FYI: (This is a follow-up to this morning's article.)
China’s domestic equities will join MSCI Inc.’s benchmark indexes, a landmark step in the nation’s integration with the global financial system.
The decision, announced by the New York-based index compiler on Tuesday, will give China’s $6.9 trillion stock market a bigger role in everything from exchange-traded funds to 401(k) retirement plans. It also advances President Xi Jinping’s ambitions to make the yuan a global currency.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com//news/articles/2017-06-20/china-stocks-win-msci-entry-as-6-9-trillion-market-goes-global

FYI: (When Jim Rogers talks, the Linkster doesn't listen !)
When Jim Rogers talks, investors listen. One of the world's most famous investors, Rogers is known for his no-nonsense style and investment wisdom. He is the author of several best-selling books, including his latest, "Street Smarts: Adventures on the Road and in the Markets." ETF.com recently spoke with Rogers for his take on the latest financial market developments
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/jim-rogers-bracing-crash?nopaging=1

Don't feel bad - while I didn't get burned by them directly, given the GFC and the sector's refusal to learn from its mistakes, because I don't trust them or their math, I refuse to own nearly anything from the banks or financial sector!

It may be surprising to a few on this board, but I never owned a tech fund throughout the current run up, so I missed out on that rally. I got burned by Janus Global Technology in the early 2000s and never went back to that sector. Gun shy, I believe.

Whoa! The author noted that Mortgage Backed Securities funds can be as volatile as gold funds........ya, ok; dude, you're on my list of smart folks. Perhaps I misread the article about this. Please correct me on this, as needed.

I just alluded to this concern in my post here, but I don't think the article is saying that MBS funds can be as volatile as gold funds.
The financial community typically "measures" volatility as standard deviation, which represents the fluctuations of a security over time.
That's what distinguishes the effect the article was conveying from volatility. Most of the time, MBS funds are well behaved and return slightly more than vanilla bond funds of comparable duration and quality. So they are not especially volatile. But under the right (wrong?) conditions, they can become unstable; prices can fall fast and hard. It's largely because of their negative convexity.
There's a built in expectation that a certain number of people will redeem the mortgages early - either because they're selling their homes or because they can refinance at a lower rate. As interest rates rise, there's less propensity to refinance, and you wind up stuck with lower paying bonds that people aren't redeeming as fast as you expected. That makes them longer term and thus further depresses their prices.
There can be economic conditions (e.g. a shrinking job market) that might dissuade people from moving (and thus paying off their mortgages). This too means that the bonds effectively become longer term, which causes their price to drop.
Or people may not refinance when interest rates drop because they're underwater and are unable to. That would be positive for bond prices, as you get to hold onto bonds with above market yields.
Then there are behavioral factors as well. Just because it makes economic sense for someone to refinance doesn't mean they will. People are not entirely rational.
Add it all up and there are lots of factors that can trigger a rapid movement of MBS prices. You don't see this effect often (hence the funds aren't extremely volatile), but the risk is always there.

Hi Guys,
According to the millionaire teacher, Andrew Hallam, the proper number for a diversified portfolio is a mere 3.
His simplistic 3 includes all low cost index funds: a US equity index position, an international index product, and a short term bond index holding. These are consistent with Hallam's 9 rules for wealth. Here is a summary of those 9 rules that I lifted from one of his book reviewer's assessment:
Hallam’s 9 Rules of Wealth
Rule 1 is to spend like you want to grow rich, which means cultivating frugality whether buying homes, cars or daily items.
Rule 2 is to take advantage of compound interest by starting investing as early in life as possible — but only after high-interest debt is eliminated. (I agree!)
Rule 3 recaps the negative impact of high fees and thus the case for indexing: “Small percentages pack big punches.” Here he takes a skeptical view of the motivations of the financial services industry generally.
Rule 4 is to “Conquer the enemy in the mirror.” It looks at the problems of stock-picking and market timing, fear, greed and other emotions that can sabotage investing.
Rule 5 is to build a “responsible portfolio” that includes both stocks and bonds. Here Hallam introduces what he terms the Couch Potato Portfolio.
Rule 6 looks at indexing in the U.S, Canada, Australia and Singapore.
Rule 7 is entitled “Peek inside a pilferer’s playbook.” It looks at common sales practices of financial advisors and brokers. He starts by suggesting that those planning to own their own indexed account at a discount brokerage may want to find a fee-only adviser who can set it up for you.
Rule 8 is “Avoid Seduction,” and looks at the various distractions that some term “financial pornography” — investment newsletters and magazines, junk bonds, gold and hedge funds, which Hallam describes as “the rich stealing from the rich.”
Rule 9 is for those who love to pick their own stocks if “they can’t help themselves.” Hallam’s solution is to stay 90% indexed but to allocate 10% to individual stocks if you find it enjoyable.
He wisely allows a 10% deviation from his most efficient portfolio to allow for individual flexibility and initiative. We are not robots. I wish you all good luck, successful investing, and a long prosperous life for you and your family.
Best Regards

