I bought DIVO during the COVID pullback in March. Several years ago, I had spoken with the subadvisor, Capital Wealth Planning in Naples, FL about a separately managed account based on this strategy. Why bother when you can buy DIVO?

I agree, @little5bee on DIVO. I don't own it, but I like Amplify. The fund has been around since 2017 and has $140M in assets. I do prefer ETFs over CEFs, and the yield is competitive.
Thanks for reading.

I bought DIVO during the COVID pullback in March. Several years ago, I had spoken with the subadvisor, Capital Wealth Planning in Naples, FL about a separately managed account based on this strategy. Why bother when you can buy DIVO?

DIVO trades just like CII with a little less volatility, nice if you prefer an ETF over a CEF. Solid pick.

I bought DIVO during the COVID pullback in March. Several years ago, I had spoken with the subadvisor, Capital Wealth Planning in Naples, FL about a separately managed account based on this strategy. Why bother when you can buy DIVO?

Another Value Perspective:
Unravelling value's decade-long underperformance (and imminent resurgence)
unravelling-values-decade-long

Thank you, well written and insightful read.

The OP spoke of an 18yo and "ways to mitigate that [7y hole based on GMO predictions] risk."

>> If there are ways to mitigate that risk and increase the likelihood of a better outcome then it'd be interesting to think about the options.
So what would concrete advice be? DCA? Delay starting now because valuations? Some sort of reverse glide path?
>> In the real world, workers invest money periodically over their careers. Sequence of return matters.

How do we know how and when to do act?
If people are proposing that GMO predictions are truly useful, everyone had better start paying attention to them.
Here's a paper concluding they are indeed prescient. It's from 12y and 1mo ago, middle of November '08.
http://public.econ.duke.edu/Papers//PDF/GMO_Predictions1.pdf
Of course here's the end of Q1:
https://www.gmo.com/americas/research-library/gmo-7-year-asset-class-forecast-1q-2020/

Hello
Many good funds to look at especially Fidelity schwab Vanguard families
Thank you Mr Bolin for a good read
Kind regards
Happy holidays
Best Funds To Own In 2021
https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4394450-best-funds-to-own-in-2021
Dec. 13, 2020 12:00 PM ETAOM, ARBIX, BASIX...2
Summary
Over 300 no load mutual funds available to small investors, nearly 200 exchange-traded funds, and over a dozen closed-end funds representing 120 Lipper Categories are ranked.
The funds are ranked based on Risk, Risk Adjusted Performance, Momentum, Quality, Yield, and Consistency. They are divided into 15 investment buckets for risk, exposure, yields and trends.
The funds are reported by short-term performance including three-month returns and trends, ten-month moving average, fund flows, maximum draw downs, and yield.

While Dodge and Cox was buying Facebook early in 2020 (see my above post), it appears David Giroux over at TRP was selling it.
From PRWCX’s June 30 Semi Annual Report: “In addition, we have systematically reduced our exposure to COVID-19 winners such as Amazon (now a top 5 underweight), life science tool companies, Visa, and Facebook.”
Hmmm ... :(

VWINX is my "go-to" fund to benchmark this category. That's not to say there aren't comparable funds. But because it is such a solid long term performer, for me to prefer another fund to this one I would want to see something about the other fund that was significantly better.
BAMPX also looks like a solid fund. Slightly weaker than VWINX over ten years, a dead heat over five, better over the past three years, and much better over the past year. Its better numbers are due primarily to its current (2020) year's performance. For periods ending in 2019, the long term figures still look great, but not superior:
1 year (2019): 16.68% (BAMPX) vs. 16.87% (VWINX)
3 years (2017-2019): 24.04% vs. 24.96%
5 years (2015-2019): 28.97% vs. 36.41%
10 years (2010-2019): 104.79% vs. 111.41%
While I don't disregard this year's performance, I do ask whether the gap between these funds was a one off or something repeatable. In addition, you might want to discard all BAMPX history before 2016, because its current lead manager Michael Gates took over in mid 2015 and the fund shifted from being a moderate allocation fund to being a conservative allocation fund. That's a serious point to consider.
VWINX is what I might call an old school conservative allocation fund - large cap value, bond allocation hugging 60% (57% - 61% over the past five years). BAMPX is more "modern", with a growth leaning blend portfolio and a lower bond allocation, around 50% (39% to 56% over the past five years). This has resulted in performance that has been slightly more volatile. Standard deviation comparisons over the past 3/5/10 years are:
8.52 (BAMPX) vs. 7.72 (VWINX) / 6.96 vs 6.35 / 7.44 vs. 5.51
As noted above, perhaps we should disregard the 10 year figure. The volatility of BAMPX over the 3 and 5 year periods are below category average, so this comparison is not to suggest that it is an excessively volatile fund.
On the plus side, the fund is pretty small at $½B. I happen to like the fact that it invests some equity overseas (currently about ¼ of its equity); others may consider this a negative. Its cost, 0.68% ER (0.73% without waivers) is reasonable, though obviously much higher than that of VWINX.
Where it looks a bit odd is in its portfolio. This is a fund of funds, so one would expect it to have a modest turnover, tweaking allocations. But its turnover rate of 98% is somewhat high even for funds that invest directly in individual securities. According to its latest (Sept. 30th) annual report, it holds 11 equity funds, 3 fixed income funds, and 2 MMFs.
Blackrock equity funds: EM class K (5% of portfolio), Technology Opportunities class K, Master Advantage Large Cap Core Portfolio (5%)
iShares equity ETFs: Core MSCI EAFE (4%), Core S&P Small Cap (4%), Core S&P Total US Stock Market (15%), ESG Aware MSCI USA (11%), MSCI EAFE Growth (7%), MSCI Min Vol USA, MSCI USA Value Factor, US Medical Devices
Blackrock fixed income funds: Strategic Income Opportunities Portfolio class K (8%), Master Total Return Portfolio (22%)
iShares fixed income ETF: iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond (6%)
(The Master funds are "master" funds in master/feeder configurations. MDLRX is a retail fund feeding into Master Advantage Large Cap Core, MAHQX is a retail fund feeding into Master Total Return.)
Overall, BAMPX looks like a solid fund from an excellent fund family. While its portfolio seems slightly aggressive (both in terms of a higher equity allocation and its dabbling in sectors), it manages to keep volatility in check. Based on its turnover rate and plethora of underlying funds, I couldn't guess at its strategy (spaghetti against a wall?), but it seems to work. It looks like a worthwhile fund; for me I don't see a compelling reason to prefer it to VWINX.

