I remember those (80's) years well. My family had some A rated bonds that were paying north of 10% interest.
The article's message (although unwritten) brings forward a good reason to have a portfolio that is built upon both stocks, bonds and (yes) cash. Bank then I had a bank money fund that paid well along with some CD's that were held in an IRA account. It was not hard at all to get eight ... ten ... and even twelve percent on fixed investements back in the 80's. Stock dividends, in gereral, were higher back then than they are today as well.
Have a good one ... and, most of all ... I wish all "good investing."

I put more emphasis on the last 3 years. When I compare RPHIX,ZEOIX,SEMMX,DHEIX(link)
RPHIX has inferior numbers to the other 3.
DHEIX is the only one with 80+% in investment-grade rating. I can't buy DHEIX at Schwab but I can buy DHEAX with no fees.

Not just T. Rowe Price.

Vanguard, the largest passive-fund manager with $3.8 trillion in assets, is likely to become the largest active manager as well within a few years. Currently Vanguard boasts $1.37 trillion in active mutual fund assets, well ahead of Fidelity and only $179 billion behind American Funds, thanks to a higher growth rate on strong inflows at a time when most such funds are seeing outflows.

and

“We think it’s more appropriate to compare ‘high cost vs. low cost’ funds, instead of active vs. passive.”

It's the economics, stupid :-)
https://www.inquirer.com/business/vanguard-jack-bogle-passive-active-mutual-fund-etf-20190527.html
(FWIW, I hold actively managed funds in both houses.)

I own about 1/3 of these funds and also held Magellan which I sold at one point. THe only way to avoid these funds if you have invested for a long time would have been to decide that if a fund was written up it was too late to invest in. I guess I performance chased at a good time. Most of these funds have surely been written up often and I might argue on merit. Of course most are too big these for those who visit the site though I suspect a good fraction are closed to new investors because many are shareholder friendly

Good points. Magellan under Lynch is legendary. Nuf said. Being largely with TRP past 25 years, I’m no stranger to PRMTX, a great fund that jumped on the technology revolution early and rode it. A good friend has owned it as long as I can remember. To my disadvantage, I’ve never fully trusted the tech sector. But I did hold PRMTX for about a year following the drubbing it took in 08. Can’t stand success. Bailed out after some crazy 25-30% gain in rapid time.
Would guess Jerry’s success more related to being a patient long term investor rather than jumping into every high flying fund he hears of.

but finpr0n articles like this don't make that distinction too often, or clearly.

Sad but true. Sundays (when this went up) tend to be “lighter” reading days. That said - the article is badly (and misleadingly) titled. Being perhaps the “hottest”, “juiciest”, or “fastest moving” funds of the past few decades in no way makes them the “best.” I think readers here are smart enough to figure that out on their own.
I’d liken reading this to gazing at some photos of $200,000 sports cars you’ll never own, tropical vacation spots you’ll never visit or gorgeous women (or men, as the case might be) you’ll never meet - let alone marry. I don’t see the harm in looking - especially if you’re older than 18 and presumably competent to make decisions for yourself and to discriminate between “fluff” and serious financial journalism.
-
I’ve rechecked to make sure @equalizer posted the title correctly. He did. The article’s author is John Waggoner. His work often appeared here and on FA when he wrote for USA Today prior to retiring several years ago. Waggoner endured his share of slings and arrows back than, as many writers do, but was by and large recognized as a serious and accomplished financial writer.
“John Waggoner ... was a senior columnist for InvestmentNews and, prior to that, USA TODAY's personal finance columnist for 25 years. He has written for Morningstar, The Wall Street Journal, and Money magazine. Waggoner has also written three books on finance and investing. He has an undergraduate and graduate degree in English literature and is working on his Certified Financial Planner designation. He lives in Vienna, Virginia.” https://www.kiplinger.com/fronts/archive/bios/index.html?bylineID=532

Hi @bee
A fairly common sense write across a range of money matters. Thank you for posting.
This is the type of article I pass along to others to help with thinking and motivation regarding their hard earned money.
The various pieces of the article have been discussed here, too; over the years.

