Are the data for year 2020-2022 available? After 2022, it would be nice to have a decent year.

Popularized by Marty Zweig the last ten trading days dating back to 12/29 will generate ( unless there is some massive decline into the close) one of the rarest and most powerful bullish momentum indicators. That is the total 10 day NYSE advances over declines ratio greater than 2. Has only occurred 20 times since 1945. The last two were January 9, 2019 and June 3, 2020. There were multiple signals in 2009. Walter Deemer has a similar breakaway momentum indicator but for some reason uses 1.97.
Numerous hallowed momentum indicators kicked in but failed last year so will shall see if this rarer and more powerful indicator is officially it for the bears. Most of the traders out there have already been long YTD so this should give them more confidence this is not another fake out rally.
Hopefully can spend most of my time hiking and away from the investing and trading forums, Too many George Santos impersonators have infiltrated some of these forums.

Looks like everything except the kitchen sink is scortching hot to start the new year. Feel free to add any charts, etc. … Industrial metals / mining have been hot most of 2022 … Rio Tinto (RIO) shows a 6 month gain of 33% on the Google chart today. Looks like gold will soon break above $900 if it hasn’t already, Miners are up 1-2% today. As @MikeM noted in another thread recently, PRPFX … is a tamer way to play the metals - and held up relatively well last year. And some REIT funds bounced around 4% yesterday.
Lagging are some of the consumer staples stocks viewed as more of a defensive play - but still enjoying the ride. One defensive fund some here own, CCOR, has been struggling a bit lately. Off about 0.50% at the moment - but tends to be highly volatile on an hour-by-hour and day-to-day basis … If you own anything denominated in non-dollar currencies you’ll likely have a good day. In particular the Japanese yen is doing very well today …
(Paragraph deleted)
… GNMA funds have been hot this year … Daily gains around a half-percent common. Some up 0.75% today alone. Have to believe many other investment grade bond funds are enjoying the ride. The first 10 trading days of 2023 seem a mirror image of 2022 when both stocks and bonds tumbled together.
Other market observations?

We’ve (DW & I) been at the conservative end with a target equity of 35% and 22% to TIAA’s Traditional account “guaranteeing” 3+%/yr. I’m grateful to have only taken a 7% hit this past year, between the 28% bond funds and 10% cash. Instead of investing the RMDs these last few years and not needing half of them for living expenses, we’d stashed the cash in 2020-21.
Now that the market has dropped, we’ve been investing back into equities (VTI, VIG, SCHD, VPU). We’d started to purchase short-term treasuries (3 and 6-month) at auction, but our VG money market funds seem just as competitive at the moment (am I missing something here?).

@catch22 - Do you have a chart showing the relative performance for the next 7 years? My guess is that those lines will pretty much converge again before this episode is all finished, as they did in 2018 and 2020. More aggressive funds tend to lead both on the way up and on the way down.

