healthcare or to avoid helping the hungry get fed or helping the roads I drive on every day get repaired."

Maybe not the most eloquent link on taxes, but I believe it was @stillers who mentioned that he pays nothing in taxes...
@stillers mentioned:

haven't paid a dime in taxes since 2012, and may not pay them for 5-10 more years.

A more accurate list on taxation would point out that we all pay many "everyday" taxes well beyond income tax.

The list is so obviously a screed (at least the URL contains "editorial") that its best function may be as a quiz for tax wonks: how many errors can you spot?
Example: Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans, i.e. "Cadillac" plans

The Cadillac tax was part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). But it was among the more controversial provisions of the law, and was eventually repealed—after being delayed twice—before it ever took effect.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-is-the-aca-cadillac-tax-4092993
Sure, include health care excise taxes that never existed, but miss taxes that are real, like the tax on brand name drug manufacturers and importers (since 2014, ACA).
https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/annual-fee-on-branded-prescription-drug-manufacturers-and-importers
It's not as though Americans for Tax Reform isn't aware of current and potential drug excise taxes. They recently cosigned a letter to Congress complaining about same. (The BBB legislation would impose an excise tax on drug companies that refuse to "sell drugs their drugs to all distributors at the Medicare price".)

If the 32% allocation I suggested for MWTRX as a substitute for MABDX doesn't work for you, just find another. For example, I chose not to suggest BCOIX because I preferr to diversify managers. You might feel differently. There is variety of good alternatives.
Thinking about substitutions, VWINX would not be a good substitute for MABDX or VTINX based on volatility (apparently an important metric). VWINX is in a different category (30%-50% allocation) from the other funds. Though it is less volatile than its category peers, its three year standard deviation (7.67) is significantly higher than VTINX's (6.25) let alone that of MARMX (5.18).
I don't expect its volatility to go down as a result of the change in management.

Each metric has different meaning and value to each investor
Yes, though my question was what the metrics mean to you. Certainly the approach you described (for the maximum acceptable pain, maximize return) makes sense. That's essentially what the efficient frontier is designed to do.
However, the fact remains that you're focusing on just a few metrics. This matters because you said that "MARMX has better metrics across the board than VTINX."
For example, you have focused on maximum drawdown. A typical definition is: "The peak to trough decline during a specific record period".
The SEC recognized the danger in funds selecting their own periods for comparison. It issued a rule for fund advertising designed specifically to preclude cherry picking. Performance figures given must span the preceding one, five, and ten year periods current to the most recent calendar quarter (here, Sept 30th). 17 CFR §230.482(d)(3).
Using these SEC-sanctioned metrics, one sees that MARMX has worse annualized returns over all standardized periods, one year (-1.97%), five years (-0.65%), and ten years (-0.15%).
This shows that MARMX does not have better metrics across the board. Though perhaps it does for every metric you care about (as you wrote, each metric matters differently for different people).
As to why I didn't mention the spike on 12/28/07 - you gave the answer. With or without it, the story doesn't change. There was an even larger one in the 2007-2009 period. That didn't matter either.
Finally, what's the big deal about a fund of just four funds and cash with static allocations? Given that there are just a few underlying funds, this is something easily reproduced on your own. It would be different if you were talking about a target date retirement fund (the subject of this thread), where a glide path were being followed.
For example one could substitute VFIAX (or VOO) for the more expensive MAEIX, and IJH (iShares S&P 400) for the more expensive MAMEX. Then one would just need to find a couple of solid bond funds to sub for the fairly vanilla Mutual of America bond funds in MARMX and then rebalance annually.
I tried BIMIX and MWTRX. Since they're slightly more volatile than the Mutual of America funds they're replacing, I took 2% off the S&P 400 index fund.
Works fine as a replacement. Slightly lower std dev (4.80 vs 4.88) and a slightly higher max drawdown (13.88% vs. 12.88%) all while returning a tad more (5.51% annualized vs 5.34%). All figures are monthly (so take drawdowns with a grain of salt) and this only spans 12/07 through 9/21. Looks even better over SEC standard periods. Data from PortfolioVisualizer.

