YES, indeed. This time is different remains in place since the market melt in 2008. These observations have been expressed over the years here. The market melt of 2008 impacted economic sectors, unlike sectors affected today. But, 2008 brought large policy changes for the functions of monetary policy from central banks. These processes are still being sorted today, as to what, where and when. Other investing sectors changes were already in place, and continue now. We know technology continues to impact and the market place has continued to innovate investment choices via more and more thematic oriented placements.
MOTIF was an early player in this space, where one could build there own thematic investment or invest in other existing themes. From a 2020 notification:

After ten years in the investment space, online brokerage platform Motif will be shutting down operations on May 20. The company notified users via email on April 17 in a message saying, “At this time, we've made the decision to cease operations and transfer your account to Folio Investments.”

Anyhoo. Covid brought forth another new era of investing. Unlike the 2008 melt, when one could still go to a restaurant, vacation or whatever else; Covid removed the social functions, and impacting the economies in a whole new fashion.
Then the rise of the "inequality retail traders" via Robinhood, etc. Some of this birth reportedly had roots in the "Occupy Wall Street" movement years ago.
The writer of the article mentions social media and impacts. I fully agree with this thought. Fortunately for him and our house, too; he/we are able to discover some of what is taking place within the 20-40 y.o. groups relative to social media, and what may be of value as related to investing.
We ask questions of some of the younger ones as to what is going on within social media, who and/or what is "trending". As with anything related to what is investment worthy; we attempt to ask the proper question in hopes of receiving a proper answer/observation.
This area (social media) travels at the "speed of electrons". Robinhood and related have and will continue to impact retail markets; and one can be assured that the big institutional houses have likely established folks from the 20-40 y.o. group to keep them informed. If this is not the case, they are missing the investment boat.
>>>This write is for informational purposes only, as I'm not formally trained in economics or psychology.
Regards,
Catch

Good grief! SPCAX has a turnover ratio of 4,249% according to M*. Maybe @msf’s legion of fact checkers/researchers could compute the average holding period for a typical position given that number. IIRC, a 20% TOR results from holding a position for 5 years.

This is one of your more opaque funds, with derivatives, shorts, and 25% of assets in the management company's Cayman Islands subsidiary. And the turnover figure presented represents only a small portion of the portfolio (the few "vanilla" holdings). So I'm afraid that any turnover calculation (even if I could decrypt all of this) wouldn't be meaningful.
From the annual report: "The Commodity Strategies Global Macro Fund may invest up to 25% of its total assets in the subsidiary, a wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary formed under the laws of the Cayman Islands." M* reports 25.11% of the portfolio in "Cayman" as of June 30th.
From the SAI:

The Commodity Strategies Global Macro Fund's portfolio turnover rates for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2020, and June 30, 2019 were 4,249% and 5,463%, respectively. ... As defined, the portfolio turnover rate calculation may only include the turnover of "securities" within the Fund’s portfolio .... The calculation does not include the turnover of other instruments in which the Fund more commonly invests, such as commodity futures instruments and other derivatives. The portfolio turnover rate, therefore, only provides a turnover rate on a narrow portion of assets purchased and sold within the Fund’s overall portfolio. The Advisor estimates that if futures contracts and derivatives were included in the calculation, the portfolio turnover ratio for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020 would have been lower

One would certainly hope that the turnover rate for the whole portfolio is lower!
A few numeric oddities that one doesn't need to be an accounting expert to see:

• the cheaper Institutional shares have underperformed the Advisor shares by 0.02% over the past one and three years;
• while the website says: "[the Advisor] share class includes an explicit 0.25% shareholder servicing fee", the prospectus reports a 0.20% fee; and
• the investor class shares have "other" fees that are 0.19% higher than the advisor class fees (per prospectus)

Hormel Goes Nuts for Mr Buffet's (Kraft Heinz) Mr Peanut...

For Kraft Heinz, which was formed through a 2015 merger orchestrated by Warren Buffett and 3G Capital, the sale will help simplify its operations as the company pursues a cost-cutting plan.

https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-11/hormel-to-buy-planters-brand-from-kraft-heinz-for-3-35-billion?srnd=premium

Wrigley’s company now has 42 dispensaries across three states, with 39 in Florida and the rest in Massachusetts and Nevada, with new ones slated to open in Pennsylvania and Texas. To date, it has raised a total of $400 million largely from Wrigley and other high-net-worth individuals. The latest funding round, which closed in 2020, valued the $250 million company (2020 sales) at an estimated $2 billion.

billionaire-beau-wrigley-says-his-cannabis-company-will-be-bigger-than-the-family-candy-business

Thanks@wxman23 for adding to my investment vocabulary. I’d like to know the origin of “stink bid,” if you know it. I do place orders below the bid price, but I did not know the practice was enshrined in an expression. It takes patience and a willingness to wind up with odd lots. I used to invest in CEFs, although nowadays ETFs are more attractive to me. I can say that my investment style has been known to “stink up the joint” on occasion.

