@JD_co, I've added to CGBL over the past few months also. Is there better? Who knows. Seems to be doing well since inception compared to a few other stalwarts, including PRWCX. American Funds/Capital Group has been running great balanced mutual funds forever. I don't know about tax efficiency though. My investment is in taxed deferred.

@BaluBalu, %coupon adjusted for current price is NOT YTM (or close to it).
YTM come from IRR or XIRR like Functions in Excel, or P-A-F-i analysis on generic calculators.
Funds use the current yield trick to boost current yield by buying premium bonds (at the expense of NAV deterioration), or go for gains by buying discount bonds. While both have the same YTM, the effects on current fund income and taxation are different.

My tax liability fluctuates significantly from year to year. Every other year I minimize ordinary income (e.g. limit Roth conversions, use tax-free MMFs) so that I can harvest cap gains at 0% tax rate. In the off years, I minimize cap gains and increase ordinary income (e.g. increase Roth conversion amounts).
MAGI may be similar from year to year but taxes are very different.
If some cap gains are taxed at 0% and some at 15%, then every dollar added to ordinary income moves a 0% cap gains dollar into the 15% bracket. So that extra dollar of ordinary income effectively gets taxed at 22% (ordinary rate) + 15% (cap gains rate).
Similar idea to bunching deductions. Maximize deductions in a year when you're itemizing, and minimize deductions in a year when you're taking a standard deduction.

I cringe when people talk about stocks for all times and talk only about good times. People have to deal with markets they are in. So, these historical data are useful for perspectives.
In the charts above, I tried to add SP500 but couldn't. I looked up SP500 index data:
12/1964 84.75
12/1974 68.56
That was -19.10% index return during that 10-yr period. I couldn't find reinvested SP500 TR for that period - I think that it still would be negative. In that time, VWELX was just flat, but DODBX and FPURX were positive. Did the people investing in 1965 know this? If not, what would have been a prudent course, especially if decumulation in retirement was expected.
10-yr periods ending around dot.com bubble, the GFC, the 2020 Pandemic were difficult too. So, that is the lesson - bad stuff happens, and occasionally.

Market has good times and bad times.
Indeed. Another venerable balanced fund, PGEOX, outperformed FPURX for 8.5 years starting 12/31/64, before falling behind in the last 1.5 years of that 10 year span.
Funds are not static, they evolve and adapt.
For example, in 2008, Puritan explicitly changed from "emphasizing above-average income-producing equity securities, which tends to lead to investments in stocks that have more 'value' characteristics than 'growth' characteristics" to a fund that "is not constrained by any particular investment style. At any given time, FMR may tend to buy 'growth' stocks or 'value' stocks, or a combination of both types."
Here are descriptions of how a couple of its peers changed over decades:

Initially focusing on a simple mix of blue-chip stocks and high-grade bonds, [the George Putnam Balanced Fund] has expanded its universe over the years, incorporating international equities, high-yield bonds, and even alternative investments to diversify and enhance returns.
The management of the fund has also transitioned from a primarily fundamental, research-driven approach to one that incorporates technical analysis and global economic trends. This evolution reflects the fund’s commitment to maintaining its foundational principles while adapting to the complexities of the modern financial world.
...
Originally a hybrid of stocks and bonds, the[Wellington] fund has continually recalibrated its asset mix in response to economic cycles. During periods of market exuberance, such as the post-World War II boom and the late 20th-century bull markets, the fund shifted towards a higher allocation in stocks to capture growth.
Conversely, in times of economic downturns and uncertainties, like the oil crises of the 1970s and the financial crisis of 2008, the fund increased its bond holdings, prioritizing capital preservation and income. The Wellington Fund’s management has been characterized by a blend of historical wisdom and a forward-looking approach, consistently adapting to the ever-evolving market dynamics.

https://pictureperfectportfolios.com/what-are-the-oldest-mutual-funds-historic-investments-revealed/
Whether these and other fund changes have handled markets in good times and bad I leave for others to decide. The point here (since someone keeps asking me what the point is) is that these may not be your father's (or your grandfather's) funds. It's fun to see how they did half a century ago, but is it meaningful?

