FYI: (Market's Close At 1:00 PM EST.)
U.S. stock futures rose Monday, indicating markets could bounce in a holiday-shortened session after the worst week of trading since the financial crisis of 2008.
Dow Jones Industrial Average futures YMH9, +0.36% rose 125 points, or 0.6%, to 22,533, while S&P 500 futures ESH9, +0.41% gained 15 points, or 0.6%, to 2,429.25. Nasdaq-100 NQH9, +0.60% futures rose 38.75 points, or 0.6%, to 6,102.
On Friday, the Dow Jones Industrial Averages DJIA, -1.81% fell 414.23 points, or 1.8%, to 22,445.37, while the S&P 500 index SPX, -2.06% fell 50.84 points, or 2.1%, to 2,416.58. The Nasdaq Composite Index COMP, -2.99% COMP, -2.99% traded down 195.41 points, or 3%, to 6,332.99.
The Nasdaq officially entered bear market territory Friday, down 21.9% from its Aug. 31 highs. That’s as the S&P and the Dow inch closer to bear market territory, with the S&P off 17.5% from its Sept. 20 highs, and the Dow down 16.3% from an Oct. 3 high.
The weekly performances for the Dow — off 6.9% — and the Nasdaq — down 8.4% — were the worst since 2008. The S&P fell 7.1% for its worst weekly showing since 2011. Friday’s volumes were the heaviest since August 2011.
Regards,
Ted
WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/global-stocks-slip-amid-treasury-department-comments-11545642300
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-23/asian-stocks-set-to-slip-yen-up-as-caution-reigns-markets-wrap?srnd=premium
MarketWatch:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stock-futures-point-to-a-christmas-eve-bounce-for-battered-equities-2018-12-24/print
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/dow-jones-futures-bear-market-trump-government-shutdown-fed-chairman-powell/
Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/index-futures-little-changed-ahead-of-holiday-shortened-week-idUSKCN1OM0M7
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/24/us-stock-futures-fall-slightly-as-the-dow-attempts-to-rebound-from-its-worst-week-in-a-decade.html
Europe:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-stocks/european-shares-dip-in-thin-holiday-trade-idUSKCN1ON0CB
Asia:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/asian-markets-mostly-lower-as-investors-await-wall-streets-next-move-2018-12-23/print
Bonds:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/21/bonds-us-treasury-yields-continue-climb-ahead-of-auctions.html
Currencies:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/24/forex-markets-japanese-yen-swiss-franc-us-politics-in-focus.html
Oil:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/24/oil-markets-global-crude-supply-in-focus.html
Gold:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/24/gold-markets-us-politics-dollar-in-focus.html
Current Futures:
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

Yeah - I heard that last evening. Thought about posting it. You hear a lot about “Individual 1“ nowadays. Hard to tell what’s true. What’s real.
I hope Janet Yellen has an unlisted number. That’s the last place she’d want to be. (Don’t answer the phone if it rings Janet!) Powell looks as if he’s workin on a big-time ulcer. Bet he’d rather be anywhere else.
Imagine the reverberations among the world’s central banks, financial centers and in the currency markets if he should fire Powell or force his resignation. Gold would go bananas (tip).

At least it would be a diversion from Russia collusion and Mueller issues for lil Don.

More likely, I think, the Syria game is intended as a diversion away from the dismal stock market. While I’m at it - commodities and bonds haven’t exactly shone lately either. The big winners are folks like Fleckenstein (Maybe Dalio?) who have been shorting tech. Not a lot else working. There may be hell to pay when Joe and Jodie 6-pack get their 401k statements at year’s end. There go 3-5% of his stalwart 38.

