The problem is that when this type of isolated analysis is presented, there's no rules based, empirically tested tactical allocation process presented to be objectively compared against.
A simple 10 month moving average cross with a bond allocation heuristic ) has identified cash signaling periods ( cash during sometimes substantial portions of price decline ) pretty well. Many of those 10, 20, 30, 40 "best days" are encompassed within the "decline" legs. The key with a mechanical system is to have more "best" days in legs when equity allocation is signaled than when cash allocation is signaled ( which has seemed to be that case with the 10 mo SMA process) . https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XwZjcWy7KlSwA7xi0rax7nevIBCtW0Uu4UZFH-Hc1ns/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1mdon_cto48rvs2_lKWyMWrfqSIh8K0phfe7tThle8qQ/edit?usp=sharing
Also, as the financial industry is driven by product sales and money management incentive, there is little room or funding for tactical / strategic allocation research.

Given how the Asian markets are rallying and the futures shot up here, at least some people with money seem to think the sky isn't falling.

Is that the smart money or the dumb money?
Or is it the pump and dump?

If I think the world is going full NIRP (which it would not surprise me if it did, despite the fact that that will likely end very, very badly) then I do not want to be in cash, I want to be in assets. Hence, unsurprising futures ramp.
If we go back to ZIRP (or better yet, NIRP), watch REITs and other productive assets that yield.
Honestly, if we are eventually heading in the NIRP direction in this country, lets just do it now and get the spectacular failure out of the way rather than dragging this out. After what NIRP will cause if we go that route, perhaps we can start anew and try to, I don't know, try to figure out how to rebuild a sustainable economy based around producing things (aside from Facebook posts, although apparently that economy is doing exceedingly well) and not based around financial engineering.
Also, would not surprise me if countries start to move towards electronic transactions and doing away with physical cash.
Some discussion:
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-negative-interest-rates-would-work-japan-switzerland-2015-11

Another point for your thoughts: Literally thousands of items in Dodd-Frank have yet to be interpreted by the appropriate government agencies. So while there may be some new reg, until the appropriate agency issues implementation/interpretation of what the regs actually mean, they sit on the shelf. There are many of them that apply to the investment advisory industry, but the SEC for example has yet to tell those of us in the trenches what we are supposed to do to be in compliance. In these circumstances, we simply state in our disclaimers that we have chosen to not have a formal (whatever) policy, since the SEC has not made it mandatory nor given instruction on how to implement it. It is crazy, but that is the overly-regulated world in which we operate.
And vkt, I agree with you that political lobbying is left out at any stage of rulemaking or interpretation. Al we have to do is see what happened when the SEC suggested a fiduciary rule for everyone in the financial industry was what Dodd-Frank intended. Lobbyists went bonkers and were successful in forcing the SEC to withdraw that proposal at the behest of the insurance, brokerage and banking industries.

@old_joe, If you mean enough to override presidential veto, I agree.
But I was trying to differentiate what is procedurally possible with what is likely.
The difference between the two is what determines the lobbying efforts which attempts to influence the latter. Lobbying may simply try to delay it in an election year via back door channels into the department through politicians. Hoping for a new President who can help them by watering down the proposed rules itself in the next round with enough loopholes to make fiduciary responsibility moot.
But if the financial industry has enough Democrats in their back pockets, they can even try to get the congress and senate to disapprove this final set of rules with a veto overriding majority to send it back to the drawing board.
I am just not convinced that politician lobbying is left out of this loop in this set of rule making either procedurally or by trying to influence the final rule set.

Just as regulations are refinements of a law, Congress can "refine" its laws, like Dodd Frank, but it has to do so explicitly with new laws. Here's a NYTimes article from a year ago describing that approach:
In New Congress, Wall St. Pushes to Undermine Dodd-Frank Reform (Jan 15, 2015)

Lawmakers approved by a vote of 250 to 175, with just eight Democrats in support, a broad measure to impose a variety of new restrictions on federal regulators, like stricter cost-benefit analyses and an expansion of judicial review. ...
House members also took up a narrower measure that would slow enforcement of Dodd-Frank requirements and weaken other regulations on financial services companies.