I don't know the origin of "stink bid" but the moment I saw it somewhere long ago I knew what it meant! As to trading CEF's, most do ok until a black swan event, when they get crushed, especially those with leverage. Never hold so much that you can't double down when needed. Also know the funds, these animals are owned largely by retail investors who panic at the wrong time, easy to make large gains by timing it right. Then again, I would not invest money I could not afford to lose in most CEFs.

@MikeW Thanks for the heads up. It looks intriguing. I found a brief article on Kiplinger’s from December 2020 about DSCPX:
Davenport Small Cap Focus (DSCPX) Clobbers the Broader Market
It shows it fell right between the two Paradigm funds performance-wise for the past five years. The only concern I have is that its higher turnover (v. PFSLX) might be more of an issue for a taxable account.

PIMIX had a sizable drawdown in 2020, -11.3% and finally recovered for the year. So the risk aspect is higher than expected. Performance-wise the fund is way way too big and trailed other bond funds for last several years.
PRSNX had a smaller drawdown and recovered quicker. 2020 was a unusual year where the boring total bond index fund performed quite well. Will see how bonds will do this year with higher inflation, but Fed will keep rate flat for another year.

Pretty much disagree with your take on PIMIX (though I know most share it). The bond market is enormous. While funds having billions in assets can't take advantage of niche opportunities like a very small fund can, most of the funds discussed here are in that same boat. That's OK if what you're looking for in bonds is mostly stability with some decent distributions. Go ahead and compare PIMIX to many of the funds mentioned here back to January 2016. PIMIX still has the highest Sharpe ratio, lowest drawdown and no down years. The same holds mostly true back to 2009 (except PIMIX was down a modest 5.47% in 2008). Hartford strategic may look great now but it suffered a hair-raising 21% drawdown and was also down 17% in 2008. There are no free lunches here. If you want to take on more risk it's simple, a no-brainer really, DHHIX.

I own both active and passive funds.
Investors should be mentally prepared for active funds to periodically underperform their relevant benchmarks.
I agree with @LewisBraham that it is difficult to find active funds which will outperform their benchmarks over the long-term (10 yr, 15 yr, etc.). PDF
Many intelligent, highly-educated portfolio managers compete against each other.
Company* and stock market information is now readily available to all.
This makes it extremely challenging for anyone to gain an edge.
The higher costs of active funds are also an important factor since they detract from returns.
*Regulation FD was enacted in October 2000 to prevent selective disclosure of material nonpublic information. Link

M* currently places FSMAX in the Mid Blend category but in the Mid Growth style box.
Category placements are based on three years of style box data.
This article discusses recent fund style box moves at M*. Link
It appears that Fidelity, Lipper, and M* all use different criteria for determining fund categories.
Sometimes certain funds won't fit neatly within the available categories.
For example, M* classifies NWFFX as a Diversified Emerging Markets fund but developed markets comprised 48.7% of its assets as of September 2020.
These type of anomolies can make fund category comparisons challenging.

Using Portfolio Visualizer from 1/1/08 to 2/05/2020-$10000 beginning balance PRBLX 34,714
VFIAX 27,452. Since I'm a tech-luddite I can't link to the screen. Maybe use 2 different funds in case 1 turns into the next Sequoia or Third Avenue Value !

T. Rowe Price presented opportunities for 2021 on equities and bonds:

The financials and energy sectors could offer particularly attractive shorter‑term value opportunities in 2021, according to Giroux:
Financials: Steepening yield curves have improved net lending margins, and the reserves set aside to cover expected pandemic loan losses appear to be larger than needed, Giroux says. European banks appear especially cheap based on price/book value multiples, Thomson adds.
Energy: A broad collapse in capital spending should reduce excess oil and gas supplies, potentially supporting prices, Giroux predicts. An easing of the pandemic could boost travel in 2021, reviving demand. However, the longer‑term outlook for traditional fossil fuel producers remains challenged by renewables and regulatory pressures.

https://www.troweprice.com/financial-intermediary/be/en/thinking/articles/2020/q4/global-market-outlook-managing-other-side.html

PIMIX had a sizable drawdown in 2020, -11.3% and finally recovered for the year. So the risk aspect is higher than expected. Performance-wise the fund is way way too big and trailed other bond funds for last several years.
PRSNX had a smaller drawdown and recovered quicker. 2020 was a unusual year where the boring total bond index fund performed quite well. Will see how bonds will do this year with higher inflation, but Fed will keep rate flat for another year.

My update - PTIAX and RCTIX is not available in TRP Brokerage. I am deciding between PIMIX, HSNIX and TRP's own PRSNX...I've owned PONAX in another account and they have receovered well from March 2020 volatility. Next, from what I can see the PRSNX seems to protect better on the downside and it's USD Hedge adds a unique wrinkle. The top performer in the past 3 & 5 years, HSNIX, seems to take the most risk and potentially protect less. Although it came roaring back...