Opinions on investing are just that. Opinions and nothing else. They can be right or wrong or somewhere in between but everyone is entitled to them. No one should have to justify how many funds they own or how they manage their portfolio. No one should be denigrated or ostracized for what they do with their financial assets. I own over 30 fund/ etf's, each with a good reason for its placement in the portfolio and each analyzed before purchase and sale including the need for the ability to tax harvest in the right amounts with easy bookkeeping but also for many other reasons. I sleep well at night happy with what I am doing and that is all that matters. I hope everyone on the board sleeps as well as I do. Enough said.

Oh boy, I hope Ted doesn't read this post. Otherwise, it's the gallows for you !!

Opinions on investing are just that. Opinions and nothing else. They can be right or wrong or somewhere in between but everyone is entitled to them. No one should have to justify how many funds they own or how they manage their portfolio. No one should be denigrated or ostracized for what they do with their financial assets. I own over 30 fund/ etf's, each with a good reason for its placement in the portfolio and each analyzed before purchase and sale including the need for the ability to tax harvest in the right amounts with easy bookkeeping but also for many other reasons. I sleep well at night happy with what I am doing and that is all that matters. I hope everyone on the board sleeps as well as I do. Enough said.

FYI:(The Linkster will accept eight, but I prefer 4 to 6 !)
Time to take an inventory of your mutual funds. How many are there? What are their investment styles? Is your portfolio of mutual funds cluttered just like your closet? Have you owned some mutual funds so long that you have forgotten why you bought them? Are there some mutual funds on the top shelf, way in the back of your financial closet you haven't even looked at in a while?
Adding new mutual funds to your portfolio is far easier than reorganizing your fund portfolio and discarding inappropriate, redundant, or simply poor-performing mutual funds. The answer to the question of how many mutual funds you should have in your portfolio is not just a number. But if you have many more than eight mutual funds in your closet, chances are you need to do some serious portfolio cleaning. Here's why.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.aaii.com/investing/article/2-how-many-mutual-funds-should-you-have-in-your-investment-portfolio

Ted, you have expressed your opinion about my portfolio on a number of occasions. Duly noted repeatedly. With all due respect, you have no clue about my specific holdings or financial situation. My question is by no means "cause for worry," and no, I do not intend on owning a fund in every category. My portfolio is my business and what I do with my money is my business. Thanks for your opinion about emerging markets bond funds.

Not so fast. While it could be a one time "blip" in 2015, that the US life expectancy for men and women did in fact decline for the first time. If it holds up and the decline continues, the probable reasons are...
. obesity epidemic
. opioid epidemic
. economic decline of the middle class, especially since 2008
. suicide
. increases in Alzheimer's disease, respiratory disease, kidney disease and diabetes. Some of which may be attributed to the obesity epidemic.
Did you know that obesity with respect to women in the US, has shot up over 40%? And in case you think I'm "fat shaming", I too am struggling with my BMI now over 25. Of course, losing an inch and half in height over the last twenty years, doesn't help the number. (Taking calcium supplement with vitamin D3.)
Anyway, I was only grasping at a financial laugh. Enjoy your RMD!
Life expectancy in the US declines in 2015
Obesity rate for women

Could not agree more. I am biased but I can't think of anything more important than being thin as we get older. Excess weight causes a host of problems too numerous to detail here. And by being thin I also mean no pot belly. I have read that regardless of weight, a pot belly can be a real killer.
Edit. As pertains to the topic of RMD my biggest financial mistake was no Roth. My annual living expenses increases some 60% this year because of the taxes on my RMD.