In the case of the DOL regulations, I believe their based on relatively ancient (1975?) laws, so tinkering with the statutes by Congress seems much less likely.

Superficial article as typical of financial writers that mixes facts with fantasy. Unicorns are under threat but nothing to do with mutual funds or their valuation practices.
1. Mutual funds amongst money from Russian "mobs" and Chinese transfers made Unicorns possible.
See my earlier post explaining how unicorn valuations come about
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/25268/the-story-of-unicorns
The late stage funding arrangements have very little to do with valuations but rather the terms of the funding.
2. The mark-to-market that mutual funds have done have very little correlation with the valuation of companies which is determined by the next funding event or IPO. Because each funding round has its own terms including liquidation preferences, a new round can come in at an even higher valuation than before if the terms are right. This may lead to earlier round investors having to take a write-off on their investments to mark to market as they go down the pecking order of preferences or get diluted with new shares issued.
3. Unicorns are facing potential down rounds recently but this has nothing to do with mutual funds investing in them. It is all about the exit potential with IPOs becoming dimmer and the perception that the era of free money with increasing rates is coming to an end to raise even more funds.
If Theranos, the $9B unicorn health care darling of Silicon Valley (and the media darling because of the photogenic founder) which has over-promised and under-delivered, falls down in its own hubris, it will bring down many unicorns more than anything else. It has no mutual fund investors.

@bobc, in addition to what @msf has pointed out, the involvement with Merrill with most of these high net worth individuals predate the BofA merger. Neither BofA nor Merrill is seen as particularly west coast. I think it is historical going back to dot com era when Merrill may have approached the growing individual wealth here strategically earlier and more than the other traditional investment banks who were either more involved with corporate customers or their cut off net worth requirement was too high. Same thing with Schwab. These are seen as paying more attention to the high net worth individuals (say up to $100M) than the big NY three who are perceived to do so only for the ultra high net worth. At least that is the perception.
Also most of these arrangements work via personal references within the wealthy networks so family or qbroker doing well by their customers get more customers. It has been funny sometimes when you conclude an agreement with a wealthy individual and he/she passes it on to their advisor/custodian, it is the same guy you have dealt before in another completely different deal and working at Merrill or Schwab that calls you. :)
There is also another minor difference between the coasts I have noticed. There is a bit of prestige factor in the East Coast in having say Goldman Sachs as your financial institution, a sign that you have made it even amongst the wealthy. So, there is a pecking order between the banks. Not so much on the west coast where wealthy individuals will whip out their Fidelity cheque books as freely as pointing to their Schwab advisor.
But there is some of that even here especially at the lower levels of net worth who prefer First Republic for their banking needs and logos on their cheques and wouldn't be caught dead in the lobby of a BofA or Wells Fargo.
Some of the wealthier individuals have a full time financial advisor working exclusively for them to provide a layer of due diligence who then deals with the fund families or brokers. There it depends on who can cater to the multiple investment needs of these individuals.

