From Ben Levisohn in this week’s Barron’s:
“Worse still, despite (ARKK’s) fantastic gains since it was launched in 2014—it has returned more than 340%—its investors have been terrible market timers. They poured billions into the fund during 2020 and the beginning of 2021, driving its flow-weighted price to about $109, according to StoneX strategist Vincent Deluard, or nearly 13% above Thursday's close of $96.70.”
“Up & Down Wall Street” / Barron’s - January 3, 2022

FWIW, the investment manager, IndexIQ appears to have thrown in the towel with respect to index construction.
This fund currently tracks the IQ Real Return Index, developed by IndexIQ LLC. This index targeted a positive real return. The index is "based on the premise that capital market returns tend to be forward looking and anticipate economic developments including inflation expectations."
Summary Prospectus
However, as of Feb 28, the fund will track a different index, constructed by Bloomberg.

the Fund will begin seeking investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield (before the Fund’s fees and expenses) of the Bloomberg IQ Multi-Asset Inflation Index (the “New Index”). ... Bloomberg Index Services Limited serves as the index provider for the New Index.
The New Index seeks to provide investors with a hedge against the inflation rate by providing diversified exposure to assets that have historically exhibited positive sensitivity to the Consumer Price Index, or CPI.

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1415995/000110465921150893/tm2135117-10_497.htm
That sounds like a different, less ambitious objective (inflation hedge vs. positive real return) and a different approach (less psychic, more traditional). It also suggests the risk of high turnover early this year.

The estimable Professor Snowball wrote about ARKK in this month's 'Briefly Noted' commentary.
"Despite a multitude of warnings, here at MFO, at Morningstar, and elsewhere, investors absolutely poured money into the ARKK Innovation ETF in December 2020 and January 2021. The warnings were pretty straightforward: (1) you can’t buy last year’s returns, so don’t let those sway your decisions, (2) ARK was wildly understaffed and inundated (net $20 billion in 2020) with dumb money, and (3) manager Cathy Woods has a consistent long-term boom-and-crash track record, with the boom having just occurred."
"Good news for investors committing their money on December 1st: you’re only down 13% since then. Less good news for folks who made ARKK one of their New Years 2020 resolutions: you’re down 24%. Folks who gave shares as a Valentine’s Day present? They’re underwater by 39%."

Entering 2022 portfolio positioned as:
TANDX (Castle Tandem Fund)
ARTTX (Artisan Focus Fund)
FMSDX (Fidelity Multi Asset Income Fund)
PVCMX (Palm Valley Capital Fund)
5 YR CDs laddered (3.25-3.55%)
MMmkt (FDIC insured)
IBonds - max amount
Do like Tandem, you can look up archives at tandemadvisors.com, ~30% in cash, invests in companies that can grow, their Large Cap portfolio which is run similar to TANDX..."seeks to produce superior risk-adjusted returns, while minimizing volatility over a complete market cycle. Tandem’s investment philosophy requires that portfolio companies consistently grow both earnings and dividends. LCC differs from Tandem’s other strategies in that dividends must be paid to be included in LCC. Tandem believes dividend growth justified by earnings growth should allow stocks to perform well over time regardless of economic or market conditions. A proprietary semi-quantitative investment methodology is utilized to produce returns that experience less volatility than, and correlation to, the broader market."
TANDX's lower volatility keeps me from janking in and out of the fund, regardless of what noise is in the markets that day.
Like ARTTX as there is a strong thought of mine that there is NO WAY that Powell is going to raise rates...so I hold this fund...keep in mind during this recent Santa Claus rally, $126B was pumped in by Powell...ya really think he is concerned about inflation...jawboning or clown show? Dunno. This fund has proactive risk managment and invests in profitable companies with strong forecasted earnings growth.
PVCMX holds a lot of cash but has shown during a "flush/drawdown" they know what to do and will act.
Here's to a great, healthy, properous and joyful new year to all,
Baseball Fan

One more "change" that I noticed while reconciling Realized Gains/Losses between my brokerage accounts and Quicken. At one point in the past, Quicken said it would default all mutual funds to "Average Cost" for the cost basis. So I stopped taking the extra step to "check the Average Cost box" on the security details page. Well ... Quicken no longer is using average cost as its default method for mutual funds. I've had to drill into multiple funds in Quicken to explicitly check the "Average Cost" box in order to reconcile gains/losses with my brokerage. Next project? Drill into every mutual fund in Quicken and set it to Average Cost where applicable. Another change that I was unaware that Quicken made.

