How time has changed with American funds. By the time we invested with American, the R6 (retirement accounts) were available - no load and no 12-b-1 fees. AF has served us well especially during drawdowns. Today, we moved to their newly created ETFs (less than 2 years old) with attractive expense ratio of 0.47-0.33%.

I agree with respect to the zillion share classes at AF. When we were investing there I just stayed with the "A" class. Fortunately after a few years we were able to invest there with diminishing loads, and finally without load. Load funds were not uncommon in those days, but I never did think that charging 5% or so to buy into a fund was really justified.
We knew nothing about funds then, but fortunately we had a very good AF advisor who helped us understand the ins and outs, and what the whole thing was all about. Part of that 5% paid his salary, and I have to concede that he was a big factor in our present financial well-being in retirement.

There are only a small number of American Funds/Capital Group. So, several are humongous and are team-managed. But those teams are internal - small groups of its analysts are given slices of big funds to manage. Typically, analysts only recommend/suggest stocks to lead manager(s) who make the final selections. But here, there is a combo approach. These teams at American Funds are different from those at Fido (many who led big Fido funds, but when that didn't work out, they were put on FBALX) or Vanguard (who farms out to multiple external and internal managers).
At one time, Bogle worried that some other firm like American Funds could go noload before he had the chance to implement his big new idea after being fired from Wellington Management (a load shop until then) - index and active funds that were and low-cost and noload. It seems that American Funds instead went in the direction of zillion classes - its Retirement R6 classes have the lowest ERs, and it now also sells F-1 classes on 3rd party brokers as noload/NTF (Fido, Schwab). It has also gotten into the ETFs that are farthest from load funds. Do its fund brokers and load fund holders like this? NO, but American Funds sees that as a declining pool of fools who unknowing pay a lot for the same stuff that is available for free in various channels.
I had American Funds R6 in my 403b until the plan changed to mostly index funds and TDFs - another disturbing trend.

American Funds seem to be the darlings of 401, 403, 457, etc. retirement funds. I owned them for many years, as part of company retirement programs, and was on Company Investment Committees that helped select them. They have huge AUMs, guided by large investment teams, but seem to stay pretty competitive. I have not owned any of their funds since I retired, but I know they have a large and loyal fan base that believe in them.

Think you meant CGGO, Capital Global Growth Equity; a sold global growth fund. The domestic version is CGUS. I bought CGUS and CGDV when they became available a year ago. Also looking at CGMS, a multi-sector bond fund.
Addition: excerpt from Lewis Branham’s article,

American Funds, which has had a multi-manager structure for its funds since 1958. Moreover, its 211 analysts actually manage a slice of each fund directly. Typically, equity funds have more than 10 co-managers.

For retirement account, the ER of the R6 shares (without the 12-b-1 fee) are reasonable. Now these actively managed ETFs are also competitive on their fees to other firms as WisdomTree.

See Vanguard exceptions to foreign tax reporting here:
https://big-bang-investors.proboards.com/post/38655/thread
Excerpt:
Vanguard's 1099s do not include foreign taxes paid for many funds, such as VT (Vanguard Total World Stock ETF), VGWAX (Global Wellington), or VGYAX (Global Wellesley Income), which have significant foreign stock exposure (including foreign dividend-paying stock exposure). This is nuts -- these funds are 40-50% foreign.
And yet, VG does provide foreign tax information on funds like STAR and the Life Strategy and Target Retirement funds, which have a minimal amount of foreign exposure.
See here which funds VG does provide foreign tax information for:
https://www.vanguard.com/pdf/FTC_2023.pdf

@Derf "I believe IRA's are not eligible for credit or deductions for foreign taxes paid on Fed taxes. That's why I'm moving to taxable account. Correct me if I'm wrong."
You are correct. Brokerage 1099s usually show foreign taxes paid (there are some peculiar exceptions at Vanguard), so in a taxable account you can claim a credit. Not in IRAs. Hence, I always keep foreign dividend payers in taxable.
Note however that Canada is an exception. There is a US-Canada agreement in place so that Canadian assets held in US IRAs are exempt from tax withholding:
https://www.suredividend.com/canadian-taxes-us-investors/#retirementaccounts
"… the 15% withholding tax that is normally imposed by the Canada Revenue Agency is waived when Canadian securities are held within U.S. retirement accounts. This is an important component of the U.S.-Canada tax treaty ..."
See discussion here:
https://big-bang-investors.proboards.com/post/39582/thread

Taking the new thread for a spin . . .
My foray into T-Bills came due today in the IRA. Used the proceeds to top off PRWCX and open a position in FBALX. I already have VWINX and VWELX covering the longer side of duration. These positions are now roughly equal in size.
FBALX is the new ornament on the retirement tree. I said I would be trimming, and I will. I am looking forward to just a little bit more cooperation from GISYX at 1.04% of the portfolio. Proceeds will likely be split between IYK and PSCC.