@msf, thanks for digging through the details.
From what I understand, this is just a proposal for rule making which will still need to be passed via Congress. The industry already scuttled the earlier 2010 proposal and they will try to do so again.
Consumers have no lobbyists (except perhaps Sen Warren). The entire financial industry is against it because it comes in the way of profits and/or increases liabilities.
Yes, this is a PR piece from the insurance industry and part of the lobbying going on.
Nobody in the industry wants a fiduciary clause and this has been the main point of lobbying efforts. Even if the industry wants to do right by the consumers (snickers), just nuisance lawsuits whenever people lose money that it invites will make it impossible to do business with any certainty. For every crooked broker/financial advisor, there will be 10 consumers who will not take responsibility and want to sue.
The lobbying algorithm in general usually goes something like this:
1. Try to scuttle a proposal if it works against you by completely dismantling it via popular opinion or political pressure.
2. If that seems difficult given the nature and backing, delay it as much as possible procedurally or by raising questions.
3. If no longer possible to delay it, start carving out exemptions and loopholes for your sub-industry
4. If the loopholes and exemptions aren't enough, repeat 1-3 above with the political process of enactment if that is the process.
This seems to be in stage 2-3 of proposed rule making with each one lobbying to get their own exemptions and the PR pieces are designed for it.
@msf is correct that there is no specific language for annuities or mutual funds. Yet. But part of the lobbying process is to get the special case exemptions in for yourself or proactively prevent the competing industry from getting theirs in. This PR effort from insurance company may be aimed at either or both of those goals.
As noted, in the worst case, mutual funds are simpler to satisfy fiduciary responsibilities than most annuities partly because of the structure and partly because of the commission based fee structure that is inherent in most annuities. This is what the insurance industry is spinning without mentioning why (as PR does).
The fiduciary responsibilities if it should come to that won't affect offering IRAs, only if there is a compensated arrangement where a broker/advisor selects or recommends investments or investment transactions for the consumer of that product. So the typical IRA structure most of us have where we do our own investment decisons and don't have any direct fee arrangement to make recommendations or decide transactions for us will not be affected even for the annuities that are available in these IRAs now. But the insurance industry wants their cash cows inserted into all managed IRAs and 401k plans and this is where the nature of the product comes in the way and makes it difficult for the advisors/brokers to take on fiduciary responsibility.
For lobbyists, that distinction between nature of the product and favors in rule making are the one and the same as long as they can get away with fudging it amongst those they want to influence.

I learned very early on in my teaching career there was a big difference between a 40b(b) (IRA deferred annuity with loads, riders and fees) and a 403b(7) (IRA mutual fund account at low cost places like vanguard).

I think you mean 403b(1), not 40b(b).
In any case, it seems you're confusing implementation with requirement. That is, each vehicle allows for a variety of different plans, good and bad. 403(b)(7) plans allow for load funds (not necessarily load-waived). And 403(b)(1) plans allow for very cheap, noload, straightforward annuities.
One really can't talk about 403(b)(1) plans without looking at the elephant in the room, TIAA-CREF. You're not going to get a stable value option paying 4% in any 403(b)(7). You're probably not going to have a loan option with a 403(b)(7), at least according to this description of 403(b) plans provided by New York State United Teachers (NYSUT).
A CREF VA is pretty much plain vanilla, no loads, and inexpensive (including the annuity fee) totaling less than 40 basis points for actively managed funds in some plans. Here's their prospectus (expenses are on p.8, pdf p. 11):
http://www.tiaa-cref.org/public/prospectuses/cref_prospectus.pdf
That's not to say that all the wannabe annuity plans don't charge an arm and a leg, or that 403(b)(7) plans are typically high priced. Just that it's more the provider than the type of plan that matters. Even a Fidelity 403(b)(7) will likely cost more than a TIAA-CREF 403(b)(1).

FYI: (IBD's Website has a new look.)
2006, when now-retired Chip Burke spotted the first hints of the financial crisis that would slap America deep into recession, he shifted his portfolio to Fidelity’s online brokerage.
Burke never worked at Fidelity, but he knew the financial firm from his decades in the asset management industry, which included stints as a bond trader, floor trader and COO of a market maker-specialist firm. “Fidelity was always old school — well-run, well-funded, conservative,” said 61-year-old Burke, who still invests for himself and his family.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investors.com/news/special-reports/fidelity-repeats-at-top-of-ibd-online-broker-survey/
IBD Top 5 Online Brokers:
http://www.investors.com/best-online-brokers-2016/
Does Your Online Stock Broker Meet Your Needs?:
http://www.investors.com/news/special-reports/best-online-stock-brokers-2015-top-5-lists/

Agree with @Alban. More paper work wouldn't deter the sale of annuities if there are sufficient returns.
But there is one clause in there that if enacted/enforced would completely stop its sales through third party brokers - have fiduciary responspilibilities to customers. Does not matter what the product is, they would not want to sell anything where they would have to assume fiduciary responsibilities. They can be sued out of any returns they can make. This is worse in annuities where a significant amount of profits seem to come from overselling the product with fine print not well understood by the purchasers and often detrimental to their financial needs. This is what the annuity industry would be worried about.

