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.

My holdings for the third quarter were down somewhere between 1 & 2 %. I was wondering if any portfolios held by MFO's were on the green side ?

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 But it was among the more controversial provisions of the law, and was eventually repealed—after being delayed twice—before it ever took effect.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".)

We should be days away from the 2022 increase announcement.
Note that the Social Security Benefits Increase in 2021 was announced on the SSA site on October 13, 2020.
2021 announcement per SSA site:
https://blog.ssa.gov/social-security-benefits-increase-in-2021/

I like Vanguard Tax-Managed Small Cap (VTMSX) for taxable accounts.
The fund attempts to tracks the S&P 600 index while minimizing taxable gains.
VTMSX has performed well vis-a-vis small blend funds since my initial purchase approximately 10 years ago.

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.

@lynnbolin2021, Thank you for posting the Seeking Alpha article. I too invested in VGWAX since inception for the same reasons. This year the fund has making solid gain while my growth-oriented global funds lag.

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.

Taxes you pay that you may not realize exist...
100_taxes_you_pay

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.

@Stillers - Just so we’re on the same page here, here’s what I said earlier, to which you appear to object:

Numerous studies have shown that investors who pile in and out of markets in an attempt to time them fail to achieve the superior returns of “stay-put” buy and hold types.

- here
- here
- here
- here
- here
- here
- here
- here

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.

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

Many fine point along this discussion. Yes, FSRRX won't perform well during low inflation periods. I like Vanguard Global Wellington (VGWAX) in addition to VWIAX. These and other funds should be the core of a portfolio.
I like FSRRX, VCMDX, COM, and EIPCX/EAPCX to supplement a portfolio during different times such as inflation.

I read your piece on SA as to VGWAX, but as far I have seen (and have said here before) VGWAX performs like a less good version of VWELX. VWELX has discretion to hold international and I'd expect its international selections to be the cream of the crop as compared to VGWAX, which essentially has a mandate to hold a significant allocation of international under usual circumstances. After looking at "safe" picks in the global space (thinking ex-U.S. equities have potential to revert to mean in terms of performance versus the U.S.) I settled on MSFBX, which has performed well and steadily even with all equities (no bonds).

Recently bumped up my allocation to VGWAX, one of the best performing newer (11/02/17) allocation funds and one not many are talking about. Yet.
Took a closer look at FSRRX, a fund that I owned many years ago. Truly is outperforming in its category during an inflationary period and worth a closer look for anyone with a strategy of owning specific inflationary period holdings.
That said I'm not as psyched out over inflation as many on forums are, and I'm also not inclined to BUY a fund that I think will outperform ONLY in an (albeit potentially transitory) inflationary period. I simply just did the fundamental move - I added more stock exposure via Total Mrkt/S&P index funds. Yeah, FSRRX is less effective equity and less risk, but increased inflation means increased stock exposure to me, and I'll take their 18% YTD TRs and higher risk over FSRRX's 13% YTD TR every time.