@newgirl -
No criticism of you intended. Ed’s one of my favorites. So, I appreciated your invitation to address his piece. He has an interesting writing style in which he seems to be “thinking out loud” (on script) as he goes along, rather than being tightly organized around central points. Far be it from me to critique him - but he can be hard to decipher some times.
Can’t beat his depth of experience. The fund Ed ran (OAKBX) viewed preservation of capital as paramount. Generally it was very good at that during his long tenure. And, I sense that concern often in reading him.
Buffett: - Rule No.1: Never lose money. Rule No. 2: Never forget rule No.1."
(Quote attributed to Warren Buffett. Easier said than done. Certainly Buffett has experienced losses along the way.)

This week’s Barron’s is disappointing in that Randall Forsyth is missing for the second straight week. Ben Levisohn, filling in at the Up & Down Wall Street spot isn’t nearly as good, IMHO. Levisohn addresses Friday’s disappointing jobs numbers - but I’m not quite sure where he’s going …
Generally, this week’s publication reflects a highly bullish tone. Several articles mention a continuing accommodative Federal Reserve stance. One article is titled “A Homebuilder Stock That Could Soar 65%”. Another bullish take appears in the magazine’s lead article, “The Trader” with its headline: “The Trend is Your Friend.”
One note of dissension appears from perma-bear Alan M Newman in the section featuring recent “snippets” from different market pundits. Here’s a brief excerpt:
“There are now so many parallels with history-making manias such as the South Sea Bubble, the Roaring ’20s, Tulip Mania, and even the relatively recent Tech/Internet Bubble that the present era in retrospect, may one day appear the craziest of all …. Today’s parallels are every bit as crazy, even hilarious. While the blockchain technology that many of the roughly 4,500 invented crypto currencies is based on is valid, there is ample reason to dispute valuations …
A Google search for ‘intrinsic value of Dogecoin,’ returns ‘..has no intrinsic value’. Thus, Dogecoin has turned out to be the 2021 equivalent of “carrying on an undertaking of great advantage but no-one to know what it is.’ You can’t make this stuff up, folks.” *
There’s an in-depth look at SEC Chair Gary Gensler’s efforts to overhaul equity trading platforms with the goal of making the prices paid by small investors fairer. Robinhood, particularly, is in his cross-hairs. Gensler likes to shake thing up. One may recall about a dozen years ago when he took on the mutual fund industry, publicly decrying what he considered excessive fees - at the same time his twin brother Robert managed one of T. Rowe Price’s largest equity funds.
* Excerpted passage from Barron’s - September 6, 2021
Feel free to add other opinions from Barron’s or other sources / pundits you may follow.

https://seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4453466-mgc-vanguards-mega-cap-etf-holds-nothing-but-winners
MGC: Vanguard's Mega-Cap ETF Holds Nothing But Winners
Sep. 3, 2021 1:24 PMVanguard Mega Cap ETF (MGC)AAPL, AMZN, BRK.A
Summary
The Vanguard MGC ETF is a passive managed fund that tracks a Mega-Cap Index.
Maybe good idea buy some MCG

Sept 3rd Episode:

PYEWX
Also, look at short lived Vanguard Emerging Markets Bond Admiral, VEGBX

@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

SMVLX is sold to retail investors at Fidelity, just not to investors seeking to open a new position.
If the convenience of buying (additional) shares through Fidelity is worth a little effort, open a position directly with the fund company and then transfer the shares. I've done that with a different fund. Not a difficult process.

@newgirl …
When we add the qualifier you omitted (“on occasion”) the suggestion of Ed’s you’ve identified is placed into its proper perspective - that being just 1 in a series of suggestions for investing in uncertain times and where asset valuations generally appear high.
“On occasion; pay attention to the opportunities in real assets throwing off an income stream that are selling for less than their replacement cost (e.g. pipelines and various kinds of shipping).”
It seems to me Ed is of the belief serious inflation will make a comeback at some ill-defined, but not too distant, point. I suspect he’s worried that the conventional “safe havens” (ie - gold, energy, real estate, commodities) aren’t really that “safe” as they are prone to drastic price swings and may already be priced to reflect future inflation expectations. As an alternative (perhaps “adjunct” is the better word here) he suggests looking at infrastructure investments (like pipelines, ports, transportation facilities in general) that benefit indirectly from rising materials prices but which may be undervalued by investors at this point.
“I would love to hear more details on this topic”
Yep - So would I. Maybe folks have suggestions for funds that qualify. Personally, a board member mentioned GLFOX to me sometime ago and I bought a small chunk while cutting back on my commodities fund which I felt had flown too high at the time.

Also available at E-Trade and Vanguard ntf. I guess Fido wants would-be Smead investors to buy their crappy FBCVX fund instead ranked in the 91st percentile for 3 year return !

SVFAX is available ntf for a $100 minimum at Schwab and not sold at Fidelity.

Bill knows a few things about the subject of trash:
https://dealbreaker.com/2018/06/famed-bad-breakup-artist-bill-gross-is-allegedly-painting-his-disgusting-masterpiece
https://dealbreaker.com/2021/07/sue-gross-selling-house

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.

And now it works. It began to work 10 seconds *before* Charles answered my email. If only all repairs were this easy.

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

Hi again Mav123. There are several ways, actually.
You can set the Display period to one of 74 different periods, including lifetime, YTD, multi-year and multi-month, plus full, bear, bull and other unique market cycles. For "recent," you decide ... can choose 1-12 months, or say CV-19 cycle.
Then, set whatever risk/return metrics/ratings you want ... MFO (Martin), Sharpe, etc ... there are lots to choose from.
Or, you can just leave Display to "Life" and set ratings for 3, 6, 9, or 12 mo Momentum, or 3 and 10 SMA or EMA Trend (or all above). Those criteria are under the Trend & Momentum group in MultiSearch.
Happy to set-up Zoom with you to walk through.
Back home again, easy do.
c

Thank you, Charles. I will check.

I've been looking for a LCV fund to offset my growth tilt. I've been hesitant to consider Parnassus Endeavor because of its relatively high SD, mood swings and lean toward LCB.
Since Billy Hwan took over sole PM this year, i decided to look at it again. And i was pleasantly surprised to see such a transformation, even though the relative value "approach" is still in tact. I've been reading articles and listened to the quarterly report and was impressed with the "new" direction.
Mr. Hwan stated he is toning down the volatility and risk, has marginally increasing the number of holdings and thus reducing the top 10% of holdings from 60% to 32%. He has significantly reduced or eliminated several holdings of Mr. Dodson's. He also wants to lower the BETA closer to the index, etc.
From what i can tell, Mr. Hwan is on target.
Any thoughts going forward with Mr. Hwan and the transformation of Parnassus Endeavor?
Thanks, Matt

Hi again Mav123. There are several ways, actually.
You can set the Display period to one of 74 different periods, including lifetime, YTD, multi-year and multi-month, plus full, bear, bull and other unique market cycles. For "recent," you decide ... can choose 1-12 months, or say CV-19 cycle.
Then, set whatever risk/return metrics/ratings you want ... MFO (Martin), Sharpe, etc ... there are lots to choose from.
Or, you can just leave Display to "Life" and set ratings for 3, 6, 9, or 12 mo Momentum, or 3 and 10 SMA or EMA Trend (or all above). Those criteria are under the Trend & Momentum group in MultiSearch.
Happy to set-up Zoom with you to walk through.
Back home again, easy do.
c

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)