On Monday, Vanguard Chairman Bill McNabb will speak about the future of financial advice. His talk follows a panel discussion on fundamental indexing, which includes speakers like Schwab’s Anthony Davidow. [my bold]

So, they weren't able to get Anthony Davidow to speak, but they were able to get speakers who are "like" him? What does that mean? Hmmmm.

In my understanding from reading the investing habits of the politicians over the years, they just suck at it or aren't relevant to retail investors. One, they don't have the time because they are busy raising funds. Two, most are independently wealthy enough that they can have asset managers take care of it at obscene fees and not suffer for it. Three, some of them actually worry about conflicts of interest (ok, I can hear the snickering from readers) to be at arm's length.
Interestingly enough, there seems to be a significant difference in who manages assets for the wealthy between east coast and west coast. While GS, MS, etc may be in fashion for old money on the West Coast, almost all of my interactions with West Coast wealth (in raising angel funds and providing company financials and valuations for their records) has been via accounts managed by either Merrill Lynch or Charles Schwab advisors, none so far with the tradional investment banks. Many of them with independent financial advisors that use these platforms.

"Dollar-Cost Averaging Good In A Falling Market".
That depends on whether you think this is an ordinary correction in a secular and continuing bull market or the beginning of the next bear market. Dollar-cost averaging is NOT good in the early and middle stages of a bear market.

say that again. I wish someone had the previous time the argument was made and I listened. All that happens is you end up selling later but with higher losses. Your average loss is low which is what is used by financial pundits who work based of percentages, with little regard to individual situations.
I fret about selling something early one day, and maybe occasionally. I fret about not selling early every day. When vs what is not market timing. It is about probabilities.

High Yield Energy: Fear+ Forced Selling = More of the Same ?
Bond Funds Remain Confident as Crude Rout Worsens
Published January 20, 2016 Markets Reuters
More investors may lose patience in the contrarian bet and pull their money, forcing managers to sell energy credits to raise cash, said Jeff Tjornehoj, head of Americas research at Lipper.
Big bond investors who have bet on high-yield oil producers are sticking to losing bets, waiting for a turnaround in the price of crude, even though their performance has suffered and fund assets have shrunk as oil has plunged.
"We have not capitulated in this down trade," Buchanan said. He said it was "just a matter of time" before oil producers would begin to significantly cut back production. He said he would rethink his energy exposure if he saw more compelling yield opportunities in sectors other than energy.
Western Asset Short Duration High Income Fund SHIAX
Investors pulled $348 million from Buchanan's fund last year, cutting its assets to $700 million from a peak of $1.5 billion in June 2014, Lipper data shows. The fund has lost 4 percent this year.
EVBAX
Gaffney increased her exposure to energy bonds overall in the fourth quarter from 11.2 percent to 16 percent, with the fund's bets on high-yield energy bonds increasing from 3.3 percent to 5.8 percent.
She reiterated a call she made in October to Reuters that a number of her fund's holdings could gain by 30 percent or more over the next two years.
Investors pulled $856 million from Gaffney's fund last year, slashing the fund's assets by over 40 percent to $780 million from a peak of about $2 billion last February, according to Lipper data. The fund has lost 6.5 percent this year.
BJBHX
Aberdeen Asset Management, said the Aberdeen Global High Income Fund cut its exposure to energy overall to 7.3 percent and to high-yield E&P debt to 2.6 percent, from 10 percent and 5 percent, respectively, in October. He said, however, that the cash raised from the sales may eventually be used to invest in more high-yield energy credits.
Investors withdrew about 46 percent of the Aberdeen fund's assets last year, reducing its size to $989 million, according to Lipper data. The fund has lost 3 percent this year.
The BofA Merrill Lynch U.S. High Yield Energy Index posted its second-worst week ever last week, delivering a loss of 8.7 percent, exceeded only by an 11.1 percent loss in October 2008. The average yield on an energy junk bond hit a record high of 18.44 percent on Tuesday.
Lipper's Tjornehoj said that managers may eventually be right, and energy spreads will narrow. "But by that time they may have very little money in the portfolio to crow about."
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/01/20/bond-funds-remain-confident-as-crude-rout-worsens.html