@Old_Skeet
Long held views by some since the forming of the Federal Reserve; involve all forms of control and manipulation to the advantage of a special group of the ultra-rich and all powerful. Beyond any number of conspiracy theories and suggestions; the legal function is described below, although one understands that the institution has morphed over the years as it travels the path of the ever changing financial world. Congressional testimony over the years has found a number of congressional folks plowing along with a "why can't you folks "fix" this or that? The reply is always, this is not our area of responsibility; and that this (whatever) function or change must take place through congressional actions.
--- The U.S. Congress established three key objectives for monetary policy in the Federal Reserve Act: maximizing employment, stabilizing prices, and moderating long-term interest rates. The first two objectives are sometimes referred to as the Federal Reserve's dual mandate.
ADD: Another piece of the puzzle?
The U.S. debt to China is $1.138 trillion as of October 2018. That's 29 percent of the $3.9 trillion in Treasury bills, notes, and bonds held by foreign countries. The rest of the $21 trillion national debt is owned by either the American people or by the U.S. government itself.
China has the greatest amount of U.S. debt held by a foreign country. Japan comes second at $1.018 trillion, followed by Brazil at $314 billion. Ireland holds $287 billion, and the United Kingdom owns $264 billion.
Lastly, one must presume the uttering of POTUS as to his extreme knowledge of just about any subject, without intervention or consul from others. He continues to weave a web into circles of misdirection.

Commercial banks only fit the category [of institutional investors] when they buy treasuries or other IG bonds for their balance sheet.

So you too are disagreeing with the cited page. It says that "institutional investors ... buy and sell securities on behalf of their members." Not on their own behalf for their own balance sheets.
Then there's the Financial Times definition that is more inclusive:

A financial institution, such as a bank, pension fund, mutual fund and insurance company, that invests large amounts of money in securities, commodities and foreign exchange markets, on its own behalf or on the behalf of its customers.

Only buy side qualifies as an investor. I know it's confusing.

Yes it's confusing because (a) this is more a simple rule of thumb than an inviolate requirement and (b) because there's rarely a clean dichotomy between buy side and sell side. From a then (2013) SEC commissioner:

Market participants are often described as either “buy-side” or “sell-side”. Buy-side firms, like asset managers, buy financial products and services; while sell-side firms, like broker-dealers and investment banks, create and sell those products and services. When viewed in these simple terms, institutional investors are generally considered to be on the buy-side. However, mutual fund and asset management companies can also act like sell-siders when they market their own pooled-vehicles, whether directly or through broker-dealers.

One way of viewing institutional investors is any entity with enough heft and buying discretion to move markets. That's the view you expressed: "they have the ability to move the markets", and the view echoed in part of the cited article "Due to the size of their holdings, institutions exert the largest impact on the financial markets."
Another way of viewing institutional investors is more structural, focusing on the form rather than the impact (even if the former is used as a proxy for the latter). Thus mutual funds like CVLEX are considered institutional investors, despite the reality that with $50M AUM invested in large cap equities such funds won't move markets even "if they do it in a hurry."
Here's a little exercise: which of these is an institutional investor: traditional pension plan, defined contribution pension plan, individual retirement account?
I'd like to think you'd call the first an institutional investor and the third not. What about the DC plan? Structurally, legally, it is a pension plan. Here's a CFA Institute piece classifying DC plans (section 2.2.1.1) under pension plans (section 2.2.1) which in turn fall under institutional investors (section 2.2).
Yet a 401k plan has no discretion in allocating assets among the investments offered (which may include brokerage gateways, leaving the choice of investments wide open). In terms of market impact, it's very much like a thousand distinct IRAs. Form and heft but without discretion to move that heft in one motion, little impact.
You offered one perspective. The cited article offered several, sometimes conflicting, perspectives. I'll wrap this up with a quote from an OECD paper:

There is no simple definition of an “institutional investor”. The closest we get to a common characteristic is that institutional investors are not physical persons. Instead they are organised as legal entities.

Institutional Investors as Owners: Who Are They and What Do They Do?

Problem is majority of private industries and public pension are underfunded by at least 50%. This poses significant risk to meet the obligation to pay the retiree's pension. When the company undergo financial stress such as declining business (i.e. GE) and bankruptcy, the pension gets reduced substantially as in the case of General Motors. Many GM union workers received pennies on a dollar on their promised payout. I understand IBM is underfunded by 80%. The kicker is that this is perfectly legal. Guess paying big bonus to the top executives is more important than fulfilling their promises to the employees.

