Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Why Income and downside cushion from PMAIX and IFAFX reduces volatility and provides cash flow. FPACX adds flexible equity/debt exposure to capture upside while limiting permanent capital impairment. Small SGENX position preserves some growth upside without materially increasing drawdown risk.
Why Higher growth tilt via SGENX and FPACX while keeping meaningful income allocation (PMAIX, IFAFX) to dampen downside. This mix aims for better long‑term returns than conservative while still moderating drawdowns through diversified income exposure.
Here is the summary of three portfolios compared to the S&P 500 (Total Return) over the last 10 and 20 years. Summary Comparison of All Mixes vs. S&P 500 | Portfolio | 10-Year Return | 20-Year Return | Max Drawdown (20Y) | |---|---|---|---| Conservative (35% PMAIX) | 9.1% | 7.8% | -23.1% | Balanced (25% SGENX) | 9.4% | 8.1% | -26.4% | Your Custom (40% FPACX) | 9.3% | 8.0% | -25.2% | S&P 500 (Total Return) | ~14.1% | ~10.6% | -50.9% | The Reality Check: What the Numbers Mean * The Return Gap: Over the last 10 years, the S&P 500 significantly outperformed all these portfolios (14.1% vs ~9.3%). This is because the last decade was dominated by a handful of mega-cap tech stocks (Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft) that these conservative, value-oriented funds specifically avoid because they don't meet their "safety" or "dividend" criteria. * The "Pain" Gap: While the S&P 500 returned about 4% more per year, it did so with double the drawdown. In the 2008 crisis, the S&P 500 fell -50.9%. Most investors cannot stomach seeing $100,000 turn into $49,000. Your custom mix only dropped to $74,800 in that same period. * The Sharpe Ratio Advantage: If you looked at the "Risk-Adjusted" returns, your custom mix often beats the S&P 500. It produces more "return per unit of stress." Which mix is "Right"? * Your 40/30/20/10 Custom Mix is the most sophisticated because it provides two layers of defense: the cash-heavy tactical stance of FPACX and the gold/value hedge of SGENX.
I asked Google AI/Gemini, "what methodology Gemini AI uses for determining allocations among given funds"
Response AI Overview AI on Google Search determines fund allocations using large-scale data analysis. This includes market trends, past performance, and real-time financial data. It uses natural language understanding and machine learning. Comparisons are structured to assess risk, such as analyzing regulatory filings and identifying valuation anomalies. Information Processing: The AI analyzes extensive data, including macroeconomic indicators, sentiment, and market trends, to identify patterns. Fund Comparison & Analysis: It compares different funds, highlighting performance metrics and risk factors to suggest potential allocations. Multimodal Capabilities: The AI can synthesize information from various sources (text, charts, reports) to provide context-aware recommendations. Simulation & Evaluation: It can simulate portfolio changes based on historical scenarios to test allocation strategies. Contextual Understanding: The AI uses large context windows to review documents like prospectus documents or financial reports to understand underlying assets.
What I got from perplexity was that it couldn't accurately track tickers. It assigned PMAIX to PIMCO All Asset All Authority, and FPACX was variously assign to FPA Crescent and Fidelity Puritan.
You made mistakes FPACX is a ticker for FPA Crescent and PMAIX is a ticker for Victory Pioneer Mult-Asset Income
Thanks for the correction—FPACX is indeed FPA Crescent Fund (flexible multi-asset value), and PMAIX is Victory Pioneer Multi-Asset Income (global income-focused with equities/debt). IFAFX is American Funds Income Fund of America (balanced income with ~70% equities, incl. intl), complementing SGENX's global flexible style. Updated allocation reflects their true absolute return/income orientations for lower volatility. Corrected Fund Profiles
These funds prioritize capital preservation, income, and modest growth.
Equal weights suit a conservative "sleep-well" portfolio; adjust per risk.
Fund Primary Role Suggested % (Conservative) Suggested % (Moderate) Recent Traits (as of early 2026) FPACX US Multi-Asset Value 30% 25% YTD -2%, 5-yr strong Sharpe PMAIX Global Multi-Asset Income 25% 30% 6% yield, mod alloc IFAFX Balanced Income (Intl Tilt) 25% 25% 3.5% dist, 62% US SGENX Global w/ Gold Protection 20% 20% Low drawdowns Conservative vs. Moderate Rationale
Conservative (emphasizes FPACX stability): Mirrors investor strategies pairing multi-asset funds for preservation amid volatility. Moderate (PMAIX tilt): Boosts income/yield for growth, aligning with their complementary exposures (value, income, global). Rebalance quarterly; total ER ~0.9-1.1%. This isn't advice—tailor to your situation with a professional.
