It's a difficult question to answer, and the most honest one I could give is I don't know. But it's worth noting the goal of many alternative funds is not to beat a 50/50 SPY/Cash allocation. It's to deliver positive absolute performance beating 100% cash or T-bills while not being correlated with stocks or bonds. This fund seems to have done that at least with stocks so far. (I haven't seen its correlation with bonds, but given its different construction I would assume it isn't high.) But that doesn't mean it will do this in the future. I just find its lack of correlation, its actively managed style and the fact it delivered positive results during the first quarter of 2020 while also delivering in 2021 interesting. As for having multiple billions of assets under management, such defensive funds usually only get that kind of money when markets are poor and they, hopefully, hold up well. During a strong bull market, most investors won't even notice they exist.

I find the Core Alternative ETF (CCOR) to be one of the more interesting defensive funds: https://corealtfunds.com/assets/pdfs/Core_Alternative-Presentation.pdf It is one of the few to have been profitable during the first quarter of 2020.

+1
Actually my previous post pertained more to bear markets than run-of-the mill corrections. I’m not attuned to the finer points, except bears tend to last longer - usually measured in years. That’s why many keep the cash reserve.
If the early morning numbers hold up or get worse, we’d probably be in correction territory in most
markets. Calling it a bear would be premature.
Qtr 1 of 2020 was somewhat unique. Huge 15-25% selloff across many asset classes in 2 or 3 months. WTH that was, I’m not sure.

“A consortium of U.S.-based creditors to Mexican multimedia conglomerate TV Azteca S.A.B. de C.V. has threatened to take action to seize its assets in Mexico and abroad after the company skipped a year’s worth of interest payments and is on the cusp of forgoing another in February … Mexico City-based TV Azteca is the second largest producer of Spanish-language television programming in the world …
“TV Azteca has been in arrears on its debts for almost an entire year, after it skipped a $16.5 million interest payment on a $400 million dollar-denominated bond due in 2024 last February and hasn’t sent creditors any money they are owed since. The company also opted not to pay another $16.5 million interest payment that came due in August, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.
“The company’s largest U.S.-based creditors, including Fidelity Investments Inc., Contrarian Capital Management LLC and Cyrus Capital Partners LP, met with a representative for TV Azteca at Fidelity’s headquarters in Boston on Wednesday to discuss a plan that would repay the bondholders in full plus accrued interest over time, one of the people said. TV Azteca has yet to decide if it will accept the offer.”
(Excerpted from)
“Pro Bankruptcy Distress”
By Alexander Saeedy
The Wall Street Journal
January 24, 2022

“Rising bond yields, particularly on inflation-protected Treasurys, are viewed as close indicators of borrowing costs for businesses and consumers.“
Investors pay close attention to yields on TIPS because they offer an important gauge of financial conditions, indicating whether borrowing costs for businesses and consumers are rising or falling when stripping out the effects of expected inflation.
“Often referred to as real yields, yields on TIPS have been deeply negative since the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, helping to fuel outsize stock-market gains by pushing investors into riskier assets in search of better returns. Even today they remain below zero, meaning holders are guaranteed to lose money on an inflation-adjusted basis if they hold the bonds to maturity. Yet they have climbed even more this year than yields on ordinary Treasurys—a sign of higher borrowing costs for businesses, better forward-looking returns on bonds, and a return to more normal growth and inflation as the Federal Reserve starts tightening monetary policy …”
Also (Same Article):
“Donald Ellenberger, a senior fixed-income portfolio manager at Federated Hermes, is among those responsible for surging real yields. Starting in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, he was a major buyer of TIPS, steadily increasing them from 4% of his multisector bond portfolio in March 2020 to 7% by November of that year. Mr. Ellenberger’s concern at the time was that historic fiscal and monetary stimulus would lead to a surge in inflation—a fear that proved prescient as TIPS rallied and the consumer-price index soared… By the end of last year, though, the Fed had shifted course, promising to accelerate a wind-down of its bond-buying program and start raising interest rates … In response, Mr. Ellenberger and his team slashed their TIPS holdings from 7% to 1%.”
(Excerpts from)
“Tech Rout Fueled by Bond-Market Turn”
By Sam Goldfarb
The Wall Street Journal
January 24, 2022
In a separate article, the same issue of the WSJ noted that municipal bonds are also seeing outsized losses of late.