I don't own the fund, but just noticed this on the M* website. This is a copy & paste from part of their fund analysis. The fund has had very good years in up markets under the past several managers, but was down -55.5% in 2022. After 2022 the fund's 5 year average return is barely positive, .32% as of 1/10/23. Current manager is being replaced after only managing the fund for 3 years. Sounds as though there were some differences of opinion regarding portfolio construction and risk management between TRP management and the fund manager.
An unexpected manager swap and investment process pivot lead to a downgrade of T. Rowe Price Global Technology’s Morningstar Analyst Rating to Neutral from Silver.
Manager Alan Tu’s pending departure from this strategy raises a variety of questions that will take time to answer. Consistent with his predecessor, Tu managed the strategy in an aggressive fashion, posting strong results during bull markets in 2019 and 2020, but a tremendous drawdown of over 50% in 2022 led T. Rowe to make changes. Disagreements around Tu’s portfolio construction and risk management amid the tumult led the firm to conclude that analyst Dom Rizzo would be a better fit at the helm. Rizzo became comanager on Dec. 1, 2022, and will assume sole control on April 1, 2023. Rizzo is a reasonable match for the role but has just seven years of industry experience. Rizzo started his career covering small- and mid-cap tech hardware stocks in the United States, then moved to London to pick up coverage of European technology, including a handful of Asia-based companies. He does not have prior portfolio management experience.
Rizzo will manage the fund according to a different mandate. The new approach emphasizes greater diversification across secular themes and individual stocks. Rizzo’s goal is for the strategy to enjoy good—although perhaps less exceptional—performance in up markets, with more manageable downside during drawdowns. His investment guideposts are to invest in companies in secular growth industries with products that are mission-critical for customers, ideally at a time when business momentum is trending upward, and valuations are reasonable. Rizzo says he will rely on these pillars to create a portfolio capable of performing well in a variety of market environments, guided by his outlook over the next 18 months.
While the strategy’s new design seems reasonable on paper, its implementation hasn’t been tested. Further, the transition comes after a period of very weak performance and introduces the risk that the more-conservative portfolio may not make up lost ground in a strong rally as quickly as it would have under its previous iteration. The strategy still benefits from a deep team of capable analysts, and it’s possible Rizzo will be able to successfully steer the fund to success, but the picture is cloudy at the moment.
This strategy has historically been aggressive and highly differentiated from common technology benchmarks, but it will become tamer under its new structure. Manager Alan Tu and his predecessor Josh Spencer kept a relatively concentrated portfolio of stocks with large weightings in fast-growing companies with big potential—and a high level of volatility. Incoming manager Dom Rizzo will ply a modified approach that seeks to smooth out the strategy’s historically lumpy returns by including more-mature companies such as Apple AAPL and Microsoft MSFT, greater industry diversification, and smaller weights in stocks with a wider dispersion of outcomes.
Rizzo targets an 18-month time horizon in his process, which emphasizes buying companies in secular growth industries with products that are mission-critical for customers, ideally at a time when business momentum is trending upward and valuations are reasonable.
Rizzo’s framework is reasonable, but whether he can execute it well is yet to be seen.
This portfolio will undergo changes as it transitions from current manager Alan Tu to successor Dom Rizzo on April 1, 2023. Because of its mandate shift, investors should expect more prominent positions in more-mature mega-caps such as Apple AAPL and Microsoft MSFT. Rizzo believes these companies can still offer good risk/reward despite their size and the alternative of younger companies with faster growth. Rizzo also suggested that the number of stocks held will likely increase somewhat. Under Tu, the portfolio has held 40-60 stocks.
Rizzo indicated that he won’t shun companies with high upside and volatility but is likely to be more particular about when he owns them and at what position size. Tu was highly attuned toward a stock’s upside and was willing to hold large stakes in companies in which he saw the greatest potential. That included a rough stretch in 2022 when many of his holdings saw large share price declines amid slowing growth.
Rizzo will work with Tu to methodically transition the portfolio to its desired state over the following months to April 2023.

Silvergate/SI has tapped FHLBanks for billions in advances/loans. The FHLB $s are ahead of EVERYBODY, even the FDIC. This is getting curiouser and curiouser.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/silvergate-capital-got-4-3-bln-loan-from-feds-amid-run-on-deposits-report-11673459671
https://www.americanbanker.com/news/silvergate-bank-loaded-up-on-4-3-billion-in-fhlb-advances
What is FHLB? https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/386/fhfa-fhlbanks

One interesting ESG fund is ECAT. It’s interesting not because the manager, BlackRock, has the best ESG standards for this fund. It doesn’t. It’s interesting because it’s a closed-end fund which under most circumstances doesn’t issue new shares of the fund. That means when you buy it, you are not giving the manager new money to support any fossil fuel companies’ stocks it may own and drive up their share prices. You are effectively opting out of supporting the money management industry as the fees the manager collects they would’ve collected on this fund, which has a fixed asset base, anyway. You are not encouraging them to buy another share of Exxon by giving them new money to invest.
Now because this fund is ESG focused, it doesn’t own Exxon anyway. On top of that it seeks investment opportunities in clean energy, including ones that are private venture capital ones not normally available to retail investors, only a small weighting right now.
As long as the fund is trading at a discount to its NAV, investors are not encouraging the manager to issue new shares to gather more assets and potentially buy companies that aren’t ESG friendly. The discount has been pretty deep lately. If it ever traded at a premium or the manager decided to issue more shares, it would be worth selling both for investment and environmental reasons. It would also be worth selling if the manager started leveraging the fund to a significant degree. Right now it is largely unleveraged.

