@MikeW : Availability Trust Company Customers Only
Automatic Investment PlanHelp No
52 Week Range $42.85 - $67.91 (for SMVLX)
SVFAX is open at Schwab
Does this help, Derf

Bonds Are Trash, Says Bond King Bill Gross. Stocks Could Be Next Too.
Bond yields have “nowhere to go but up,” and the intermediate- to long-term bond funds that invest in them are “new contenders for the investment garbage can,” the former PIMCO head and founder Bill Gross wrote on his blog this week.
Gross calculates that 10-year Treasury yields rising to 2% in the next year from their current 1.3% would hand investors negative total returns of 2.5% to 3%.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/bonds-stocks-trash-bill-gross-51630582073?tesla=y
You can read whole article incognito search Google
What do we do??

We are looking at building a portfolio that can not be changed for 5 years looking ahead from today (other than rebalancing). It might be helpful to include VWINX in the mix because it doesn't rely on a five year continuation from today of out-performance principally related to market behavior during the recent central bank supported stock market melt-up. VWINX has performed well since 1977 through many types of market conditions. And, looking at the 2008 to early 2009 stock market catastrophe suggests it may outperform again when the next catastrophe occurs -- if it doesn't outperform again before then.
Here is a picture that looks at the performance of VWINX and the mixed asset funds in the Catastrophe Portfolio since 9/25/2002 which is the inception date for COTZX (FAYZX is omitted due to its short life).

update:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1444822/000119312521265144/d439010d497.htm
497 1 d439010d497.htm AQR RISK PARITY II MV FUND
AQR FUNDS
Supplement dated September 3, 2021 (“Supplement”)
to the Class I Shares, Class N Shares and Class R6 Shares
Summary Prospectus, Prospectus
and Statement of Additional Information, each dated May 1, 2021,
as amended, of the AQR Risk Parity II MV Fund (the “Fund”)
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information. Please review this important information carefully. You may obtain copies of the Fund’s Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information free of charge, upon request, by calling (866) 290-2688, or by writing to AQR Funds, P.O. Box 2248, Denver, CO 80201-2248.
At a meeting held on August 19-20, 2021, the Board of Trustees of AQR Funds (the “Trust”) approved a proposal to liquidate the Fund on or about November 5, 2021 (“Liquidation Date”). Information regarding the liquidation was disclosed to shareholders via a Prospectus supplement dated August 20, 2021. A copy of this August 20, 2021 supplement can be obtained free of charge by calling (866) 290-2688, or by writing to AQR Funds, P.O. Box 2248, Denver, CO 80201-2248. You may also view this supplement on the AQR Funds website at https://funds.aqr.com/fund-documents by viewing the Fund’s current Summary Prospectus or Prospectus.
In the August 20, 2021 supplement, it was disclosed that the Fund had declared two dividends to occur prior to the Liquidation Date, a special distribution to all holders of record as of August 30, 2021 and a second special distribution to all holders of record as of November 1, 2021, collectively consisting of any undistributed income and capital gains (net of available capital loss carryovers).
The Fund has now declared a third dividend to occur prior to the Liquidation Date, a special distribution to all holders of record as of September 10, 2021. In addition, prior to the Liquidation Date, the Fund may declare one or more additional dividends to all holders of record as of a date or dates to be determined. Prior notice of such additional dividends will be posted to the AQR Funds website at https://funds.aqr.com.
We appreciate your investment in the AQR Funds. For more information, please contact the Trust at (866) 290-2688.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE

Bill Smead was a regular guest on the local PBS finance show "About the Money".
I was impressed by his thoughtful investment strategy and candid demeanor.
I didn't like Smead Value Fund's expense ratio which was rather high.
The fund has performed well with top 5% returns in the large value category for the trailing 3 Yr, 5 Yr, and 10 Yr periods.
Note: Smead Value Fund was classified as a large blend fund by M* from 2011 (or before) through 2017.

Schwab will apparently charge $50 to $75 to buy VTMFX ( although I just put in a fake trade and there was no fee) FFFDX and FMSDX. VTMFX is not available at Fidelity. Vanguard apparently has the Fidelity funds but will charge $50
It is difficult to construct a similar portfolio using different funds, as the allocations in FFFDX and FMSDX are different in other similarly named funds.
Sometimes it seems I spend more time trying to see if a particular fund is available than I spend researching the competence of the manger, risk, and relative return etc.