Climate change is real and extraordinarily dangerous to the future of humanity and the planet itself. Yet this long-short vehicle you mentioned does not sound like a good fund. Part of the reason is the difference in time horizons between Wall Street and a phenomenon like climate change. Wall Street investors are short-sighted and only think at best generally about the next quarter while climate change is a slow moving train wreck that has taken decades to unfold. The private sector is ill-equipped to fight climate change because of its own short-sightedness. A company that might offer a technological solution years down the road with R&D will not receive the patience it needs from Wall Street to deliver that solution. Meanwhile, a company that is actively hurting the planet and could ultimately facilitate its destruction could have a good quarter and thus have strong performance. Neither the long side nor the short side may work here. The better option for investors is to starve the worst offenders of capital while trying to change the less worse offenders via shareholder activism. The best option for citizens is to encourage greater regulation of the private sector to fight climate change and global cooperation in hitting emmission goals. Regarding funds fighting the good fight in climate change, Green Century Balanced (GCBLX) holds no fossil fuels companies and is very active filing resolutions to change companies. It is conservatively managed.

The month of December has been a risk-off and risk-on scenarios where investors are trying to figure out how badly the market can be impacted by Omicron variant. It has been a risk-off scenario for the last weeks.
This year uptick of infected cases exceeded last year's cases and the peak has yet to be reported. Hospitalization is dominated by the unvaccinated patients, >90%. Breakthrough cases are reported but these vaccinated (and boostered) patients are experiencing mild symptoms while being protected from serious hospitalization. We will see the peak of this wave several weeks after the New Year.
Lockdown is unlikely to take place this time around. I expected the market will be volatile in the first part of 2022. So have a decent cash position may not be a good idea. Several fund managers who have done well in 2020's drawdown are all holding 10%+ cash.

I don’t think @davidmoran likes the post. No problem. I agree Ritholtz’s “tips” are overly simplistic. Probably intended for a less educated and sophisticated audience than here. And I personally agree with some and disagree with others of his ideas.
Agree: Consider crowd behavior when making investments. Just because a fund or asset has appreciated rapidly isn’t in itself a reason to jump on the bandwagon. Consider the “crowd” (hot money) effect that might be in play before investing.
Agree Reduce investing friction.. Here, he’s talking about expenses. Yes, I’ve been making a conscious effort to move to ETFs having lower fees than some of the funds I previously owned.
Disagree : Avoid making predictions and forecasts. I can’t help myself from doing this, While I don’t go “all in” or “all out” on an investment based on prediction, I do try to “tilt” one way or another based on what I think is coming down the road. I’m currently cautious about the coming year. I’m guessing the Fed will have to back down somewhat on their path toward rate hikes due to market turmoil. Just a guess. Probably wrong.
Not sure: Hold on to your winners and cut your losses short. I see this working for many others. He’s right in a sense. Yet, I do find myself bailing early from winning positions and “locking in” gains. To be honest, the habit has not served me well. I’d be wealthier if I’d let more of the winners run longer.
Gosh. Fatuous is pretty harsh. Rather than take offense, I’m inclined to defer to the wisdom the longtime host of PBS’s Prairie Home Companion, Garrison Keillor.
“Whatever Floats Your Boat”

It's been almost 3 weeks, and TR Price still hasn't worked on my disclaimer trust which I wrote the Medallion Signature complaint about earlier. But that's not why I'm posting today. With the large distributions that went into my Government Money account, I wanted to have some of it Direct Deposited to my bank account (eventually to Vanguard). Guess what - Unavailable Online
Online/phone redemption disabled. Call (800) 225-5132 to enable redemptions!
If you can't redeem online or by phone, what do you have to do? Go to their office in Baltimore? If it wasn't for the capital gains hit I would take, I'd get out of Price altogether.