Just goes to show that the stock market is NOT a utility, doesn't care that you need 7% annual returns to fund your retirement and it is very risky...what have we had like TWO, 50%+ drawdowns in the past 15 years or something and another couple -20%.......it exists to provide capital to fund companies so they theoretically can grow their business.
A lot of this looking backwards is just a bunch of hooey...what if...what if...so much is different...most successful companies now have way less employees, use way less capital...market valuations have trended higher in the past what 20 years or something? Sooo much more private and gov't debt out there....It's like saying "the last time the Yankees played in a World Series 12 years ago where they had home field advantage they won...never mind that only 2 playes were on the team then, they are playing a different team etc etc...(this is a hypothetical example)..like WTF does the recovery time in 1974 etc etc have anything to do with today? Please.
Jared Dillian said it best recently..."a lot of "investing" is just entertainment"...that is why crap like CNBC exists....the largest comedy show on TV these days...
All that being said, as long as we don't go full blown Bolshie in this country and still have a semblence of Capitalism, I would not bet against the USA...but am thinking you might not be able to do better than a Berkshire that owns blue chips stocks, well run relevant businesses, utilities, railroads, insurance companies...AND has what $150B of Tbills...might be the way to go, who knows?

But if you look at how long it has taken the SP500 to get back to a previous high permanently, it is 13 years in recent memory, and it took 25 years after September 1929.
According to Mark Hulbert,

On a dividend- and inflation-adjusted basis, the broad stock market had recovered from the 1929 collapse by March 1937, only 7½ years later.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/lessons-from-the-dot-com-bust-11583192099
He doesn't define what "broad stock market" means, though he does observe that the DJIA took a lot longer to recover because it was full of stocks that underperformed the market. And the S&P 500 started only in 1957, though various people have approximated the index going backward.
The 13 years mentioned for the S&P 500 to recover likewise seems to overstate the time for recovery of the broader market, even after accounting for inflation. Hulbert wrote (in 2020) that

The longest recovery time in U.S. history was from the 1973-74 bear market: It wasn’t until the end of 1984 that the broad market, on an inflation- and dividend-adjusted basis, was back to where it stood at its January 1973 peak—nearly 12 years later.

Here's a table of S&P 500 recovery times, including divs and adjustments for inflation/deflation:

Source: https://monevator.com/bear-market-recovery/
That piece primarily discusses UK data. It reports that Wade Pfau calculated the recovery time for the 1972-74 bear market in the UK was 11 years (compared with Hulbert's 12 in the US). But in nominal terms, it took less than five years to recover. That suggests that inflation could be as big a risk as sequence of returns.
When looking at how much cash to keep on hand, one should balance these risks. ISTM that five years cash is adequate, bearing in mind that it's not critical to recover all the way (in real terms) to the prior peak. Getting well along the way to recovery can suffice.

“Hats-off” to Charles Lynn Bolin for his exceptional article: ”Asset Allocation and Withdrawal Strategies in Retirement” in the January issue of The Observer. In early December, returning home from a short trip to Florida, I hastily tossed up a thread - ”New Report: All Stock Portfolio Beats Stock and Bond Mix Over Time (Originally From Bloomberg)” while awaiting a connection at Chicago’s O’Hare. Time was short. I had no idea the thread would garner so many insightful comments from board members - let alone become the genesis for a future article in The Observer.
Charle’s article is so comprehensive and rich in documentation that any attempt to summarize or characterize it by me seems futile. He begins by linking to the thread, followed by a listing of a dozen or so different aspects of the study’s premise as identified by discussion participants. This is followed by literally reams of historical data. In essence, he’s trying to identify the “right balance” among risk, time span, relative asset performance over different time periods, withdrawal strategies, etc.
While stocks have beaten other investments over the past 130 years, Charles notes that most of us have a somewhat shorter investment horizon. And he identifies some potentially more reasonable risk-averse approaches: ”To illustrate the benefits of having a balanced portfolio, from 1999 until 2020, the conservative Vanguard Wellesley (VWINX) and moderate Vanguard Wellington (VWELX) have beaten the S&P 500. This illustrates the importance of starting and ending points – sequence of return risk. A high allocation of stocks in 1999 could have impacted savings for the remainder of retirement.”
Finally, Charles outlines his own investment allocation and approach, which includes modifying his equity exposure (within a set range) from time to time based on his read of market conditions.