Thanks Mark. Great article. I don’t doubt Hulbert’s overall premise. But you know what they say about ”In the long run …”.
Gosh - depends on what all you’re invested in as well as age, risk profile, etc, Curiously, a very speculative stock (one of Cathie Wood’s holdings) I sunk a tiny amount in a week ago has bounced 10 15% in a week - up over 5% Tuesday alone. Should I sell all or part? LOL. Last year I might have sold, as I felt locking-in whatever small gain I could in every corner of the markets a necessary “survival” strategy. With a lot of the “free-fall” (hopefully) behind us, I’m not feeling nearly as eager to capture small gains now, Will let this one run a lot longer. But, then again, were it a larger portion of the portfolio I would dump it now - as a quick 10 15% gain is a 10 15% gain any way you cut it. (Again - age, risk tolerance, etc. affect this decision).
(Edited post for accuracy)
Sarah Ketterer, a frequent guest on Bloomberg WSW, recently suggested a tactic she calls ”tactical rebalancing”. By that she means capturing short-term (a few months) or intermediate-term gains in some parts of your portfolio. Probably amping-up and throttling-back certain holdings rather than all-in or all-out. I guess it’s the uncertain and highly volatile nature of today’s markets that led her to that conclusion. ie: “Trying to make the best of a bad situation.”
But lots of good input from the contributors here, Great thoughtful article. And was easy to access,

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1587982/000139834423000515/fp0081452-1_497.htm
497 1 fp0081452-1_497.htm
Sunbridge Capital Emerging Markets Fund
Institutional Class (Ticker Symbol: RIMIX)
A series of Investment Managers Series Trust II (the "Trust")
Supplement dated January 10, 2023 to the currently effective
Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information ("SAI").
The Board of Trustees of the Trust has approved a Plan of Liquidation for the Sunbridge Capital Emerging Markets Fund (the "Fund"). The Plan of Liquidation authorizes the termination, liquidation and dissolution of the Fund. In order to perform such liquidation, effective immediately the Fund is closed to all new investment.
The Fund will be liquidated on or about February 10, 2023 (the "Liquidation Date"), and shareholders may redeem their shares until the Liquidation Date. On or promptly after the Liquidation Date, the Fund will make a liquidating distribution to its remaining shareholders equal to each shareholder's proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund, in complete redemption and cancellation of the Fund's shares held by the shareholder, and the Fund will be dissolved.
In anticipation of the liquidation of the Fund, Sunbridge Capital Partners LLC, the Fund's advisor, may manage the Fund in a manner intended to facilitate its orderly liquidation, such as by raising cash or making investments in other highly liquid assets. As a result, during this time, all or a portion of the Fund may not be invested in a manner consistent with its stated investment strategies, which may prevent the Fund from achieving its investment objective.
Please contact the Fund at 1-877-771-7721 if you have any questions or need assistance.
Please file this Supplement with your records.

@sma3 And I could provide any number of charts like this one below explaining why there are government pension short falls and large amounts of debt because we are borrowing from the wealthy and thereby increasing our federal and state debt instead of taxing them to pay for government services. This one below is just for income tax, but you can see similar downward trends for estate taxes, corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. There was even one year, 2010, when there was no estate tax at all because of legislation passed previously in the Bush era. I believe the Yankees George Steinbrenner died that year and his heirs were pretty lucky--financially that is.
The size of the debt and who owns it also goes a long way in explaining why we will not default on Treasury bonds. Despite their grumbling about government workers, wealthy investors want us to keep borrowing from them instead of taxing them to pay for workers pensions and healthcare. And how is healthcare an "enormous perk?" Other nations provide it for all of their citizens whether they work for the government or not:

Looking for opportunities to sell, and consolidate to more conservative positions in the IRA.
Looking for opportunities to buy in the taxable accounts where we still have large cash positions.
Hope to leave the taxable accounts to the kids. What we have in taxable was largely left to us. We do realize some income. But we haven't had to touch the principal.
Haven't had to touch the principle in the IRA's either. I will be taking some cap gains from mine.