Although, I no longer post on the MFO board I still visit and read it. The last time hank visited was December of 2020. His extended absence gives me pause. With this, I'll be keeping him in my thoughts and prayers. Hopefully, he will be back soon. Skeet
Here is a link to the last post made by hank. https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/57465/which-of-these-2-funds-is-riskier-safer-over-the-next-1-3-years-dodfx-vs-dodix

Well I watched WAITING FOR SUPERMAN, so I guess I'm now allowed to state opinions again. It throws a ton of different issues into the air, so commenting intelligently on them would take as long as the documentary. While some may choose to disagree, I saw a lot of things which agreed with what I was saying: Kids who are willing to work hard have involved parents, and who operate under reasonable levels of discipline; self-applied or otherwise, are likely to be successful. Others will tend not be. Pretty much what I said going in.
Yes, there are systemic problems. Yes, not all teachers are 'good', work hard, etc; just like any other field. The film strongly implied that unions were a major problem. Is it worth my time to point out that many of the very worst state educational systems (per the documentary) do not have unions while some of the best do? Is it worth noting to anyone that my home district, and the one in which I taught for twenty years, was 50% minority, provided free lunch to a huge percentage of its population, and was famously the inspiration for the NY Magazine article "Welcome to Newburgh, Murder Capital of NY".
https://tcf.org/content/commentary/welcome-to-newburgh-murder-capital-of-new-york/?session=1
Yet despite all of this, Newburgh integrated its schools by being one of the first NY districts to institute 'magnet schools'. While there were initially parochial schools; in time, ALL kids attended the public schools in Newburgh. People didn't flee because discipline was enforced and the educational program was superior to anything around. It was not uncommon for the very best students to graduate with a year of college credit. In my senior year, out of a class of approximately 1000, we ended up graduating 850; not the 300 and something suggested by the SUPERMAN documentary. Many of those who did not graduate chose to drop out as soon as possible and go to work. This was especially a problem with the latino population.
Tenure is proclaimed to be a problem, and it can be in some cases...but...one has to ask why, after three years of observing, a district gets itself saddled with a poor teacher? Can part of the problem be poor administrator oversight? Or maybe good candidates don't grow on trees and districts have to take what they can get? Why would that be? As for getting rid of tenured teachers, the hitch seems to be that you have to document the problem, and that seems to be difficult for administrators to do (which comes back to that oversight issue).
And if kids are being "passed along" and the school "failing" as a result, it's not the teachers doing it. In these cases, they are instructed to pass the kid along. Why would unions have any effect on THAT? If you abdicate your responsibility, have no standards, refuse to accept failure or impose consequences, how could you possibly expect a favorable outcome? We absolutely need to fix the system and get good people in there, but there is no simple and painless fix.

I dont know if you can access this page from Bloomberg without a subscription but it addresses the equity duration issue less comprehensively in the context of bond duration as well
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-06/danger-lurks-in-global-markets-transfixed-by-rising-bond-yields?sref=OzMbRRMQ
"Equity duration is a bit trickier to grasp. Some use dividend yields to calculate how many years it will take to get one’s capital back without any dividend growth, with more time equating to higher duration -- broadly speaking, a lower dividend rate means a higher duration."

There is little accountability for stock market predictions.
Wrong predictions from individuals or firms are often forgotten in the future.
Here's a little context.
Link1
Link2
“Nearly everyone interested in common stocks wants to be told by someone else what he thinks the market is going to do. The demand being there, it must be supplied.”
-Benjamin Graham

Thanks for posting this, Observant1 - the first link, especially, is a thorough study of faulty predictions both positive and negative. As they say - nobody knows.

Great points. MSSMX, for example, was ranked as follows in the SCG cat:
2018: 18
2019: 12
2020: 1
2021: 1
My eyesight and analytical skills are both fading somewhat, but that doesn't look much like luck to me.
Aside: I'm routinely accused of being lucky...retired early, defined benefit pensions, retiree health, the list goes on an on. My standard retort is, " I believe that people tend to create their own 'luck'."

Catch, I have recently taken to “disruptive” investing. Ark funds and others are pushing the point that the 2020’s may be a decade of new technology displacing many of the old standbys (gasoline engine, oil/carbon-based fuels, buying things from physical locations, going to casinos to bet, storing energy and powering homes and business...yada yada).
And honestly, it was Chowder, of the famous “Chowder rule” (adding dividend yield plus dividend growth to try to achieve greater than 8% or some higher value), who got me really on this kick....similar to him, I manage my parents’ portfolios (mid-70s retirees) as income portfolios, but more reliance on higher yielding things than he likely does (preferreds, CEFs, etc.). He has a blog in which he discusses disruptive investing, and he owns ARK funds along with individual holdings of some new tech/clean energy/biosciences companies. It really clicked in my head....plus the new administration likely pushing for advances in clean energy and the like.
This is all a long-winded way to say I’m on-board with you here. I would add, don’t forget some of the miners and other companies that have to mine/process the “high tech” metals to be put into all the “newfangled doohickeys.” There’s even a rare earth metals ETF, REMX, which I own in most of the portfolios (well, 3, lol) I help manage. Cheers!

There is little accountability for stock market predictions.
Wrong predictions from individuals or firms are often forgotten in the future.
Here's a little context.
Link1
Link2
“Nearly everyone interested in common stocks wants to be told by someone else what he thinks the market is going to do. The demand being there, it must be supplied.”
-Benjamin Graham