Barron’s Subtitle: “The Market’s Gains Won’t Come Easy From Here”
This is the first of two sessions. This year’s participants are: John W. Rogers Jr., Todd Ahlsten, Meryl Witmer, Rajiv Jain, Mario Gabelli, Scott Black, David Giroux, Sonal Desai, William Priest, Henry Ellenbogen, Abby Joseph Cohen.
It’s an insightful free-wheeling discussion. Short on specific buy recommendations but an exhaustive look at how investing is likely to be affected by domestic / geopolitics (in the broadest sense) along with the economic backdrop. Most foresee a flat to down year for U.S. equities. David Giroux expects a range of +5% / -5% this year - but looking out 5 years sees annual returns in the 6.5% area. He wasn’t too explicit, but seemed to be referencing his own fund (PRWCX) which he termed a “balanced” fund.
Giroux’s list of “likes” is long (excerpt): ”We see good value in managed care, life-sciences tools, utility stocks, and waste. We still see good value in companies like Microsoft, Intuit, and Salesforce, which has a low valuation … we are seeing good value in energy now as some supply-and-demand dynamics have changed.” And he’s still likes “high quality high yield bonds” (The latter struck me as a bit of an oxymoron.)
Graham Holdings (GHC) was recommended strongly by Witmer. Others joined in and much time was devoted to its numerous components including broadcasting, education and health care. It hurt a bit because I recently unloaded this one after what I thought was a nice run-up. Knowing when to sell a stock is a skill that escapes me. Deere (DE) is another stock that received favorable comment.
Participants noted that the economists / market prognosticators were nearly 100% wrong a year ago when recession was widely seen as “baked in the cake” and the market appeared headed for another bad year. Someone quipped that every year one of them says “It’s a stock picker’s market.” (When isn’t it?) Much was said of the approaching U.S. election and mostly with foreboding. One of the “optimists” (Witmer) predicted the U.S. will somehow “muddle through” without significant damage. Some think the markets will rebound late in the year after the election. The eternal optimism of Buffett and Templeton were noted in this regard. But the general feeling was far from optimistic. Most (if not all) find big cap valuations too rich, while small cap value is greatly undervalued. “De-globalization” is seen by some as a headwind, reducing efficiencies and adding costs for consumers. Franklin’s Sonal Desai says the “real interest rate” (inflation +) is in the 4-5% range - much above what the market currently assumes - implying rates will rise by year’s end.
Really recommend this article!

Than there’s Mario Gabelli in this week’s Barron’s who, after citing a litany of ominous signs, including budget deficits and a recent 50% drawdown in the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, shrugs them off and says:
”But what does it matter? Short-termism is prevalent as algorithms, momentum investing, and exchange-traded funds influence trading. The Dow industrials will be the equivalent of 1,000,000 in 40 years and was under 1,000 about 40 years ago. So, invest long term.”
Gabelli’s point is later reaffirmed by Henry Ellenbogen (no investing lightweight):
“I agree with Mario: You have to take a long-term view and be positive on the prospects for the U.S. The agility and ability of the American business sector is like nothing else in the world”.
-
Excerpts from: ”The Market’s Gains Won’t Come Easy From Here, Barron’s Roundtable Pros Say. 8 Stocks for Now.” Barron’s January 15, 2024

For what interest it holds, I have a phone call coming up with Ms Geritzto talk about what she takes away from this experience and how she's thinking about the firm's next steps.
In some ways it's a classic "not quite enough" story. The performance pattern is exactly what you wanted to see in a risk conscious fund. In years when the market was up (2019, 2020, 2021) this fund generally posted double digit returns. In periods when the market was down this fund generally protected better than its peers.
The exception was the past 12 months when it lagged in both directions.
Since inception the fund has returned 2.5% annually (against 4.7% for its Lipper peer group) but has substantially better standard deviation, downside deviation, down market deviation and Ulcer Index than its peers. But the fund trailed so dramatically in 2019 and 2023 that it became untenable.

John Rekenthaler has been discussing some recent research that shows that Jeremy "Stocks for the Long Run" Siegel might, perhaps, have been relying on some selective, flawed and limited data. Siegel says that, in the long run, stocks have a 6.9% annualized real return. Scholars who did some of the hard archaeological work (for example, going through 19th century newspapers issue by issue to reconstruct the fate of long-dead stocks which aren't reflected in Siegel's data) find that the dominance of stocks is more limited, and more time dependent, than Siegel's faith would lead us to accept.
Nothing here is a definitive rejection of the pro-equity argument. More, it offers a heads up that it's entirely possible that stocks will lag and bonds will lead ... oh, between now and 2050?
JR's closing from today's essay:

The case for the ongoing dominance of stock is less overwhelming than we once believed. That observation bears consideration, especially for retirees tempted by advice that they invest heavily in equities. Such counsel is not necessarily wrong, depending upon individual circumstances (in particular, wealth levels), but it often is coupled with the implicit assumption that stocks will inevitably beat bonds over the long term.
Maybe. If not, though, retirees do not get a second bite at the financial apple. That lesson is very much worth pondering.
Note: When I sent Professor McQuarrie (Edward McQuarrie of Santa Clara University) the reader’s comment (NB: someone responded to JR's first essay on the subject by pointing out that mortality rates from surgery fell, and fell permanently so perhaps all of that old stuff from long ago reflects an age now forever past), he forwarded me the following response:
“My take is in the article’s title. Sometimes stock returns will soar far above bond returns, as after the war. That outperformance can be sustained for decades. Other times stocks will lag bonds, for decades. There’s no rhyme or reason to it, and in all likelihood, no predictability over the individual investor’s limited time horizon of several decades.
“As for your reader’s clever riposte, here is my redo: ‘The rate of death from disease and epidemics stayed at a relatively high and constant level from 1793 to 1920. Then advances in modern medicine fundamentally and permanently altered the trajectory ... or so it seemed until COVID-19 hit in February 2020.’”

For what interest it holds.

I don't need (or want) an FA to invest for me, thankfully.
My Schwab FA came over from TDA. He treated me very well over the years in terms of customer service and we stay in touch very periodically to opine about the markets ... he has never pushed anything my way as a recommendation other than to gently note (back then) that I had a 'large cash pile' he thought could be better used. Also once he got to know me, he gave me direct access to some planning tools that he used to help his other clients, which I appreciated.*
When we first met I told him my ground rules for a FA/broker: I'm self-directed, so while you can always recommend, don't be pushy. For 14-ish years, he's been exactly what I asked him to be. (The same applies to the FA for my long-long term account at WF, where we go back over 20 years)
By contrast, the guy I was initially assigned from Schwab kept reaching out via email or phone, and once my TD guy also got onboarded at Schwab, I dropped him so we could reconnect and continue the relationship.
* He appreciated that while I was very eager to leave TD once the merger was announced, I didn't transfer my TD account to Schwab in 2020 until after the TD FA evaluations were completed, b/c I didn't want him to have a noticeable loss of AUM on his book during the post-merger analysis of internal folks.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1537140/000158064224000163/rondure-overseas_497.htm
497 1 rondure-overseas_497.htm 497
Rondure Overseas Fund
Investor Class - ROSOX
Institutional Class - ROSIX
(a series of Northern Lights Fund Trust III)
Supplement dated January 9, 2024 to
the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated October 20, 2023
The Board of Trustees of Northern Lights Fund Trust III (the “Board”) has concluded that it is in the best interests of the Rondure Overseas Fund (the “Fund”) and its shareholders that the Fund cease operations. The Board has determined to close the Fund and redeem all outstanding shares on or about February 8, 2024 (“Redemption Date”).
Effective immediately, the Fund will not accept any new investments, will no longer pursue its stated investment objective, and will begin liquidating its portfolio and will invest in cash equivalents such as money market funds until all shares have been redeemed. Any required distributions of income and capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders and reinvested in additional shares, unless you have previously requested payment in cash.
Prior to or on the Redemption Date, you may redeem your shares, including reinvested distributions, in accordance with the “How to Redeem Shares” section in the Prospectus. Unless your investment in the Fund is through a tax-deferred retirement account, a redemption is subject to tax on any taxable gains. Please refer to the “Tax Status, Dividends and Distributions” section in the Prospectus for general information. You may wish to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO THE REDEMPTION DATE WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THAT DATE, AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OF RECORD. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact your financial advisor directly or the Fund at 1-855-775-3337.
This Supplement, and the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated October 20, 2023, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. Both the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference and can be obtained without charge by calling the Fund at 1-855-775-3337.

Sorry if I’m being unclear. Here is what happened step by step.
On Thursday, 1/4, I sold $20K in another fund. Fidelity website reported that the sale went through at the closing price Thursday, and that my account had $20,000 cash available to trade,
I went ahead and placed orders to reinvest $10K each in two funds, PRCFX and FMSDX. I received an email from Fidelity acknowledging both orders on Friday morning. The Fidelity fund purchase settled without a hitch at the closing price on Friday, as expected. The trade for PRCFX was listed as “settlement pending” on Friday and throughout the weekend. Purchase did not occur until closing price on Monday, so I missed market gains I should have received if purchase had occurred on Friday.
My issue is that, in the past, if I bought shares in an NTF fund with available cash on a given day, my purchase price was the closing price on that day. Always. So I lost $62 in potential gains. Not a huge amount of money, but I’ve never had this happen before. I’ll talk to someone at Fidelity for clarification. I’m sure that in the fine print it says that transactions can sometimes take longer.