@wxman123, I am guessing you refer to 1Q 2020. Apparently this fund can be more volatile. Thanks for pointing out.

Wolf Street has a very negative piece on Silvergate/SI - eroding capital base; huge withdrawals; regulators may be watching.
https://wolfstreet.com/2023/01/05/crypto-bank-silvergate-details-its-own-implosion-much-of-its-equity-capital-wiped-out-im-waiting-for-the-fdic-to-show-up/

As with star ratings or any other magic numbers, one needs look behind the numbers to better understand what they represent.
Somewhat like SRI funds that set very stringent de minimis thresholds on investing in "bad" companies, the sites I suggested grade on severe curves. Invest more than a little in "bad" companies, and your score goes down rapidly. It's still monotonic - the more a fund invests in "bad" companies, the worse its score. But it's a nonlinear scale.
To take ICLN as an example - fully 1/8 (12.49%) of its portfolio is invested in utilities selling or using fossil fuels. Half of that alone (6.22%) is invested in ConEd. Seriously?
Sure, ConEd has a "clean energy" subsidiary, ConEd Solutions. They used to offer me clean electricity as an ESCO, but that ended years ago. Now, all I can buy from ConEd as an electricity supplier is this mix (as of Dec 2020 - the latest info provided):
Biomass <1%
Coal 2%
Hydro 9%
Natural Gas 47%
Nuclear 36%
Oil <1%
Renewable Biogas <1%
Solar <1%
Solid Waste 3%
Wind 3%
Emissions relative to NYS average
SO2 113% of average
NOx 112% of average
CO2 113% of average
Needless to say, I buy electricity from a third party, not ConEd.
Carbon footprint? ICLN is off the charts, as measured by direct and indirect carbon emissions per dollar invested. You may disagree with FossilFreeFund's figure, but even MSCI's figure for the fund (also direct and indirect emissions), is still very high (nearly double that of the S&P 500 (IVV), per MSCI).
https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/products/239738/ishares-global-clean-energy-etf

My figure ignores all capital improvements (nothing huge yet) and maintenance (some significant)
So yes to all responses; part of my point

I have been exploring funds focused on investing in "climate Change" which is a very nebulous focus, but essentially includes renewable energy, electrical efficiency, basic materials and minerals required for renewable energy, carbon capture, recycling, and mitigating the effects of climate change on society
I have tried to avoid ETFs and funds based on indexes as I believe this is essentially an engineering problem and requires active management to pick the companies most likely to be successful. An alternative is to use ETFs focused on minerals and resources required for renewable energy and electrification, like Copper, rare earths LIT etc.
There is not a specific category yet, I searched M* database looking for appropriately named funds. I have been able to find a number of funds, but most have limited track records, as they started in 2020 or 2021. NALFX has a long track record, and is widely available. Others to consider include GCEBX, RKCIX, HEOMX, and an ETF run my the group that put two climate activists on XOM board NETZ.
Vanguard recently stated a "Global Environment Fund" VEOIX and VEOAX run by a South African management company "Ninety One" mimicking the strategy in their existing fund ZGEIX at less cost. ZGEIX is supposedly available on many platforms, but not Schwab or Fidelity that I can determine.
GMO, prodded by Jeremy Grantham, has run a great fund for several years GCCHX, but it requires $1,000,000 minimum.
Another alternative is Valueline, which publishes a "Climate Change Portfolio" with about a dozen stocks with monthly reports for $200
Has anyone else looked into this?