Hi Guys
That’s a challenging question that each of us has a different answer depending on our own investing timeframes and changing circumstances. Here is a Link to a table that provides a useful timeframe input:
https://awealthofcommonsense.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/SPX-Time-Frames.png
Enjoy and profit. Time is a critical player. A little luck is also important. Best wishes and lots of luck to all.

I just actually READ my new lease. There's a State tax on rental income which landlords have to pay, here. The lease actually, unapologetically, stated that the 4.5% tax is included in the cost of my rent. And if the tax rises, I'll have to pay it, via higher rent. Parasites.

Looks to me like IBD's methodology could use a little work. Their track record is 50/50 at best. But hey, I'm just one of the ignorants here who doesn't keep up with the markets or business news.
Innovator IBD® 50 ETF FFTY

MARMX -13.90% from 11/5/2007 to 3/9/2009
VTINX -18.06%
MARMX -14.86% from 5/19/2008 to 3/9/2009
VTINX -19.96%
MARMX -17.47% from 12/28/2007 to 3/9/2009
VTINX -19.97% from 5/19/2008 to 3/9/2009
MARMX -13.97% from 12/31/2007 to 3/9/2009 (one trading day later)
VTINX -19.97% from 5/19/2008 to 3/9/2009
All of them tell the same story.
You failed to mention MARMX had a suspicious one day huge spike +>3% from 12/27 to 12/28 that fell an equal amount the next trading day (12/31) as shown above.

Are you sure about the drawdown dates? Unless you were using incubator figures, the MARMX drawdown couldn't have begun Oct 2007, because the fund's inception date was after that, on 11/5/2007 (from SAI).
The 2008-ish maximum drawdowns I see for each fund respectively (along with sources) are:
MARMX (12/7/07 - 3/9/09): 17.47% (see M* chart)
VTINX (5/18/08 - 3/9/09): 19.97% (see Yahoo adjusted close data for period)
If you're looking at performance since MARMX's inception, you might want to include Nov 2007, rather than starting in December. MARMX gained 0.16% to VTINX's 0.71%. That's from M*'s Interactive Chart on the fund's quote page, setting the time period as 11/05/2007 - 11/30/2007.
With less equity (according to you).
I gave the target allocations from the prospectuses. What was actually in the portfolios could have been different from their targets. And the MARMX target allocations have changed over time. Looking far back comes with a variety of interpretation issues.
Substantial difference in 3 yr SD MARMX 5.12% vs VTINX 6.18%.
As I had written: "VTINX has superior 3 year returns (7.53% vs. 6.27%) albeit with more volatility (6.25 vs 5.18) leading to nearly identical Sharpe and Sortino ratios."
5 and 10 year star rating ... frequently meaningless IMO
How about other 5 and 10 year figures, including returns and volatility? Do you find these time frames uninformative or is it the star ratings that trouble you?
Star rating, Sharpe ratio, Sortino ratio, they're all just risk-adjusted metrics. The Sharpe ratio makes no distinction between upside and downside volatility, the Sortino ratio ignores the upside volatility, and the star rating falls somewhat between the two - discounting but not totally ignoring upside volatility. Do you have a metric of choice, or do you feel that risk adjusted metrics in general are frequently meaningless? Personally I'm closer to the camp that one can't eat risk adjusted returns, but I still find a bit of meaning in these roll up figures.