Claude reigns. I asked haiku 4.5 via duckduck and got:
how would you allocate between these four mutual funds FPACX, PMAIX, IFAFX, and SGENX Claude Haiku 4.5
I'd be happy to help you think through an allocation between these funds, but I need a bit more context to give you meaningful guidance. Let me ask a few clarifying questions:
About your situation:
What's your investment time horizon (how long until you need this money)? What's your risk tolerance (can you handle significant ups and downs, or do you prefer stability)? What's your overall financial goal (retirement, general wealth building, specific milestone)? Are these funds part of a larger portfolio, or are they your main investments? What's your age or life stage?
About the funds themselves:
Do you already own these funds, or are you considering them as new investments? Do you know what each fund invests in (their holdings, asset classes, strategies)?
General allocation considerations: Without knowing the specifics of these funds, I can tell you that a sound allocation typically depends on:
Asset class diversification (stocks vs. bonds, domestic vs. international, large-cap vs. small-cap, etc.) Overlap (whether the funds hold similar investments, which could create redundancy) Your risk profile and time horizon Expense ratios (how much you pay in fees) Your overall portfolio context (these four funds shouldn't exist in isolation)
If you can share what each of these funds focuses on (or their fund names in full), I can provide more specific allocation suggestions. Alternatively, if you'd like general allocation frameworks (like age-based rules or risk-based models), I can explain those too.
I see that it couldn't parse the tickers but couldn't share that information until after spilling the usual boilerplate.
So if I ask you this question tomorrow from a different browser with a different IP address you promise won't make this mistake?
No, I cannot promise that, because each query is handled independently without retaining conversation history across sessions, browsers, or IP addresses. Without prior context, I'd rely on fresh searches, which could repeat past snippet-based errors if not cross-verified. Why Errors Can Recur
AI responses draw from tool outputs anew per interaction; session isolation ensures privacy but risks inconsistency on niche topics like fund tickers. My "learning" is limited to this thread's corrections: FPACX (FPA Crescent, cash/value buffer), PMAIX (Victory Pioneer income blend). Best Practice
For reliability, always reference specifics in your query (e.g., "FPACX as FPA Crescent...") or consult a financial advisor—these aren't personalized recommendations.
Google AI answers vary slightly if the same question is repeated another time using the same browser & IP address.
The AI in their browser wouldn't touch it. I was surprised by the result from Gemini. It was much less verbose than it has been in the past.
Allocating between these four funds requires understanding that they aren't all doing the same thing. They range from "go-anywhere" value strategies to high-income multi-asset plays.
Because I don't know your specific risk tolerance or tax situation, I’ll break these down by their roles so you can decide how to weight them based on your goals.
/snipped the breakdown
Three Ways to Allocate 1. The "Steady Compounder" Approach (Balanced)
Best if you want growth but hate big market drops.
40% SGENX / 30% FPACX: These two act as your "defensive" equity core. First Eagle (SGENX) provides a gold hedge, while FPA (FPACX) provides a flexible value approach.
20% IFAFX / 10% PMAIX: These provide the yield to keep the portfolio's "engine" humming during flat markets.
2. The "Income Seeker" Approach (Conservative)
Best if you are retired or need the portfolio to generate cash.
40% IFAFX / 30% PMAIX: These are your heavy hitters for dividends and interest.
20% SGENX / 10% FPACX: Use these more as "growth stabilizers" to ensure your principal keeps up with inflation over time.
3. The "Contrarian Value" Approach (Aggressive/Tactical)
Best if you believe the S&P 500 is overvalued and want active managers to find bargains.
50% FPACX: Give the most weight to Steven Romick’s team to "go anywhere" (shorting, cash, or distressed debt).
30% SGENX: Global exposure with a focus on intrinsic value.
20% IFAFX: A stable, high-quality dividend base.
Important Considerations
Gold & Cash Drag: Both SGENX and FPACX often hold significant cash or gold. In a "raging bull" market where tech stocks are flying, these funds will likely underperform. They shine during market turbulence.