@Mav123,

Thank you for sharing. 25% in equities, wow. I always thought even retirees should have more to make sure funds lasts. I'm in my early 40s. Curious, what is the rate of return for the overall portfolio if only 25% in equities?

Bond and conservative funds have made roughly 8% YTD will little risk because interest rates have fallen, compared to the S&P 500 with 14% YTD, but a maximum drawdown of 20%. Stock valuations are very high now. The 25% is Benjamin Graham's lower limit on stock allocation when the markets are fully priced. This is similar to COTZX's strategy of decreasing allocations as the markets become fully valued. TMSRX's strategy is to make 6% plus inflation regardless of market direction.
My December article shows that following periods of high valuations over long periods of time (decades), conservative portfolios outperform aggressive portfolios.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2020/12/enoughin-the-coming-lost-decade/
When I was your age in the early 1990's I was 100% stocks, but times have changed. The secular bear market of the 1960's and 1970's was followed by the secular bull market of the 1980's and 1990's. You could not go wrong in stocks until the market hit the wall in 1999. Now we are in a period of high debts and deficits, high valuations, aging workforce (deflationary), falling dollar (inflationary), and COVID. I choose to be more conservative now.
Best wishes in your investing.

Isn’t it funny how Racqueteer said five posts ago “OK, last try for me,” yet he continues to argue his false position that attempting to eviscerate a Democratic clean energy policy that doesn’t even have all its details in place yet is “not political” as if scientifically there were another better policy put forward by the political opposition. The GOP has no real clean energy policy at all because it continues to argue as part of its libertarian death cult that anthropogenic climate change is a liberal hoax or that there’s nothing little old America can do as the second largest emitter of carbon emissions in the world. If you think you have a better plan, Racqueteer, submit it to the president elect’s team or apply for a job there. I’m sure if you’re as knowledgeable as you claim, they’ll hire you. Yet why do I suspect your “last try” wasn’t your last one and we’ll have another all-cap filled response? This isn’t about the truth or solving the problem for you. It’s about winning and getting the last word. So go ahead, and when you’re done submit your better ideas to the new president.
Oh wait, it seems like part of Biden’s failure of a clean energy plan includes nuclear: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/08/17/what-will-a-biden-harris-administration-do-for-nuclear-energy/amp/
I guess just send your geothermal idea with your resume because no one on Biden’s team is smart enough to think of that.

Arnott isn't the only one who was wrong for years
1) US stocks are over value, the rest of the world is undervalue. US stocks did better in the last 10 years.
2) The GMO team and Arnott have been wrong for 10 years.
3) Gundlach was way wrong when he predicted the 10 year will be at 6% in 2021
4) Bogle was wrong when he predicted stocks/bonds performance based on the past and averages.
5) Inflation and interest rates can only go up. Both wrong for years.
6) inverted yield signals recession = wrong. High PE, PE10 signal the end of the bull market...wrong again for years.
7) There is no way stocks will have a V recovery in March 2020 based on blah, blah, whatever...and they did.
8) The economy is bad, unemployment is high, the debt is huge = bad future stock market. The reality? Stocks are still up.
9) If Trump will be elected, it will be a disaster. Reality? stocks were up
The truth is the 24/7 media has to write about something for someone to click and read and how they get paid.
The Fed successfully managed to do all the above and why many "experts" were wrong
If you didn't get the message already, most investors should do nothing to very little. Predictions area a flipping coin. Some will be correct just because markets go sometimes down
BTW, I always do something big when I see something crucial happening NOW but I don't recommend it to anybody. I don't mind being wrong because I invest to meet my specific goals.
Lastly, why Arnott still in business? most of us lose their jobs after just several mistakes so why people who manage money don't.