I suspect we are now beyond the 2020 crash rebound period, and I think we will have to accommodate more rising interest rate impact. I don't have strong predictions about particular funds, but I am expecting bond oefs like IOFIX will come back down to earth and have more "normal" returns.

Today’s 3 cent gain continued a recent pattern of outsized gains one to two trading days before ex dividend date. This is the reverse of the pattern in effect prior to 2020. Their portfolio is trading around 96 cents on the dollar up considerably from the 60 to 80 cents since 2017. So I agree its best days are behind it and thinking 2022 may only see a 4% to 5% total return. Hopefully I am dead wrong. Can’t think of many or any bond fund that had such a stellar return this year. The managers feel the fund has another 25% to 30% before the legacy non agencies play is over. I would probably cut those numbers in half if only because fund managers in general tend to be overly optimistic. Sure has been a unique and special bond fund over the years and if one was able to sidestep the carnage in March 2020 and return the following month.

"I think a lot of us are anticipating a change in sentiment some time during the new year." - Maybe this bearishness is what buoys the market? Sentiment is not exactly optimistic right now.
That and a boatload of "backed by the Fed" has the markets rolling along. The market decided in 2Q 2020 that it will just ignore the pandemic, as long as the Fed holds its hand.

@JonGaltill: I had a somewhat similar experience with BCSIX, a long-time SCG holding that had a miserable year. I reduced exposure but kept a small bit because it is a closed fund. The fund had drifted into MCG territory, although that is not a problem with MSSMX. Brown Capital has concentrated funds that trade infrequently. They do well with SC stocks, but their record with MC stocks is middling. MSSMX seems to be invested in hot stocks that just went belly-up this year. I do look at my tax situation before selling to see if shedding a loser will raise or lower my CG.
We own two MS funds, MGGPX and GLCAX, Kristian Heugh funds. I reduced MGGPX, but increased GLCAX in a tax deferred account just after a huge ST and LTCG distribution in hopes that 2021 was just one bad year. Our initial purchase was really badly timed, not the first time that’s happened. I’m not sure if my approach, admittedly scattershot, can give you any insight. BTW, that’s a handsome chart from Fidelity.

I suspect we are now beyond the 2020 crash rebound period, and I think we will have to accommodate more rising interest rate impact. I don't have strong predictions about particular funds, but I am expecting bond oefs like IOFIX will come back down to earth and have more "normal" returns.

Giroux (46) has been with PRWCX since mid-2006 (he was only 31 then). So, he has been through the Great Financial Crisis (2007-09), the Covid selloff (2020) and other minor selloffs in between. He may have 2-3 decades ahead of him unless he gets bored. But his new roles at Price should keep things interesting for him. PRWCX is closed to new investors, but those who hold it don't have to worry about manager change any time soon.

It’s been mainly value for me with a bit of growth just to participate and scratch the itch. 2020 was a fun ride for tech, but I left it in Sept and spent the majority of time in DODGX through my 401k and some other value based funds in a couple IRAs - MXXVX, PARWX, DHPAX, LZFOX. I have had some GPGCX and recently decided to load up on GPGEX as my main world stock fund. I don’t see another wild tech rally for a while outside from some IPOs in the next year that keep up their sales numbers.