Seems like most of the funds on this list invest in sectors. I personally wouldn’t want a large percentage of my portfolio in sector funds, despite their past performance. So that would involve rebalancing unless you didn’t mind having a large percentage of your portfolio in a few sectors. Sector funds also tend to be more volatile and can go out of style for long periods— such as energy the past 10 years or technology in the early 2000s.

(link)
See quotes below:
Recession risks, which had been elevated during the middle part of 2019, have diminished in recent months...As a consequence, we are now more confident in our baseline forecast that the current window of weakness for global growth will give way to a moderate recovery during 2020.
We will tend to favor U.S. duration over global alternatives, given the relative value and potential for capital gains in U.S. Treasuries and the scope for further Fed easing in the event of a weaker-than-expected macro outcome. While we are broadly neutral on the U.S. dollar versus other G10 currencies, we generally will favor long yen positions in accounts where currency exposure is appropriate
In addition, in asset allocation portfolios, we will look to be overweight large cap over small cap equities.
We favor both U.S. agency mortgage exposures and non-agency exposures. We believe agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) offer attractive valuation, reasonable carry, and an attractive liquidity profile in comparison with other spread assets. We see non-agency mortgages as offering relatively attractive valuation along with a more defensive source of credit and carry and better market technicals than generic corporate credit exposure. We will also look to have select commercial MBS (CMBS) exposures. U.K. residential MBS (RMBS) also looks attractive on a relative valuation basis.
In currency strategy, we look to be overweight a basket of emerging market currencies versus the U.S. dollar and the euro.
We will tend to favor curve steepening positions in the U.S. and in other countries. U.S. Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) look attractive on a valuation basis
we continue to expect real U.S. GDP growth to slow to a 1.5% to 2.0% range in 2020, from an estimated 2.3% pace in 2019...We look for a modest U.S. reacceleration in the second half of 2020. China’s commitments in the Phase 1 trade deal to purchase $200 billion of additional U.S. exports over the next two years should also support growth in the second half of 2020.
We see euro area growth at around 1.0% in 2020. On balance, we see core inflation remaining close to 1.0%.
The U.K. is set to formally leave the E.U. at the end of January...we expect U.K. GDP growth of 0.75% to 1.25% in 2020,
Japan: We expect GDP growth to slow to a 0.25% to 0.75% range in 2020 from an estimated 0.9% this year...Inflation is expected to remain low in a 0.25% to 0.75% range
China: We see GDP growth slowing into a 5.0% to 6.0% range in 2020 from an estimated 6.1% in 2019.

End of Quote.
======================
What the above means to me?
1) Load on securitized bonds which I have been doing for years (PIMIX,VCFIX,IOFIX,EIXIX. For cash sub use SEMMX)
2) Continue to use US LC as my main equity position which I have been doing for years already
3) If you want to invest in equities abroad go with EM.
4) I will not use TIPS and I don't believe that curve steepening will affect my Multisector funds that much.

One thing about Scott Burns is he has been singing the 2 fund portfolio for years. See here from 2006 - https://scottburns.com/four-milestones-for-successful-investing/. My impression is that the Boglehead philosophy is now a 2 fund portfolio - but back in 2006 it was at least 3 funds, or maybe 5 with a REIT, SV & V lean.

"I dare say a "cyclical" bull market has little meaning to a retiree or anyone within 5-10 years of retirement. 20% pull backs are what people worry about when you use your savings for income or are planning on a retirement date."

@MikeM- This "cyclical bull market" concept with major unspecified pull-backs strikes me as so much baloney. Viewed from that perspective, there has never been anything other than a "cyclical bull market", as long as you adjust the time frame to whatever you need to make that appear to be true.