Laugh all you want, the initial bounce IS over, bub.
They did NOT say there won't be another leg down, did they?
No, they said,
The indexes need to get above their resistance levels and confirm the new uptrend. If they fall back, there's a serious risk that this correction will take a new leg down....
You must not watch a lot of business news or read much worthy stuff as a central topic of the day Friday was, "Is it too late to buy the dip?" (Read, The initial bounce is over. The easy, LT money-making trades have been booked.)
And in case you missed it, IBD has been a widely recognized stock picking authority for decades with its specific, time-tested strategy (CANSLIM) for making indv stock investors out-sized returns.
Trying to diss them by citing "Numerous studies have shown..." is an exercise in demonstrating that old axiom about three kinds of lies:
(1) Lies,
(2) Damned lies,
(3) Statistics.
To wit, please show a specific study that includes IBD strategy results for indv stock trades and/or market moves to support your broad stoke diss of them.
FWIW, I used to subscribe to ALL IBD services back in the day and I routinely point to it as one of the primary reasons I retired early about a decade ago at 56.
YMMV.
And no need for a new thread on a current topic that already has one. FWIW, I'll continue posting on this thread until the Dip/Diplet is over (likely in a coupla days/weeks) and the BUYS I made during it (from cash and bond OEF proceeds; maturing CD proceeds to be deployed this week) are kicking arse like ALL of the Dip/Diplet BUYS I've made since March 2020.
Disclaimer: I am a LT Buy/Hold TR investor who BUYS Dip/Diplets with the above-referenced funds and since Feb 2020 have NOT taken a dime out of stocks. Have 96% of nest egg "under the umbrella" (read, tax-deferred a/c's), haven't paid a dime in taxes since 2012, and may not pay them for 5-10 more years.

Oct 9th Episode:

I posted this article on Seeking Alpha last night:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4459177-vanguard-global-6040-funds

Fundamental stuff from IBD.
NOTE: If you're NOT familiar with IBD, primarily geared towards indv stock selection but commentary applicable to the markets as a whole.
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/dow-jones-futures-market-rally-5-stocks-at-inflection-points-tesla-fsd-beta-opens-up/
Excerpts:
MARKET ANALYSIS
...The stock market rally attempt is at an inflection point. After Monday's sell-off, the major indexes rebounded. The market was looking oversold on Monday, so a bounce for a couple of days wasn't a surprise. But the real trick is whether or not big institutions will commit to this new market rally, which is why a follow-through day is key.
So the major indexes rose on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, but then stalled Friday as rising Treasury yields took their toll. The Dow Jones and S&P 500 hit resistance at their 50-day moving averages while the Nasdaq stopped short of its 21-day line, below the 50-day.
The indexes need to get above their resistance levels and confirm the new uptrend. If they fall back, there's a serious risk that this correction will take a new leg down...
...What To Do Now
If you made a few pilot buys during the market rebound and you're still flat or slightly up on them, you could hold onto them, though they bear close watching. But right now this is not a great time to be adding. While there could be a quick upside if the market rally strengthens next week, the downside from any new buys could be severe.
At this point, with the initial bounce over, investors should wait to see if big institutions are really going to support this new market rally.
If they do, and the major indexes follow-through and break above their 50-day lines, you need to be ready. There are dozens of stocks that are potentially actionable or setting up. Have those on a watchlist, and hone in on a handful that you're most interested in.
Meanwhile, if the major indexes break down, you need to be quick to cut new buys that aren't working and consider moving entirely into cash....

And you certainly do not want to mis this article:
The ESG Movement: The 'Goodness' Gravy Train Rolls On

More analysis:
MARMX Max Drawdown 2008 -13.90% vs VTINX -17.77%. 10/09/07-3/09/09
MARMX Max Drawdown 2020 -9.54% vs VTINX -12.48%. 2/19/20-3/23/20
Since inception 12/2007 - 9/2021:
MARMX CAGR 5.34% vs VTINX 5.25%. With less equity (according to you).
MARMX Sharpe 1.05 vs VTINX 0.83%
MARMX SD 4.48% vs VTINX 5.66%
5 and 10 year star rating identical although frequently meaningless IMO.
Substantial difference in 3 yr SD MARMX 5.12% vs VTINX 6.18%.
I would need it in a brokerage not direct. I like them both.