I have been using great risk reward funds since 2000 but in the last several years and especially since retirement I just sell to cash when I see extreme market conditions. It's the only sure way to protect my portfolio. When a black swan shows up is years such as 2008,2009,2020 there is no way to know what will work and what used to work before may not work in the future.

Thank you, FD1000,
I agree that each bear market is different and they are less predictable with massive quantities of stimulus. I reduce my exposure to stocks to 25% following Benjamin Graham’s guidelines late in the business cycle. MFO has been great to identify lower risk funds. I am pleased with the low downturns in my portfolio which is rising slow and steady.

Hello,
I'm new to this forum and curious which funds do you and others own?

@wxman123
this might interest you:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/covid-stimulus-checks-mnuchin-free-money-creates-jobs.html

Thanks msf, very well thought out and I agree. Still, there is that nagging thought I have that "only cash is cash." My concern would be something totally unforeseen that causes a permanent and substantial loss of capital. I guess that's not really a real concern with a fund dating back to 1977 with no down years, but I still need to get past that mental block. ZIRP is getting me there.

Here's an interview with BlockFi founder and CEO Zac Prince about all things crypto:
https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2020/11/talk-your-book-investing-in-bitcoin/
Fidelity has also created a digital asset platform:
fidelitydigitalassets.com/overview

here is a basic econ review of the tradeoffs, sort of
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/opinion/trump-coronavirus-relief.html
So what we need at this time is
- drastic and disciplined behavioral policies (mandates, enforcement) to prevent disease transmission
- massive disaster relief to those harmed by the above

Agreed there is a definite need for government assistance. Both parties are acting like spoiled children, they want what they want or will stomp their feet and go home. That being said, and as these many posts point out, people can disagree on what's "disastrously wrongheaded." I'm no expert on what the best relief/stimulus package is but I can tell you personally, firsthand that expanded unemployment absolutely does contribute to some workers not wanting to return to work in the current setting. I don't know how prevalent the issue is nationwide, but it is a real issue. I would never have believed it before, I do believe people want to work in general. Perhaps it's legitimate fear over covid exposure at work...but I can tell you that for many whose expanded unemployment had them making close to or more than they were earning at work, they would prefer to stay home. Economists can use whatever data they want to show a "thoroughly debunked myth" but ask anyone who actually employs lower wage-earners if expanded unemployment led to workers preferring to stay home and see what you hear.

here is a basic econ review of the tradeoffs, sort of
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/opinion/trump-coronavirus-relief.html
So what we need at this time is
- drastic and disciplined behavioral policies (mandates, enforcement) to prevent disease transmission
- massive disaster relief to those harmed by the above

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/99188/000110465920134148/tm2038239d1_defa14a.htm
FPA CAPITAL FUND, INC.
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, California 90025
NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT
WE NEED YOUR HELP
December 10, 2020
Dear Shareholder,
We need your help. The Special Meeting of Shareholders of your Fund, FPA Capital Fund, Inc., was adjourned until December 16, 2020 to provide shareholders who have not yet cast their proxy vote, more time to do so. Our records indicate that you have not yet cast your proxy voting instructions. It is critical that we receive your response so that we may proceed with the important business of the Fund.
PLEASE take a moment to cast your vote TODAY. We wish to avoid any further costs associated with following up on this matter.
As discussed in more detail in the proxy statement sent to you via hard copy or e-delivery, shareholders are being asked to vote on an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization. FPA Capital Fund’s Board of Directors and its investment adviser, FPA, believe that reorganizing the Fund into the Acquiring Fund is in the best interest of the Fund and its shareholders, as it will combine the strengths of two organizations. Specifically, FPA believes that the Reorganization will combine the expertise of the sub-adviser managing the Acquiring Fund using similar types of securities and implementing a similar investment strategy, with the experience and resources of FPA, will provide both FPA Capital Fund and the Acquiring Fund with greater potential to attract additional assets and will potentially allow shareholders to benefit from economies of scale. There is no increase in fees in connection with this proposal. The Board of Directors recommends that shareholders vote “FOR” the proposal.
For more information, please refer to the proxy statement, which can be found at https://vote.proxyonline.com/fpa/docs/CapitalFund2020.pdf. If you have any proxy related questions, or would like to cast your proxy vote by phone, please call 1-888-605-1957 for assistance. Representatives are available Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern time. We very much appreciate your attention to this matter...

Another Value Perspective:
Unravelling value's decade-long underperformance (and imminent resurgence)
unravelling-values-decade-long

Sequence risk is the risk that investment returns happen in an unlucky order. It can make or break portfolios and this post shows how to protect against it.

one-portfolio-risk-to-rule-them-all