FYI: (Slide Mouse to 36:10 minutes for David Snowball interview.)
Tom Lydon of ETFTrends.com made Aberdeen Standard Physical Palladium Shares his ETF of the Week, noting that it is trending -- above its 200-day moving average -- at a time when most investments have been hurting, and that it expands the alternative holdings in an investor's portfolio. Also, Chuck talks about how he set's goals for the New Year, Joe Boroff discusses Fidelity Investment's 10th annual Financial Resolutions Survey, and David Snowball of MutualFundObserver.com has the Market Call.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/moneylife-with-chuck-jaffe

@Catch22 I'd buy it for dividend. Looking for solid income stream, going forward. I won't argue about share price, back then. But generally, what I've learned is that in Canada, they did not suffer the Real Estate bubble and Financial Crash that we did, Stateside. And a big piece of why they didn't is because Canadian banks are so highly regulated. They did not have a Phil Gramm and his fellow idiots repealing a Glass Steagal wall between retail and investment banking. And all the other contributing factors that made the US Crash so much more extreme. ...My friend in Canada hates the way all the big Canadian banks treat customers. But investors can these days do pretty well. ... M* offers info and statistics which are often not the most accurate, but at Morningstar, CM stands today at an -18% discount to actual value.

excerpt: "The largest portion of Horizon’s holdings are the major banks at 39%. This is great news for investors, as Canadian banks were some of the strongest in the world coming out of the financial crisis, and remain so today. These banks are now looking abroad for growth, leaving even more opportunity while they grow on this ETF..."
Canadian big banks. Yessir. I've been saying this forever.

The ever popular headline yield ploy masking return of capital bears testament to financial illiteracy as does leverage. What goes up the escalator comes down the elevator, basement level. Something learned circa 2008. Expense ratio 2.67 %

@johnN
Really?; and WHY???
And which type of bonds ???
What indicates to you that the financial markets are about to blow up to worthless ???

Financial institutions were still open, so it was possible to trade mutual funds. See, e.g. https://www.vox.com/2018/12/5/18127158/george-hw-bush-open-national-mourning-day
I placed a fund order at 8:51 AM yesterday and it settled at end of day. (I'd say at close of market, but the market was closed.)

Great quote from the article by Benjamin Graham. In his investment classic "The Intelligent Investor", he wrote that “the best way to measure your investing success is not by whether you’re beating the market, but by whether you’ve put in place a financial plan and a behavioral discipline that are likely to get you where you want to go.”
The plan is where it's at as far as I'm concerned. FWIW - no one plan fits all.

FYI: Risk is really how much portfolio volatility you can live with.
When is a 10% gain considered riskier than a 10% loss? When the 10% loss is produced when the broad stock market lost 20%, and the 10% gain occurred when the market rose 20%.
Why does that follow? Because, as defined by some financial advisers and other investment professionals, risk relates to lagging the market — “negative alpha,” in technical-speak.
You might think that it’s absurd to consider a 10% gain as being riskier than a 10% loss. But that just means you’re using a different definition of risk: The possibility of loss.
Welcome to the complicated world of defining risk.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/however-youre-defining-risk-in-this-scary-stock-market-youre-probably-wrong-2018-12-04/print

FYI: ( Reminder: U.S. stock markets will be closed Wednesday, Dec. 5, in observance of a national day of mourning for President George H. W. Bush. The U.S. bond market will also be closed for trading on Dec. 5, on the recommendation from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, better known as SIFMA. The CME Group also said it will shutter its U.S.-based equity and interest rate futures and options products.)
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 799 points Tuesday and bond yields plummeted, as investors’ doubts over the trade truce struck between the U.S. and China renewed anxieties around the pace of economic growth.
Investors broadly retreated from stocks, with industrial stalwarts like Boeing and Caterpillar suffering steep losses. Apple and other technology companies also slid, pulling the Nasdaq Composite back more than 10% below its August high.
Waning enthusiasm for the 90-day tariff cease-fire struck over the weekend fueled the losses, several investors said, stirring worries that ongoing spat between the world’s two biggest economies could unravel economic growth in the U.S. and put additional pressure on Europe and Asia, which are already struggling.
Those growth fears pushed investors into assets that tend to be safer stores of value during periods of economic instability, including U.S. government bonds and shares of utility companies, which typically pay hefty dividends.
The flight from stocks to bonds sent several warning signals of an economic slowdown reverberating through markets.
Rising bond prices pushed gap between yields on the two- and 10-year U.S. Treasury notes to their narrowest difference since 2007, a closely watched measure among investors since such occurrences tend to precede a recession. The gaps between two- and five-year yields and three- and five-year yields have already inverted.
Of the eleven S&P 500 Sectors, only Utilities finished in positive territory.
Regards,
Ted
WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/global-stocks-waver-as-treasury-yields-decline-1543914431
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-03/asian-stocks-set-for-muted-open-curve-flattens-markets-wrap?srnd=premium
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/dow-jones-plunges-700-points/
Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/wall-street-drops-on-trade-truce-doubts-bond-market-jitters-idUSKBN1O31JV
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/stock-market-dow-futures-fall-amid-us-china-trade-deal-skepticism.html
U.K.:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/uk-stocks-fall-as-brexit-headlines-drive-up-sterling-2018-12-04/print
Europe:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/european-markets-down-as-trade-truce-between-us-and-china-questioned-2018-12-04/print
Asia:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/asian-markets-take-a-break-a-day-after-big-gains-2018-12-03/print
Bonds:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/bond-market-treasury-yields-continue-slide-with-traders-wary-of-fed.html
Currencies:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/forex-markets-dollar-the-fed-in-focus.html
Oil:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/oil-markets-opec-meeting-in-focus.html
Gold
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/gold-markets-dollar-us-china-trade-in-focus.html
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
https://markets.wsj.com/us
Major ETFs % Change:
https://www.barchart.com/etfs-funds/etf-monitor
SPDR's Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
Current Futures:
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