I kinda disagree with you when you say it is not a game...if this market isn't the world's largest casino, not sure what it is. The market is NOT a utility. It does not care that someone "needs" 8% a year return to fund their retirement. It's use is to raise capital to grow companies. NOT to provide anyone with a secure retirement.
Dictionary. Game. Definition. a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck
Many "play" the markets....some have more skill/resources than others....for sure it is competitive...someone is always on the other side of the trade...sure...lot of luck involved at times....

Yes, in one sense you are Spot-On @Baseball_Fan. :) A matter of perspective. When the wind’s blowing hard out to R / L / center field (as now) anyone can be a “star”. But the winds are not always so favorable.
As it may concern another member … Be very careful about dishing out investment advice to individuals. While advice comes cheap, their hard earned money did not. When push comes to shove its their money and their ass hanging out there - not yours.

"It’s about being able to stay near fully invested - even at an advanced age - and doing better than you would if parked 100% in cash (or cash-like investments)"
You are now going to the other extreme of only cash. There is a lot going on between 0% to 100% stocks. Your goal is to stay invested, my goal is different.
Let's explore several questions
1) How comfortable are you with JHQAX? The following question is the most revealing, what % are you going to invest in JHQAX for the next 20 years? I have more confidence investing in 50/50 PRWCX/VWIAX for many retirees that it meets their goals. In fact, I don't even trust PRWCX, because I don't know how long Giroux will be in charge. This is why my wife has instructions to invest in 3 funds if I'm gone, 2 indexes and VWIAX because I can trust them for decades.
2) You made a good observation, DODBX lost 33% in 2008. But why stop there, stocks+bonds lost over 15% at the bottom of 2022, and many lost over 10% by year-end. In 03/2020, many bond funds lost 10% and stocks over 30% at the bottom. Are you going to get rid of all of them?
3) You made another good point "the various approaches attempted by funds are unpredictable "
Bingo. and why I research it for many years. I talked to many people, especially investors who have enough, and most told me they don't want to ever lose more than 10% from any last top, but they still want their portfolio to make a decent return. They must give up either performance or lower risk.
So, just my opinion, good timing/trading is the only choice IF you can do it. Timing doesn't have to be all or none, you can trade 20-30-50%. BTW, I'm almost sure that Fred was probably in high % in MM for months, just like I did in 2022. When markets don't make sense, I'm out. I don't trust any funds/managers and I don't believe in relative performance, only absolute. If 50/50 PRWCX/VWIAX lost about 10-11% in 2022, it doesn't comfort me compared to -18% for SPY. I don't tolerate this decline.
Another subject we must discuss is how much you have in retirement and let's assume no pension. Smaller portfolios must be at a higher % in stocks to survive. WTF portfolio can be in 20/80 to 80/20. The biggest problem is in the middle.

I like your sense of humor Hank...but in all seriousness, I kinda disagree with you when you say it is not a game...if this market isn't the world's largest casino, not sure what it is. The market is NOT a utility. It does not care that someone "needs" 8% a year return to fund their retirement. It's use is to raise capital to grow companies. NOT to provide anyone with a secure retirement.
Dictionary. Game. Definition. a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck
Many "play" the markets....some have more skill/resources than others....for sure it is competitive...someone is always on the other side of the trade...sure...lot of luck involved at times....

These may be the first ETFs to wrap this sort of strategy, but vehicles using it have been around "forever". See, e.g. principal protected notes, market linked CDs, indexed annuities, etc.
The particular strategy you described (provide protection via Treasuries, purchase at-the-money call options) is one way of structuring investments. This ETF uses a slightly different strategy (see pp. 19 et seq. in the prospectus).
It purchases at-the-money call and put options and sells an out-of-the-money put option to raise some cash. The put option provides protection against the market declining. The call option purchased provides market exposure for a 100% participation rate. The call option sold creates a cap - if the market goes up higher than the strike price, the buyer of the call will exercise, thus limiting the fund's upside potential.
This variant is independent of interest rates. It should work in ZIRP.
As the Bloomberg piece intimates, a "buffer"ed vehicle does not get 100% protection. (See the principal protected note link above for more on buffers.) So calling this first ETF a "buffer" ETF is somewhat of a misnomer. It does suggest that subsequent ETFs will not have 100% principal protection.