So much has been in the financial news lately about index funds and etfs beating mutual funds, so I decided to look at my holdings in Morningstar Portfolio and see how mine have done, I do use etfs and have about 6 individual stocks, but I do have about 2/3 of my retirement portfolio (non retirement portfolio is mostly bonds) in mutual funds. Amazingly, 60% of the funds are beating the S + P, and 78% of them are beating their benchmark. Only 2 of the 32 funds I have missed the mark by 1% or more, but barely. For those that think this is too many funds, I recently cut it back, and got rid of a few that I felt were overkill.
I am very much aware all this could change in a moments notice with the market being so high, but thought I would report my surprise finding for those that think indexes are the only way to go.

FYI: Acknowledge, allow and accept. This advice will help you to endure the inevitable pain caused by the next bear market. Experts in the centuries-old practice of meditation have a formula for suffering.
S = P x R. The amount of suffering you experience is equal to the actual Pain (P) times the mind’s Resistance (R) to the pain. So, S = P x R. The idea is to stop resisting the pain to lessen it. Since anything that is multiplied by zero equals zero, you see where this is going.
Regards,
Ted
http://tonyisola.com/2017/06/the-financial-pain-equation/

Posted today on The Independent Adviser for Vanguard Investors forum.
Summary
Some really good actively managed funds are being overshadowed in the current index fund craze.
Vanguard Wellesley Income is a nearly 50-year old fund with a stellar track record of delivering shareholders strong returns while limiting downside risk.
This fund may particularly appear to retirees given its 3% dividend yield and its history of limiting shareholder losses in down markets.
With so much attention focused on the billions and billions of dollars flowing into passively managed index ETFs, you might be surprised to find that actively managed mutual funds still exist! But they do, although the reasons that this segment of the market is shrinking are easy to understand.
For most funds, the cost of active management continues to be prohibitive. The average expense ratio for an actively management large cap mutual fund is around 1.25%. The average for an S&P 500 index fund? About 0.15%. That difference of over 100 basis points annually combined with the difficulty of trying to consistently pick outperformers over time has proven a steep hill to climb. Roughly 80% of active funds fail to match their benchmarks over time.
But not all active funds should be kicked to the curb. Some funds have great long-term track records, low expenses and smartly managed portfolios. At Vanguard, one of their oldest funds is also one of their best.
The Vanguard Wellesley Income Fund (MUTF:VWINX) is a nearly 50-year old fund that maintains a balance of around 60-65% bonds and 35-40% stocks. The mix of investment grade bonds and large-cap stocks makes it an ideal choice for retirees, those planning for retirement or new investors right out of the gate.
This is particularly intriguing for folks in or near retirement who may not have a great deal of time or resources in order to bounce back from a significant market decline.
The S&P 500's biggest drawdowns occurred during the tech bubble and the financial crisis. In each of those situations, the index retreated around 45-50% off of its near-term highs. The Wellesley Fund on the other hand has only twice experienced a drop of 15% over its five decade history and one of those times wasn't even during the tech bubble.
The other factor I look at is the fund's downside risk. How well does the fund protect investors when the market's winds start shifting? In Wellesley's case, pretty darn well.
In almost every long-term period, the fund has been able to deliver category-matching returns when the bulls take hold, while reducing market losses by around one-third when things start heading south. The one exception has been in the last year when a number of the biggest tech growth names have provided market leadership.
Digging into the fund, the fund's 0.22% expense ratio (0.15% if you qualify for the fund's Admiral shares) falls well below the Lipper category average of 0.81% and remains true to Vanguard's low-cost theme. Dividend seekers will enjoy the fund's 3.1% yield, a number that's boosted by its focus on corporate fixed income issues over government bonds (about 85% of the fund's bond holdings are corporate). The bond portion's 6.5 year duration is a little on the long side but provides a nice balance between yield and risk.
One important note to make is concerning the fund's long-term average annual returns. Wellesley boasts a nearly 10% annual return over the life of the fund, but investors should be cautioned against expecting those returns going forward. Those returns have been boosted by one of the longest fixed income bull markets in history and an equity market that continues to hit record highs and has not posted a calendar year loss since the financial crisis. With stocks looking relatively expensive and interest rates looking to continue heading higher, shareholders may want to temper expectations in the near-term. Investors looking for a heavier equity allocation might want to consider the Vanguard Wellington Fund (MUTF:VWELX).
Conclusion
Wellesley Income continues to be one of Vanguard's shining stars. The fund remains a popular option in workplace retirement plans so savers who don't have access to good index fund options (or even if you do) might consider this as a core 401(k) holding.
Even in the current era of index fund popularity, Vanguard Wellesley Income should be considered just as good a fund as you'll find in the marketplace today.
[seekingalpha.com]