The short version of my most recent experience with Vanguard.
For the past two months, Yodlee has not been updating my Schwab account when I log in to Vanguard. It appears to be a 2FA problem. I have sent countless messages to my Flagship representative and Vanguard's Web Technical Services. Ten days ago, I spoke with a Monique Burnett, "Resolution Associate" with Vanguard out of their North Carolina call center.
This past Monday, I sent yet another message to my Flagship Rep. Yesterday, I received the following message from him:
"Thank you for your e-mails.
The Yodlee issues that you are experiencing have been brought to the
attention of our Web Technical Support Team.
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
Kind regards,"
That message was followed by this one:
"Thank you for your email.
I have tried following up with Yodlee on your Charles Schwab issues. We
have not received an update to this point and understand your frustration.
Unfortunately we are dealing with a 3rd party vendor. This issue cannot be
resolved by Vanguard internally.
I sent a message to our vendor team and asked them to follow up with Yodlee
again. As soon as I hear anything, I promise I will contact you
immediately.
Again, I apologize for this delay and do appreciate your patience.
Support Specialist
Vanguard Web Technical Support Services"
I have left no less than 15 voice messages with Monique Burnett without a return call.
Mona

JR writes in essence that minor discrepancies among multiple sources of data are on the same order of magnitude as the difference between multiplicative and additive calculations. So don't sweat it.
I'll decompose that because I disagree with two out of three parts:
1. Data sources will be inconsistent. While true, that's a problem that can be circumvented by using a single data source containing all the necessary data.
Shiller's data contains:
a. CPI-U by month - so one can calculate inflation over any period of time
b. Earnings (E) by month - so one can calculate earnings growth over any period of time
c. S&P price (P) by month - so one can calculate P/E by month and thus multiple expansion over any period of time
d. Dividends (D) by month, so one can calculate D/P (dividend rate) over any period of time.
(JR adds another source of discrepancy; for earnings growth he cites a source for the entire economy, not for the S&P 500.)
2. The order of magnitude of these discrepancies is roughly the same as that of percentage differences when comparing multiplicative and additive results.
That is, if one factor adds 3%/year and another factor adds 2%/year, we can combine them by adding and get a 5%/year gain, or we can multiple them to get (1+3%) x (1 + 2%) - 1 = 5.06%. It's just a small difference and comparable to differences introduced by using multiple data sources. Granted.
3. The percentages (which may be off slightly due to #2) are unchanged over time. For example, if one factor accounts for 2% of the gain in a year and another factor accounts for 3% of the gain in a year, the same will be true over 45 years. That is, compounding the returns doesn't change the factor impacts (here 40%:60%).
This is wrong, and this is the main point I've been driving at.
Consider inflation and multiplier expansion. For simplicity, we'll assume that no divs are paid and earnings don't grow.
Annualized rates are: Inflation 3.51% and multiple expansion 2.19% (from original column)
To allocate weights, we just take each value's percentage of the sum total.
Inflation accounts for 3.51/5.70 = 62% of the total, and
multiple expansion accounts for 2.19/5.70 = 38% of the total.
After 45 years, inflation has increased the price by (1.0351)^45 - 1 = 372%, and
multiple expansion has increase the price by (1.0219)^45 - 1 = 165%
Over 45 years, inflation accounts for 372/537 = 69% of the total, and
multiple expansion accounts for 165/537 = 31% of the total.
One cannot allocate percentage impacts by using annualized figures. Compounded over time, the larger factors loom ever larger while the smaller factors play less and less of a role. The reason for this is compounding, i.e. multiplying, rather than adding returns.
Worth a mention: None of these items obscure the general pattern. Tinker with them all, and inflation still comes out as the largest factor, followed by profits, then dividends, then multiple expansion
He looked at a 45 year period. But when we take the longer view, more than double that time, i.e. a century, the general pattern shifts. Dividends are more important than inflation.
Over 45+ years, annualized inflation is 3.51% and average dividend rate is 2.75% (I get 2.77%).
Over a century, annualized inflation is 2.77% and average dividend rate is 3.83%.
I won't bore you with the formulas, but I will make it easy for you to reproduce and check. Using Shiller's spreadsheet, here are the four expressions needed:
Jan 1976 - March 2021:
inflation =POWER(E1811 / E1268,1/45.25)-1
av div rate =SUMPRODUCT(C1269:C1811,1/B1269:B1811)/(45.25 * 12)
July 1921 - June 2021:
inflation =POWER(E1814/E614,12/1200)
av div rate =SUMPRODUCT(C615:C1814,1/B615:B1814)/(100 * 12)