However, I do see human irrationality playing a big part in the markets of recent years. That includes not only equities, but assets like real estate, bonds, crypto. And further, that uniquely human ingredient compounds the difficulty of determining where true value exists and where’s there’s mostly fluff.

This time is really NO different, but perhaps worse just as you pointed out. Now we are facing several challenges: geopolitical (Ukraine, Taiwan, and to a lesser extent N.Korea), high inflation globally, and pandemic-induced supply chain issues. Feel like we are revisiting the spring old 2020.

@catch22- following is the pertinent text from the NYT article. The SDS reference re Kudlow is interesting but not germane to the topic.

The F.A.A. also argues that it was excluded from decisions about 5G. In 2020, the F.A.A. administrator, Stephen Dixon, prepared a letter to ... the F.C.C., expressing concerns about 5G interference, but the letter was not passed along by ... the acting director of the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
Larry Kudlow, who headed President Donald Trump’s National Economic Council, even bragged about blowing off the F.A.A., saying on his Fox Business show, “We ignored them because the science said don’t worry about it.” He added later, “We actually fought the F.A.A. and we won.”
It appears now that the Trump administration won the battle but not the war. One result of the extended conflict between the F.C.C. and the F.A.A. is that even now, nearly a year after the spectrum for 5G was auctioned off, the F.A.A. is still at the stage of information-gathering as it moves toward eventually issuing new requirements for radar altimeters. It is likely to take five years for all altimeters to be upgraded.

In my opinion the FAA is now and always has been notoriously slow in staying on top of evolving safety issues. They have been criticized many times by the NTSB for inaction on known or potential safety problems. In this case apparently they at least went through the motions of trying to participate in resolving the 5G issues, but were rebuffed by the Trump administration.
The NYT article also mentions that there are technological fixes for radio interference by using various types of filters, and/or by redesign of the radio altimeters themselves. This is true to a point, the but installation of filters in the affected aircraft may very well introduce other problems, and of course modifying or replacing the altimeters will be a very costly procedure likely involving significant aircraft downtime. As usual, money is involved, so we have potential winners and losers.
It's quite possible that rather than engage in an unproductive inter-agency fight the FAA elected to let the airlines themselves carry the fight to the FCC. These people are masters at this sort of thing. This is what I meant in my post up above where I said that "something is really smelly here.".
OJ

The stock market is adjusting to the reality that interest rates are probably heading up for at least a while. It's too early for me to have a clear sense as to how far and for how long. As to one of the questions at the start of this thread:

For those waiting on better valuations to buy Equities, at what point would you be a serious Buyer? Do you have a specific plan in place?

My last significant portfolio changes occurred in 2020 when high yield and utility stock sleeves were added to the portfolio (they now constitute about 40% of portfolio). The high yield sleeve purchases mostly focused on real estate, financial, and energy sector stocks that appeared to be on sale as well as on a few CEF purchases. Also, I used proceeds from the sale of ZEOIX to buy some utility stocks that appeared to be reasonably priced. That active trading year was followed by some 2021 portfolio cleanup trades as well as a little "special situations" trading (that produced mixed results). My basic goal for 2022 is to refocus on being a buy and hold investor. VIX above 35 for a while with a fair amount of panic and exhaustion would get me thinking about making some changes again. A possibility list for trades is being maintained but I would want to see what looks interesting at the time I become motivated. That type of market probably produces the Zweig momentum buy signal Junkster mentioned. But I don't know where to find that one.