With respect to PRWCX’s time horizon, Giroux stated several times that he invest with the goal to match the return of S&P500 within a full market cycle but with less volatility. He has done that more than once. Question is his fund is much bigger now, can he still meet his goals going forward?
-
Here’s PRWCX’s expected time-horizon as stated by Giroux in PRWCX’s Semi-Annual Report - June 31, 2022:
“Before we discuss fund performance, I would like to review the three goals of the Capital Appreciation Fund:
(1) Generate strong risk-adjusted returns annually
(2) Preserve shareholder capital over the intermediate term (i.e., three years)
(3) Generate equity-like returns with less risk than that of the overall market over a full market cycle (i.e., normally five years)”
-
As I understand Giroux’s words, they mean that if you had money in his fund on January 3, 2022 when the markets / fund topped-out, you can expect to get back to “break-even” no later than January 3, 2025. That would appear to be in nominal dollars - not inflation adjusted. Hypothetically, should inflation run at a 5% annual rate over that 3-year period, you’d be “poorer” in purchasing power by about 15%. (Of course, Giroux seems to view this as a worst case scenario.)

Here are some snippets from the DODBX Morningstar Analyst Report dated 06/16/2022.
"In May 2022, a newly formed balanced fund
committee, which features a well-rounded mix of the
firm’s equity, fixed-income, and quantitative veterans,
officially took over management of the fund. The
committee started as a working group following the
fund’s sharp losses during the 2020 coronavirus-driven
bear market."
"In 2021, it no longer forced the underlying
stock and bond sleeves to fully mimic Gold-rated Dodge
& Cox Stock DODGX and Gold-rated Dodge & Cox
Income DODIX."
"Other changes the new committee enacted since 2020
include allowing a small short position in the S&P 500 to
counter potential market selloffs. They can also sell
covered-calls on some stocks the analysts believe are
at or near full value."
"The increased focus on managing risk is a welcome
improvement, but a longer track record of execution
would increase our confidence that the changes will
lead to a smoother ride going forward."

RPHYX/RPHIX still managed to return below 3% for the year, as compared to a few banks/CUs that pay above 4%
This is an apples to oranges comparison, comparing past one year return for RPHYX with the current APY on MMAs. A retrospective comparison would be between a bank's one year return and RPHYX's one year return.
Some of the 4% accounts didn't even exist at the beginning of 2022. For example, Republic Bank of Chicago's Digital Money Market Account (4.25% APY) only started last August. Starting new account types (often requiring new money) is a common tactic among banks.
Or look at All America Bank's Mega Money Market Account, also with a 4.25% APY. That started the year with a 0.30% APY, not rising above 1% until nearly the end of June. Even by the end of October, it was only up to 2.5% APY.
Banks do look better prospectively. For bond funds, prospective means looking at SEC yield. RPHIX's last reported SEC yield is 3.27%. At first blush, that looks inferior to several higher yielding banks, including those that don't play fast and loose with new accounts and rates.
But compare carefully. That 3.27% is the SEC yield as of November 30th. American Bank's Mega MMA's rate was 2.5% APY until the last week of November when it jumped to 4.0% APY. For the moment, a few banks seem competitive, though not necessarily superior.
despite such a good distribution
This suggests a common confusion between YTM and current yield. What counts in the end is total return. Each time RPHYX / RPHIX makes a distribution, whether large or small, the NAV drops by about the size of the distribution. The size of the distribution has little bearing on total return.
Suppose a fund holds a single, deep discount bond. (HY funds typically buy bonds at substantial discounts.) The fund's NAV gradually increases as the bond ages. This "appreciation" is actually interest - that's part of the YTM.
When a bond finally matures (or is sold), that "appreciation" (interest) is recognized all at once, even though it really accrued over time. If the fund gathers up all this recognized "appreciation" (interest) and distributes it in December, that could explain the unusually large December div.
It might be more meaningful to take the excess distribution (above what one expected for the Dec div) and mentally allocate it evenly across all the months. This large div may be nothing more than an accounting artifact, much as annual cap gains distributions don't mean that a fund realized all its gains in December.