FYI, I purchased shares in PRCFX 12/8/23 and 1/4/24 through Fidelity. Both transactions took 3-4 days to settle. I’ve never had a fund purchase take so long to settle since I’ve been doing transactions online. I plan to speak to someone at Fidelity about the reasons for this, as I missed at least one day of gains. I don’t know if the transaction would have been delayed so long if conducted at the TRP website, but I haven’t encountered such problems with other third party fund purchases at Fidelity. This is something that others might want to be aware of if considering this fund.

Glad you told us about that! Stinky, maybe even poopy, too. I do all my trades at TRP. They are "threatening" to put forward a website upgrade. Oh Joy! Oh Rapture! TRP fund entry minimums are $2,500.00. All others require an initial $5,000.00.

FYI, I purchased shares in PRCFX 12/8/23 and 1/4/24 through Fidelity. Both transactions took 3-4 days to settle. I’ve never had a fund purchase take so long to settle since I’ve been doing transactions online. I plan to speak to someone at Fidelity about the reasons for this, as I missed at least one day of gains. I don’t know if the transaction would have been delayed so long if conducted at the TRP website, but I haven’t encountered such problems with other third party fund purchases at Fidelity. This is something that others might want to be aware of if considering this fund.

Dear friends,
We're back after the long drive to and from upstate New York to visit family. One of the great joys of visiting is getting to go home again, if not to sanity then at least to the sort of insanity you're most accustomed to!
The January issue features discussions of two funds that we've touched on before. Standpoint has posted really startling numbers, beating pretty much all of its likely peers in both raw and risk-adjusted returns. I suppose you could say that all markets favor some strategies and the test comes when the market turns, but it sort of feels like the market has already done a series of 180s and they're still chugged along. And One Rock is the sort of fund that makes me scratch my head and go "huh?" Jeff seems like a remarkably good and humble guy with a very '90s investing style. Huge gains, nearly-as-huge volatility and very restricted access. In some ways I'm most impressed by the fact that he knows most of his investors and he's seen slow steady inflows (with the exception of one month) in good times and bad.
Devesh offered a lovely reflection and insightful commentary on what works and what's working. Lynn did the thing that Lynn does so well. Likewise, Shadow whose most immediately useful note might concern the reopening of Virtus KAR Small.
I'm hopeful that the piece on ESG held together for you. As you know it started as a post on the board but grew as I kept grinding through the data. Really, the argument that ESG investing require you to sacrifice either raw returns or risk-adjusted returns is, so far as I can tell, completely unsupported by the data. Some ESG funds are utterly rank and scammy ... as are some index funds, some small cap ETFs, and many of the new offerings that sound like desperate attempts to suck in people who have investing in the same mental box as "Call of Duty" and fantasy football.
Wishing you a joyful start to the year,
David

So T-bills are in special category different from regular stock and fund sales.
T-bills are in a special category different from regular and muni bond sales. Bonds have their own rules dealing with appreciation. Unless bond appreciation is de minimus (under 1/4% per year), it is taxed as ordinary income (even for munis, except for OID).
Q: If I anticipate a sizable capital gain on the sale of an investment during the year, do I need to make a quarterly estimated tax payment during the tax year?
You can make substantially equal estimates or you can file Form 2210 Schedule AI (annualized income) to account for uneven income throughout the year. I've used that in the past for large 4th quarter Roth conversions, cap gains distributions, fund sales, etc.
You have to keep track of your income by period (Jan-March, April-May, June-Aug, Sept-Dec) and work through the tax liability for each quarter. In recent years before 2023 it wasn't worth the effort because interest rates were so low. Little interest income was lost in paying equal estimates.
2022 IRS pages:
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f2210.pdf (Form 2210)
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i2210.pdf (Instructions)
Also, taxpayers are not required to file a 4th quarter estimate if they file their tax return including amount due by January 31st.

@SecretAgent - My issue with Matthews was an investment with MAPIX. I owned it for more than 7 years, and it still lost money. I’m a buy and hold investor, and didn’t realize all of the turmoil going on at Matthews — managers leaving, manager changes, etc. They changed the manager of MAPIX, who changed its investment style significantly— and it went from a top performing fund to the bottom of the barrel. It made significant gains the first few years that I owned it, and then cratered. All of this happened after the management changes. My fault, I guess, for not keeping abreast. Apparently, a lot of their top managers quit.