https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1073089/how-did-the-6040-portfolio-do-in-2021
"'The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated,' says the asset-allocation standard.....through the end of November, the 60/40 has returned about 15%, and I'm using just a generic stock and bond 60/40 portfolio for an example here. So, about 15%. And so, real return after you adjust for inflation, even with high inflation, that's about an 8% real return, which is pretty great. I looked at the rolling 12-month real returns for the 60/40 since 2000. The median over that last 21 years is about 7.5%. So, it's actually outperformed its median real return over that time period. So, even though all this doom and gloom came true, it didn't derail the 60/40.....I think it's definitely not something for a short-term investment. With 60% stocks, you're going to have volatility. You could have drawdowns. In 2008, 2020 drawdowns were a little north of 20%. So, that's your downside risk. So, if you're investing for something six, 12, even 18 months from now, a 60/40 is probably a little too volatile for that. But I think if you have a long time horizon, it's a very good starting point, and it's proven very difficult to beat because the stocks and bonds, when it's like an investment-grade bond portfolio, really balance each other out nicely. And unless that correlation between those two really significantly changes, which it's hard to see how it would, though it could over shorter periods, I think it's a really good long-term investment, and it's definitely been a very hard benchmark to beat....."
And for those who want to venture out some more, look at evolving MULT-ASSET funds that include stocks-bonds-alternatives in the mix.

I feel that the perceived decline in fund fees is largely illusory once one controls for: payment to advisors (which has been externalized, moving the source from 12b-1 fees and loads out of the funds to separate wrap fees); the increase in the relative number of index funds (which reduces the industry average cost but not the cost of each fund); the belated rotation by investors from higher cost funds to lower cost funds (thus reducing the dollar weighted industry average cost).
The ICI writes: "The decline in the average expense ratios of equity, hybrid, and bond mutual funds in 2020 primarily reflects a long-running shift by investors toward lower-cost funds or fund share classes."
https://www.ici.org/system/files/attachments/pdf/per27-03.pdf
To a lesser extent, there have been cost reductions due to economies of scale. That's a double edged sword, as larger funds have less agility and less ability to take advantage of small opportunities.
Certainly index fund costs have come down and for them agility is not a key concern. And the ability to invest in lower cost institutional class shares albeit with transaction fees, is a fairly recent improvement.
But if costs have come down so much, why don't we see more fund companies like American Funds or D&C focused on low cost funds? For example, in 1992, the ER of FCNTX was (per prospectus) 0.87%%. That was with around $6B in assets. Thanks to economies of scale - the fund now has $146B in assets - the ER has dropped to .... 0.86% (from Fidelity's current page for the fund).

Hi guys,
FWIW: As I stated above CTFAX carries a weighting of 12% within my portfolio's income sleeve. I have some other multi-sector income funds held in this sleeve that also holds some equity. The 12% weighting for CTFAX was chosen so that it could weight up to 80% in equity and not throw the sleeve beyond its 15% equity cap. So, for me, it stays within this sleeve even if it sould go equity heavy in a stock market downdraft and load equities thus reducing its allocation to bonds.
Another fund that I like and that I own is CFIAX (Columbia Flexible Capital Income) which is held in my hybrid income sleeve. It sports about a 4% yield.

Hi @MikeM - thanks for your message. What I meant to say, and did so incompletely was that COTZX has these S&P *trigger* points where they will then buy or sell based on how the market shows up. I have my own *trigger* points to buy (from bonds or cash), based on market dips/drops (not as defined as COTZX) and harvest gains (to bonds or cash) when my stock percentage moves beyond a threshold. In my opinion, that’s what COTZX does. The difference is, as @CecilJK noted, it’s automated for you.
If you have a portfolio of $5-10 million (which I do not), a 2% investment still comes out to be a hefty chunk of change ($100 - 200K), though not a big impact overall.
So one question I ask myself is, am I willing to pay the extra *er* fees for a service that I currently enjoy and still think (relatively) competent doing?

@hank: as you know, I let TMSRX go. I just took a look at the fund's allocation stats on M* and I am a bit perplexed. If the PMs are really holding 59% in cash with a 10% short position on US equities, it's no wonder the thing acts like a MMF. They cannot be doing what they did in 2019 and 2020. Thanks for finding that benchmark which helps explain what has been going on.