Photo source
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/01/22/moodys-places-120-oil-and-gas-companies-on-review-for-downgrade/#36696101=8
Moody's places 175 oil, gas and mining companies on review for downgrade
Jan 22 2016, 08:28 ET | By: Carl Surran, SA News Editor
Moody's places 120 oil and gas companies on review for a downgrade, in a sweeping global review that includes all major regions..Warning of "a substantial risk that prices may recover much more slowly over the medium term than many companies expect
http://seekingalpha.com/news/3045856-moodys-places-175-oil-gas-mining-companies-review-downgrade
Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:37pm EST
Moody's puts 175 commodity firms on review over bleak outlook
LONDON | BY RON BOUSSO
It (Moody's)said it was likely to conclude the review by the end of the first quarter which could include multiple-notch downgrades for some companies, particularly in North America.
A ratings downgrade makes borrowing more expensive for companies.
"Even under a scenario with a modest recovery from current prices, producing companies and the drillers and service companies that support them will experience rising financial stress with much lower cash flows," it said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-ratings-idUSKCN0V00Y6
Rating Action: Moody's reviews energy companies in the US for downgrade
Global Credit Research - 21 Jan 2016
https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-reviews-energy-companies-in-the-US-for-downgrade--PR_342569

@junkster, the problem you are alluding to of indiscriminate falling tide for all biotechs regardless of their financial situation has to do with most of the money flowing through sector funds and ETFs which don't do much due diligence but just depend on diversification. So all of them go up or all of them go down depending on capital flow. When is the last time someone complained why all biotechs were going up even though many of them were just in clinical stage with a risk of completely going under?
I have also mentioned earlier that doing sufficient due dilugence on these companies is beyond the capability of most retail investors or even funds because of the games they play and the difficulty of judging the health of their pipeline and prospects. Most of them are one trick ponies with a lumpy all or nothing return for their products and the availability of cheap money has prevented the larger ones from building a diversified and healthy pipeline since valuations for acquisitions has exploded.

FYI: (Scroll down to read Barron's Roundtable)
Jan 16 In recent years, bond investor Jeffrey Gundlach has been outperforming his rival Bill Gross. He has even been dubbed the "Bond King" by the media - a title Gross has held for many years. Now, Gundlach has replaced Gross on a high-profile investor panel.
Weekly financial magazine Barron's said on Saturday that Gross decided to quit its Barron's Roundtable. Instead, Gundlach, who has often been critical of Gross's investment calls, was added to the panel - which meets at the beginning and middle of each year - and he features prominently in the magazine's Roundtable latest cover story published on Saturday.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-bonds-kings-idUSL2N1500FE

AndyJ do you ever venture into the preferred? I normally stick with the open end junk munis or junk corporates whichever is trending. But am buying some NPSRX today. CPRRX is the master of that domain but I prefer the funds where the dividends accumulate daily and posted end of month like NPSRX. Just a quirk I guess.

Yes, but only dipped the first toe in later in 2014. I started with PPSAX, picked for its mild personality; since mid-2015, I've had positions in FPF and JPI (cef's) and FPE (an etf), now just FPF and JPI.
Have to say I still don't have a good handle on analyzing a portfolio or understanding the market behavior very well - but they've got good yields, and so far in my experience they haven't been anywhere near as dangerous to my financial health as hy corporates.
Right now I think preferreds and munis are the asset classes I like best in cef's; haven't seen either fall off a cliff, for example like the Pimco taxable FI cef's did yesterday.

FYI: (Click On Article title At Top Of Google Search)
More investors are losing faith in old-school money managers as financial markets sputter.
Clients yanked $207.3 billion in 2015 from U.S.-based mutual funds that hand pick their positions while pouring $413.8 billion into funds that mimic broad indexes for a fraction of the cost, according to new data from research firm Morningstar Inc.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=Investors+Snub+Money+Managers+For+Market+Clones

Interesting about JPMorgan, since their chief global strategist and head of global markets was not at all bearish in a conference call last week. I wonder if he know what one of their analysts (the linked article above) is saying? This kind of disconnect is totally odd. As for Edwards, I am surprised he continues to get press. Actually, given the penchant of the financial media to hype anything scary, I am not surprised.