Fees: These are all actively managed funds. FPACX and SGENX generally have expense ratios around 1.05%–1.10%, which is higher than a passive index. Ensure you are comfortable paying for their active "downside protection."
Overhead: IFAFX is an American Funds product; check if you are paying a "load" (sales charge) depending on which platform you use. Many platforms (like Fidelity/Schwab) offer the "F-1" or "A" shares load-waived, but always verify.
Bonus point for recognizing the tickers.
I happened to be logged into my email on this computer. I might try it on the laptop later to see what I get.
Comments
40% FPACX
30% PMAIX
20% SGENX
10% IFAFX
Conservative Portfolio
FPACX 30%
PMAIX 35%
IFAFX 30%
SGENX 5%
Why
Income and downside cushion from PMAIX and IFAFX reduces volatility and provides cash flow.
FPACX adds flexible equity/debt exposure to capture upside while limiting permanent capital impairment.
Small SGENX position preserves some growth upside without materially increasing drawdown risk.
Balanced Portfolio
FPACX 30%
SGENX 25%
PMAIX 25%
IFAFX 20%
Why
Higher growth tilt via SGENX and FPACX while keeping meaningful income allocation (PMAIX, IFAFX) to dampen downside.
This mix aims for better long‑term returns than conservative while still moderating drawdowns through diversified income exposure.
40% FPACX
30% PMAIX
20% SGENX
10% IFAFX
How much overlap would exist if these four allocation funds comprised an investor's portfolio?
Here is the summary of three portfolios compared to the S&P 500 (Total Return) over the last 10 and 20 years.
Summary Comparison of All Mixes vs. S&P 500
| Portfolio | 10-Year Return | 20-Year Return | Max Drawdown (20Y) |
|---|---|---|---|
Conservative (35% PMAIX) | 9.1% | 7.8% | -23.1% |
Balanced (25% SGENX) | 9.4% | 8.1% | -26.4% |
Your Custom (40% FPACX) | 9.3% | 8.0% | -25.2% |
S&P 500 (Total Return) | ~14.1% | ~10.6% | -50.9% |
The Reality Check: What the Numbers Mean
* The Return Gap: Over the last 10 years, the S&P 500 significantly outperformed all these portfolios (14.1% vs ~9.3%). This is because the last decade was dominated by a handful of mega-cap tech stocks (Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft) that these conservative, value-oriented funds specifically avoid because they don't meet their "safety" or "dividend" criteria.
* The "Pain" Gap: While the S&P 500 returned about 4% more per year, it did so with double the drawdown. In the 2008 crisis, the S&P 500 fell -50.9%. Most investors cannot stomach seeing $100,000 turn into $49,000. Your custom mix only dropped to $74,800 in that same period.
* The Sharpe Ratio Advantage: If you looked at the "Risk-Adjusted" returns, your custom mix often beats the S&P 500. It produces more "return per unit of stress."
Which mix is "Right"?
* Your 40/30/20/10 Custom Mix is the most sophisticated because it provides two layers of defense: the cash-heavy tactical stance of FPACX and the gold/value hedge of SGENX.
Response
AI Overview
AI on Google Search determines fund allocations using large-scale data analysis. This includes market trends, past performance, and real-time financial data. It uses natural language understanding and machine learning. Comparisons are structured to assess risk, such as analyzing regulatory filings and identifying valuation anomalies.
Information Processing: The AI analyzes extensive data, including macroeconomic indicators, sentiment, and market trends, to identify patterns.
Fund Comparison & Analysis: It compares different funds, highlighting performance metrics and risk factors to suggest potential allocations.
Multimodal Capabilities: The AI can synthesize information from various sources (text, charts, reports) to provide context-aware recommendations.
Simulation & Evaluation: It can simulate portfolio changes based on historical scenarios to test allocation strategies.
Contextual Understanding: The AI uses large context windows to review documents like prospectus documents or financial reports to understand underlying assets.
There are warnings that text-crunching is used vs data-crunching that PV, MFO, etc may use. It also found some links to services that build on Gemini,
https://intellectia.ai/blog/gemini-3-for-investors-stock-research
https://blog.knapsack.ai/how-to-use-gemina-finance
What I got from perplexity was that it couldn't accurately track tickers. It assigned PMAIX to PIMCO All Asset All Authority, and FPACX was variously assign to FPA Crescent and Fidelity Puritan.
Here is what I got after I corrected it.
I happened to be logged into my email on this computer. I might try it on the laptop later to see what I get.