Mark, I appreciate your input!
Here's what I know and read:
Endeavor is an All-cap Value fund (280.5B avg. weighted mkt cap; active share 88.63%) with a Capital Appreciation objective; Core Equity is a Large Cap Blend fund (510.4B avg. weighted mkt cap; active share 76.29%) with a Capital Appreciation and Current Income objective and the S&P 500 as its boogie.
Per the Parnassus website, although they are invested in the same sectors (except for no Materials in Endeavor) the weightings are somewhat different. Several sector weightings are double the other fund. Both funds are concentrated, 38 for CORE EQUITY and 43 for Endeavor, that include contrarian stocks (per their website).
Also, I believe both Endeavor and Core Equity focus on ESG. Not sure if one is more focused than the other, but either way ESG has NO bearing on my decision to invest or not!!!
One last thought, they do not seem to act in tandem very often, per my observations, not statistically verified.
I don't know if there is enough differences between the two funds, hence my question and hesitation!
Any further comments, suggestions, thoughts very welcome!
Matt

Sources?
DepositAccounts reports:
Ally Bank - 769 customer reviews, 3½ stars
Discover Bank - 231 reviews; 3½ stars
Marcus - 198 reviews; 2½ stars
If we're talking about personal experience, I've been a customer since before Goldman Sachs renamed it Marcus Bank (Dec 2017), before Goldman Sachs acquired the former GE Capital Bank (April 2016). I got tired of chasing bank rates and settled on a bank with moderately high rates that didn't bounce all over the place.
Maybe if you're dealing with the bank for a loan, or need help wiring money, quality service isn't there. I don't know; I just use it to ACH money back and forth. Never had an issue. If you want cash management services (checking, ATM) it's not the bank for you.
Money starts earning interest the day you initiate an inbound transfer, so I don't care whether that ACH takes one day or three. Unlike some online banks, one can link two ways, so that pulls or pushes work from either side.
I've used Ally Bank, and I still use it for liquid CDs (Ally gives a 0.05% bonus for CD renewals). Though they were more useful in the past to lock in rates when they were falling. Now with rising rates, not so much. Limited to six withdrawals per period.
Discover Bank pays the same 0.50% as the other banks, though that's new. Like Ally, still limited to six withdrawals per period.
That's according to the mouse-over for the "excessive withdrawal fee" on this page. OTOH, one of its FAQ answers reads: " We are currently not enforcing the monthly transaction limit on savings and money market accounts." So the bank doesn't allow you more than six withdrawals but it won't stop you?

Here is the Zweig article: https://google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/cathie-wood-ark-innovation-performance-11642175833
Even if such big gains are possible, many investors may not be able to stomach this kind of volatility and could time their purchases and sales as poorly in the future as they already did in the past.

I guess we'll know in 5 years. Right now her largest position in ARKW (what I own along with ARKG) is coin base just moving past Tesla. Coin is down 23% just like ARKW. I can easily see big gains for Coin if Crypto is a real thing, and I think it is. Josh Brown (who I think is terrific) is all in. I am buying BITQ every dip, so far, no good, but 5 years is a long time.

This piling on is so unfair. The market is just in liquidation mode for high flyers, was inevitable but that doesn't mean this is dot.com 2.0 (it isn't IMO). Those who held ARKK since inception have still averaged 25% CAGR versus 14% for VTI. What, did folks who gained 157% in 2020 think there would be no extreme volatility? Buy more, I am (but not with what I'm looking to retire on, one never knows........)

The SEC’s issue wasn’t so much with interfering with the fund’s operation (buying / selling) as with the fact that outsized “gains” were going out the door into the pockets of the slick operators. (Hence the term “skimming). Say an ETF investing in mining companies (highly volatile) jumps in price by 10% on a given day. I’ve been tracking the holdings or an index of mining companies and I sell 100% of my holdings at 3:59 PM. Two days later, the ETF drops by 15%. I reinvest my outsized gains, buying an additional 15% more shares in the ETF than what I had 2 days prior. Now, tell me harm wasn’t done to those who sat tight and didn’t sell at the high and buy in at the low. If I do this over and over again, often enough, those who sit tight will bleed (financially).
And, this would appear more serious in an actively managed ETF.