@Ted: Doing well, Ted. As my December commentary indicates, I am enjoying being disconnected from all the financial world's constant noise. Just completed my annual review of our investments, made one sale, and closer looks for two or three other holdings. No real change in allocation. Doing some volunteer work, lots more music, lots of travel, and major gardening for 6 months of the year. With winter, I have time to reflect, write, and offer mostly unwanted opinions. That's the advantage of being retired...making comments I might not offer if I was still part of an RIA firm. As Dumbledore says, "Being me has its advantages."

Agree 100% with Catch. Most of us would never have started saving if we waited until 100% debt free. She sounds skittish (actually both of you). So I’d suggest a really conservative offering with some growth potential. Once you accumulate some - even a small amount of - savings you begin to realize the power you have to control your financial future.
Per Ol’ Dick Strong and others: Pay yourself first.
Edit / Add: Automatic investing is probably the easiest approach. Whether per paycheck or ACH transfer on a regular basis.

Hmm, I get the Tech to Health rotation but I'm wondering why they sold off most of the financial sector. I had always thought that's a sector that generally holds up during market downturns but maybe the answer lies within the word 'momentum.'

FYI: Wall Street has a new momentum champion: drugmakers.
The $9.4 billion iShares Edge MSCI USA Momentum ETF, or MTUM, shook up its holdings at the end of November and now has unveiled its latest portfolio of high-flying stocks. Health care’s share almost tripled, as Pfizer Inc. and Merck & Co. came in among the ETF’s five largest positions.
Technology remains its biggest sector, but the fund cut its exposure to 31 percent from 41 percent following the tech sell-off in November. And it eliminated chipmaker Nvidia Corp. altogether. Meanwhile, the ETF chopped its financial holdings to 2 percent from 12 percent.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-03/for-momentum-etf-autumn-tech-wreck-leads-to-big-health-care-bet
M* Snapshot MTUM:
https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/BATS/MTUM/quote.html

FYI: Stocks have rallied lately and could end 2018 with modest gains. But it has been a tough year across the asset-class universe: Bonds are in a rut, and losses have piled up in oil, gold, and emerging markets—just about everything.
The scope of negative returns is unusual. According to Deutsche Bank, 89% of the global financial indexes it tracks were negative for the year in dollar terms, through the end of October. On average, 29% of financial markets finish a year with losses. In 2017, a dart-throwing monkey could have made money. Of 71 stock, bond, currency, and commodity indexes tracked by Deutsche Bank, only one ended in negative territory in dollars: the Philippine bond market.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/last-year-investors-couldnt-lose-this-year-they-cant-win-whats-next-1543617074

FYI: There no longer can be any doubt that the creation of the first index mutual fund was the most successful innovation—especially for investors—in modern financial history. The question we need to ask ourselves now is: What happens if it becomes too successful for its own good?
The First Index Investment Trust, which tracks the returns of the S&P 500 and is now known as the Vanguard 500 Index Fund, was founded on December 31, 1975. It was the first “product,” as it were, of a new mutual fund manager, The Vanguard Group, the company I had founded only one year earlier.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bogle-sounds-a-warning-on-index-funds-1543504551