“FSRRX may be a fund of interest to those who believe that inflation is a concern or that rates may rise. It has had a maximum drawdown of nearly 15% over the past five years with an average annual return of over 5%. The yield is about 2 percent.”
Yes - But the max drawdown (14.5%) appears to have come in a single quarter (Qtr 1 2020). By contrast, Price’s TMSRX lost 3.2% over that quarter. To be fair, that brief period was particularly cruel to funds holding certain types of fixed income, as a severe liquidity crunch threatened until emergency measures by the Fed to prop up corporate debt were undertaken.
Not to suggest FSRRX sn’t still a fine fund. Just to say that along with 2008 (if a fund’s history extends back that far), Qtr 1 of 2020 is another place to look if seeking out maximum historical volatility.
For the roughly 30% of portfolio devoted to “alternatives” I like to include at least 2 (preferably 3) different funds, as the approaches and success achieved under varying market conditions vary greatly among the alternatives. None, AFAIK, have perfected the “secret sauce” for managing risk in down markets.

Thanks @msf...great stuff.
FSRRX, which has been in existence since 2005 and was tested very early in it's short life when in June of 2008 it slide nearly 32%. Comparing FSRRX to PRRRX, the Pimco Real Return fund provides a smoother ride. PRRRX also proved itself better choice than a pure TIPS etf (TIPS).
I guess my biggest complaint about FSRRX is its periodic drawdown that long term investors would be negatively impacted by.

That piece is arguing that at best, VWINX will fall less than other traditional funds, e.g. since it leans toward value5;. That's in contrast to funds that are designed to benefit from inflation. Which is why I felt that it doesn't make much sense to directly compare performance of these two types of funds.
5;This is not unusual for traditional 40/60 funds. Only 4 out of 120 (30%-50% allocation) funds have portfolios that are in growth style boxes (per M* screener).
The writer speaks in sweeping generalities without substantiation:

• the fact that the Fed Funds rate will stay at or near zero for at least the next few years [as of Sept 2020].
  Facts don't change, but predictions do as events change or more data is known. In June, "The central bank forecast[] it would raise interest rates twice by the end of 2023 after previously estimating there would be no interest rate hike until 2024."
  Most recently (Sept), "Just over 70 per cent of [leading academic economists surveyed by FT] believe the Fed will raise rates by at least a quarter of a percentage point in 2022, with almost 20 per cent expecting the move to come in the first six months of the year. That is far earlier than the 2023 lift-off from today’s near-zero levels that Fed officials pencilled in back in June."
  
• Higher inflation likely leads to higher interest rates and a steeper yield curve?
  Wellesley traditionally holds a longer duration portfolio than is typical for its peers. That would hurt Wellesley if you believe this generalization linking interest rates and yield curves and that it will hold the next time.
  However, when we look at the last sharp spike in interest rates (1978-1981) we see a very different picture. Rate going up across all maturities (which would hurt all high grade bonds), but with the yield curve inverting - the opposite of steepening. (Inverted yield curves often presage recessions, which in turn can be triggered by high inflation and lower spending.)
  
  (Source page)

Speaking of the late 70s and inverted yield curves, banks (notably S&Ls) took a beating, as they lent out long term money at lower rates while borrowing short term money (via deposit accounts) at higher rates. SA notes that VWINX concentrates on financials, but doesn't break it down further. (According to its latest semiannual report, about half of the fund's financial sector holdings are in banks: JPM, BAC, MS, TFC.) Personally, I have faith in Wellington Management to navigate this risk.
M* has an actual analysis of real performance data for VWINX to see how the fund responds to rising interest rates.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1041732/stress-testing-some-vanguard-and-t-rowe-allocation-funds
What M* found was that Aug-Dec 2016, "as the price of long-dated bonds fell, Vanguard Wellesley Income lagged its average category peer by 1.2 percentage points." VWINX lost money over that period while on average its peers eeked out gains.
OTOH, "over the more recent January-October 2018 interest-rate climb ... [VWINX] modestly outpaced the average of that group by 0.5 percentage points. Even with its longer duration, the strategy’s lower exposure to weaker-performing non-U.S. equities gave it a bump.
Hmm, a lesser exposure to foreign equities. SA didn't pick up on this. Could help again if rates climb globally, but hurt if rates rise disproportionately in the US. Regardless, we're again talking about relative performance against peers, not measuring against inflation oriented funds.
I certainly wouldn't sell VWINX. Though that's different from saying that this fund is designed to weather extended bouts of inflation well.