I loathe dealing with Vanguard.
The last time I tried to make an XFER in, the rep kept directing me to open an online account. When I explained that I do not want to do an online account due to some recent experiences with identity theft, she proceeded to try to open an online account for me -- without really telling me what she was doing. When I figured out what she was doing, I kept asking: "please just send me a PDF form via email or regular mail". She kept saying in response "I can't do that ... and, we're trying to save you money by doing it all online"; to which I replied "I've spent over 45 minutes dealing with Vanguard today, which is taking away from my other work and thereby costing me money".
She kept refusing to help me in the way I was asking, so I finally put it her "...do you understand that I'm trying to transfer money into Vanguard -- I'M TRYING TO GIVE YOU MONEY -- and you are making it hard for me to do business with you....your way of performing this transaction is a disincentive for me doing future business with you".
She finally, finally, finally emailed me a partially filled-out PDF (something that at first she said she couldn't actually do). I never completed the transaction, and have not since transferred any more money over to Vanguard.
I really really loathe working with Vanguard. I have repeatedly directed family members away from investing with them.

But FIDO hopes you've at least thought about an exit strategy. I consider this thoughtful of them.
One may imagine the message you would have received from a RobinHood account.
"Don't you want to buy some more?" "You call yourself an investor?" "Looks like a pretty chicken s#*@ trade to our system."

Robinhood: "buy more! Don't you want to earn some confetti animations and more badges!"
[producer, to the director's earpiece]: "Because RH needs the order flow since 80% of quarterly revenue came from it."

WTF are badges? I've been using RH for more than 5 years and never heard of them.
I really don't get the hate on RH. People using the platform do benefit from PFOF in aggregate; I've also used Fidelity for 10+ years and have cumulatively saved less than $1 for "price improvements" because of their "better" execution.

@BenWP - You are mostly correct. (But it has to do with moderating potential losses on the long end.) The rationale was explained somewhat better in my comment in @davfor’s recent thread.

A short South China Morning Post article with a few examples of how these terms are being put to work by Chinese regulators. The depth, breadth, and expected duration of the crackdown somewhat surprise me. But, suspect most Chinese businesses will adapt and continue to thrive. Still have the shares of MEGMX (30% China/Hong Kong per latest report) purchased when it opened for trading in mid spring 2020. Nothing so far is making me think about selling.
Xi Jinping says Big Tech crackdown is making progress, calls for Communist Party to ‘guide’ companies

Yesterday I opened a very small short inverse position on the Dow using DOG. I fully understand the dangers inherent in such an approach. Today I get this email …
“Now that you’ve placed a trade, don’t forget about the next important step – your exit strategy.
Having a plan from the start can help you: Take potential profits if you’ve reached your target gains.
Help manage potential losses by predetermining when to sell. Setting an exit plan for your latest trade doesn’t have to be complicated and Fidelity can help. Define and set one today.”
For my inspiration …

RCTIX seems to be TF at all 5 brokerages I checked, for brevity sake: F V S TDA and E-Trade. TDA wins the Awful Award for combining a tf with a $100,000 minimum !

Meanwhile, Fidelity’s on hiring binge.
Re TRP …
- One might attribute the poor customer support to Covid restrictions. I accepted that for nearly a year before recognizing their problems were deeper seated. I’ve tried unsuccessfully to uncover if in recent years perhaps they’ve out-sourced their phone support? I ask because 10-15 years back it was fairly easy to get kicked up to a manager. And usually that resulted in substantive results - be it a direct from the top answer about operations or resolution of some personal beef. But in recent years there seemed no continuity to the phone support operations. As others may have noted, sometimes different reps appear to be working at cross-purpose.
- The “nasties” in customer support seem apart from their outstanding investing capabilities. And their stock price has soared - up about 35% YTD by one report . If you can save $$ on the customer support, that’s extra cash in the pockets of investors in the company.

You're welcome MikeW!
Just posted description of this month's updates here.
It includes Brad's latest addition to Ferguson Metrics. It's called Mega Ratio, which he describes as a consistency, risk and expense outperformance measure, similar to other adjusted return measures, like Sharpe.
He's kind enough to discuss his methodology at our next webinar, 15 September, at 10:30 am Pacific.

Vanguard got new app past 5 days
Can't do sh@t with that new apps
Probably need restore old apps until they have the kinks worked out

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-s-p-500-is-headed-for-5-000-says-ubs-heres-the-when-and-how-11630407516?siteid=yhoof2
The S&P 500 is headed for 5,000, says UBS. Here’s the when and how.
On the last trading day of August, stock futures are pointing higher as markets look past downbeat economic news from China and continued COVID-19 contagion worries. It’s all part of a relentless march higher for stocks that barely paused this summer.
Unless we have Gama shutting us down like Australians for few months

The FT article (OP) is dated August 25. Here’s what it states:
“But Giroux has cut the fund’s equity exposure down from about 70 per cent at the market low of 2020 to the mid-50s per cent level now …”
Lipper, which is usually pretty accurate, still has it at 70%.