SFHYX has been referred to in other threads. Here is the website -- https://www.hundredfoldselect.com/ Below has been lifted from the site
----
Managing alternative strategies, seeking steady returns and controlling risk
The Hundredfold Select Alternative Fund is actively managed to anticipate and respond to trends in differing types of fixed income and equity securities. It seeks steady returns, principal protection and low correlation to the overall markets while providing daily liquidity.
Portfolio construction begins with a basket of high-yield fixed income securities managed for steady returns and limited volatility. These securities are complemented with alternative strategies including a variety of short-term equity trading strategies, investments in long/short, absolute, or merger strategies, and the ability to move into cash depending on market conditions.
Objective
The Hundredfold Select Alternative Fund is an alternative mutual fund investment that seeks a moderate total rate of return (income plus capital appreciation) annually.
----
Classified as a Long/Short fund by Lipper so same family as JHEQX. Very actively managed and positions can change quite dramatically MoM. ER is high but the risk adjusted returns have been great and the manager(Doudera) is a veteran(in the industry since 1973). Doudera also manages SVARX(income fund) which also has great metrics

Hi @stayCalm. I've personally never heard of SPD, but there was a lot of talk in other threads about JHQAX with it's "puts" hedging format. I own it and an unscientific observation (just me with a calculator on equity up days and down days) is it typically capture's ~60% of the S&P gains and about 40% of the losses. Much tamer than SPD when compared on a chart. JHQAX is closed but JHDAX and JHTAX are similarly structured.
Just a thought if the purpose is to hedge loss in a correction.

Two years ago: I don't know where at this forum, but I too, noted Covid on Jan. 21, 2020. I still have pics in my phone from the John Hopkins site when they began posting global Covid data. Anyway, you may choose to read some of the posts in this thread.
NOTE: the MFO link below contains 3 sections. The link goes to page 3, and I can't adjust this fact. Click the number 1 (1,2,3; just to the top right of the text area ) to go to the beginning of the post.
From the original post:

I wrote on Jan. 21:
As to a "black swan" or what could also be named as an excuse to take some profits by the big market players; IS IF.......and likely a much to do about nothing, is the monitoring of the corona virus in China and other countries in the area.
If this virus were to become very wide spread and deadly; well, who knows, eh?
Market reports (of course) are already headlining that this virus could trigger a markets sell-off.
I can not disagree that if a global problem with any virus became serious enough; markets would be affected.
Of concern to the CDC, WHO and other health organizations at this time, is the beginning of the lunar new year period; which always involves escalated travel volumes by millions of Chinese, both domestic and foreign travel.

MFO February 2020
Remain curious,
Catch

@BenWP- well, there's been a lot of that, for sure. Probably some buying early in the day as things start to struggle up, then taking any gains and cashing out later on. Arbitrage, I suppose.

Hi Puddnhead,
Ya want me to get naked in front of everyone with my portfolio, eh? :)
A few notes: At this time, all of our market holdings are either T-IRA or Roth accounts, so any position changes do not involve taxation considerations. We generally do not hold more that 5 investments at any given time, with 10 being a maximum; as beyond this number tends to not have a meaningful impact (positive or negative) upon a portfolio. An EXCEPTION would be: if one wants 25% of a portfolio to be in health related; and can find 3-5 funds/etf's that don't have a lot of overlap; this would be okay.
Our house continues to favor health and technology. FSMEX, IMHO; is a fund that favors both of these areas. FSPHX, FHLC and similar funds are more broad based health funds. Although the ARK funds, ARKK in particular; has a lot of rocky performance and bad press at this time; the ARKG etf has become fairly inexpensive at this time and travels into another favorable long term area (IMHO) of medicine/health/tech. (genomics and related). Some of these companies will fail, but others will prosper and/or become the targets of M&A.
Generally, one can expect decent distributions (div's, cap gains) from the healthcare area. So, a bonus, eh?
AND YES, health care funds have taken a hit with much else, for 2022.
Now: We no longer have FSPHX, which was replaced several years ago with FHLC.
FHLC is 21% of the total portfolio
FSMEX is 15% of the total portfolio
You mentioned a poor year....2021....for health. I'm okay with the 2021 total returns shown in the below chart.
CHART of FSPHX, FSMEX and FHLC (Fido health etf) for 2021.
I've sure as heck forgotten something to jabber about, for this post.
Remain curious,
Catch

I would rather use ETFs unleveraged such as SH as you can set stop losses so don't loose your shirt.
while it doesn't make sense to use them in Retirement account as there are no capital gains, in a taxable account they can protect you from generating sig taxes.
Of course, Mommie Vanguard will not let you use inverse ETFs