FYI: So far so good?
On May 25, Wall Street closed the 100th trading day of 2017, with the S&P 500 having risen 7.9% over that period. That’s a strong start to a year—the fourth-best start of the past 20 years—but don’t worry if you didn’t miss the rally. According to data from LPL Financial, not only has the market never ended a year with a negative return after such a start, but such a beginning typically augurs well for gains through the rest of the year.
Since 1950, there have been 23 years, not including 2017, where the S&P rose at least 7.5% over the first 100 trading days. In all those instances, the market ended higher on the year, with an average annual gain of 23.4%. Based on where the market ended 2016, such an annual gain would mean the benchmark index SPX, +0.76% ends the year around 2,760.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-sp-500-has-never-had-a-down-year-after-a-start-like-2017-2017-05-31/print

FYI: U.S. stocks edged lower on Tuesday as weakness in the energy and financial sectors outweighed gains in technology shares.
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-29/asia-stocks-face-mixed-start-euro-down-on-draghi-markets-wrap
Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-idUSKBN18Q14O
MarketWatch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stock-futures-hold-steady-but-analysts-say-the-bull-market-is-back-2017-05-30/print
IBD:
http://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/stocks-close-slightly-lower-microsoft-reaches-record-high/
CNBC:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/30/us-markets.html
AP:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FINANCIAL_MARKETS?SITE=AP
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
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: Mixed
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

For disclosure purposes... I do own OAKIX, WAIGX and TAREX. Some of my domestic equity mf's have anywhere from 0-20% international exposure. My portfolio currently sits @20% international equity... enough??? Do I need 8-10 mf's dedicated to international/Asia??? Just saying...

I will let someone else attempt to give you a definite answer. I will give you mine.
IMHO, you have demonstrated you have a sound head already. You have already concluded you do not, or you wouldn't have asked the question. Because it is quite clear it does not make sense to you. Or sense FOR you. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise. If it indeed has to be so then YOU in time will figure it out, and that is good enough. I have learnt from my mistakes. I never learnt from OTHER people's mistakes.
If you listen to "expert" telling you US is dead, International reigns supreme, you could go 100% international. Whatever you decide one thing to remember is that you don't make a living the same way as this "expert" does. HE (and I don't say SHE because we know gender diversity does not exist in the field of "expertise" we are talking about) has already made his money shoving his "expertise" down your throat. Those are HIS earnings. What you do makes no difference to HIM. It will make a difference to YOU.
YOU decide. And once again, when I say "expert" I meant the financial pron stars. MFO "experts" are not experts, they are your well wishers and your "teachers". That's how I see it.
Happy Anniversary to ME. No, REALLY. Now let me sell some of my international holdings and show my wife a good time.

According to the Orbis site, the fund is not available to individual investors, financial advisors, or asset management platforms in the US.

Interesting, that these tech market leaders have nothing to do with Trump's stocks - industrial, financial and defense. Tax cuts if that happens would equally affect all companies, big and small. So what is a reason for that frenzy?

FYI: People often argue that financial knowledge can be acquired with experience. But if the evidence from a new survey index is any indication, that way of learning may, in fact, be very slow or not work well at all.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-are-driving-blind-when-it-comes-to-financial-decisions-2017-05-25/print

TBHDX ? If so IMHO they rely too much on financials and healthcare companies (read: low yields) in the construction of their portfolio with little to nothing in the usual dividend paying suspects like utilities and telecom. I somewhat understand that since they tend to be a 'value' shop but....
Also, again IMHO, their 'high' dividend is roughly what the S&P 500 pays and their ER cuts that in half. One would be better off in SPY or at least SCHD. For what my non-economic/financial background opinion is worth.