Sold TAN from the IRA. It was .92%. Hasn't done much in the year I owned it. And I feel the need to start taking the ornaments off the retirement tree.
Added the proceeds to PRWCX since it is NTF at Fidelity, and the position could be bigger.
I can still play with the taxable. :)

Is this for a retirement account for your son?
If so, and if your son is able to rollover anything from a 401(k) to an IRA, then you can get access to PRWCX through TRP.

@yogibearbull
are you referring to the other TSP funds?
As they paid better than MMF I used my other retirement accounts for equites and stock funds.

I don't understand the concern for international funds in a Roth IRA, but that's ok. I did google a little on the subject and it's complicated, but I'm still not concerned after reading. Apparently Schwab isn't either. I found this in one of their articles on the subject:

Foreign taxes in retirement accounts
Unfortunately, foreign investments in retirement accounts don't qualify for either a tax credit or deduction.
Because income in a tax-deferred account—such as an individual retirement account (IRA) or 401(k)—isn't subject to U.S. tax (at least not until you begin making withdrawals), you can't deduct foreign taxes paid on investments held in the account. But don't worry—the foreign taxes reduce the income earned in that account. That is, when you eventually withdraw funds from your account, you'll be taxed on the net amount only.
If you have a Roth IRA, the situation is a bit different. Withdrawals from Roth accounts are tax-free, so you won't benefit from the foreign taxes you paid. But don't let the lack of a tax benefit deter you from holding foreign investments in your Roth account; it could still make sense to include foreign assets for diversification and potential growth.

One school of investing advice (from professionals who get interviews or write columns -- some of them, anyway) for past x years has recommended forgetting about "age in bonds" and entering retirement with a high equity allocation to help prevent running out of money much later.
I would expect quite a variety of reasons for the high equity allocation, including inertia, not wanting to sell on the way down (hope for the future), and a reluctance to part with funds that have stood the test of time in one's portfolio, in addition to all those reasons already mentioned in this thread.

One of the reasons why I consolidated all of our retirement accounts at Fidelity is its account analysis feature. I used to use M* X-Ray often to review and and analyze our various accounts. Once M* started stripping away features, I started looking for alternatives and realized Fidelity had what I needed all along. I moved all of our IRAs and former 401Ks to Fidelity and haven’t looked back. And it’s FREE for customers.

I am risk adverse by nature, but without a pension ( except SS) I knew my wife and I would have to depend on our investments for living expenses, vacations weddings etc when we retired.
Much of what I read pointed out that retiring into a multi year bear market would be a big problem, so we reduced equities after 60, and two years into retirement we are about 40%. If there is a significant pull back will increase it. After two or three years into retirement I am more comfortable knowing our basic living expenxes etc.

@sma3 - While some esteemed posters appear to disagree with you, the expert from Schwab I linked earlier would appear to agree:
As you put together your retirement portfolio, you also need to think about the role your savings will play in your overall income plan. For example, how much income do you expect from guaranteed sources like annuities, pensions, and Social Security? - "If these guaranteed income streams will generate enough income to cover the majority of your expenses, you might be able to maintain a more aggressive stance with your portfolio well into retirement … Conversely, if you'll rely on your portfolio for the majority of your income, you'll need to take a more balanced approach with your investments”
https://www.schwab.com/retirement-portfolio
Having both pension and SS, I view investments mainly as a growth asset - an enhancement to an already comfortable subsistence. If it were all I had to live on, I’d probably view them more as an income generator. Those aren’t mutually exclusive. But it does, I think, highlight two very different perspectives. The other side of the coin is that folks with pensions paid for that during their working years, whether by regular payroll deductions or by working for lower compensation than they might have received elsewhere where a pension did not exist. So it’s likely the “non-pensioners” retired with a much greater nest-egg to safeguard - provided skill-sets were similar.
-
PS - I’m actually somewhat more aggressive today than when I retired 25 years ago. Those 25 years didn’t go to waste. I read Fund Alarm and Mutual Fund Observer and learned immensely from those people. And, in retirement there’s time to read about and study the markets that you didn’t have while employed. I suppose to an extent the more advanced technology and “at demand” information flow has helped, although that one’s a 2-edged sword.

Very interesting points raised by several members. It is true that the equal weight fund does have to sell its winners down to the .2 allocation, but I understand that such rejiggering occurs only 4 times per year. Winners are pared back while stocks that have become cheaper (i.e., lost value) are on sale, so to speak. The gains from this « value proposition «  should compensate for the opportunity cost of selling gainers early.
I did not previously own an S&P 500 index fund in my actively managed portfolio, so I am not replacing or duplicating anything by dipping my toes into RSP. I do own plenty of TIEIX, the TIAA-CREF Equity Index Fund, in my retirement account. I often hear chirping in my mind from some irritating creature named FOMO. Maybe others have been visited by this PITA. On good days, I can show him/her the door.