I dropped Money magazine and Kiplinger's after I got more experience and learned the hard way that most of their "where to invest your money NOW" articles were 3 to 6 months too late.
The one Kiplingers publication I have found worthwhile is Investing for Income. It costs a lot more about $200 a year but has some decent ideas about income vehicles. It is rather static as the portfolio has not changed much over the years. It is rather risky for an income portfolio but I think it's audience is people who need 7% a year.
Some of the recommendations the editor has ridden all the way down as he included a number of small energy companies that almost went bankrupt. Using stop losses would improve his results significantly.
Worth a look.

@catch22, good chart to illustrate the point. In the last 10 years or more, the US large cap growth stocks have dominated the market over the value stocks. When will that switch the lead, no one really know until the report earnings start to reverse, but that has not been the case.

@VintageFreak, when @Simon says the bull market will last another 15 years I believe he refers to a 'cyclical bull market'. A confusing play on words I think. There can be numerous bear markets within this cyclical bull.
I'm with you. We are do for a "secular" bear market (a 20% or more drop) because of valuations. Whether this happens in a month or a year, it will happen. Just needs some catalyst to start the trend. I dare say a "cyclical" bull market has little meaning to a retiree or anyone within 5-10 years of retirement. 20% pull backs are what people worry about when you use your savings for income or are planning on a retirement date. IMHO

There’s two separate themes running here, seems to me.
One theme is the long running debate: Active vs. Passive management. That’s been thoroughly debated / raked over the coals here and elsewhere over the years. I have nothing to add.
The other theme seems to be the “gouging” of fund investors by way of “advisor” fees, management fees and operating expenses. Geez - How many here pay an advisor to oversee their fund holdings? He tosses out a 1% figure for management fees (but doesn’t cite it as an average). Even though I’m in actively managed funds, only two (both classified as “alternative investment”) breach the 1% expense ratio: TMSRX and QVOPX. All three from D&C carry ERs under .50%. At TRP my ERs range from .25% for TRBUX to .94% for RPGAX (excluding TMSRS mentioned earlier).
I also think the author may be confused. He references “fund operating expenses” but seems to equate them with a fund’s management fee. As I understand it, operating expenses include trading costs, record keeping and the like. They do exist - but aren’t part of the ER that you and I see. Further, he appears to view the 12b-1 fee as outside the expressed ER, whereas it’s actually part of the expressed ER.
Than there’s this : “ Management fees, on the other hand, pay the salaries of the analysts and other personnel who actually run the fund. They are not capped by law, but investors should be suspicious of funds with fees above 1%.“ ? Those costs would seem to fall under “operating expenses”.
Having a degree in journalism doesn’t seem to get you much now days.

Such articles look very good at top of bull market. Why did this not get published in 2008-2009 or 2002?

Top of the bull market? Are you kidding? We're about 1/3 the way through it. This a Wave 3 Supercycle which will last another 15 years.
A correction is coming very soon. It will be a superb buying opportunity to load up on growth funds for the coming decade. But it will be fast and furious so have your cash ready.

@MikeM - I’d call Kiplingers mostly good “financial porn“. Nothing deep or actionable. Just a light read. I actually went with Amazon’s Kiplingers offer today thinking it would be nice to have some print copies lying around the house in addition to the constant stream of news & info on the tablet. In fairness to Kips, I believe they do have some good common sense suggestions for homeowners, consumers and the like.
Agree that Barron’s really has a lot of substance in it. But after subscribing / reading it for a couple years, I’d had my fill. And it’s not cheap (unless they send you the occasional $96 “new subscriber” promotional offer).

@hank, I subscribed to Kiplinger for a longtime, maybe 30 years, and it was always pay a year or 2 or 3 upfront for the subscription and then it ended. They would send warnings that your subscription was ending and offered preferred pricing before it ended, but never carried it over without your ok. Price was always in the $10-15 per year range over that whole time. They raised it to $20 this year and I opted out. Can't blame them. Even at $20/year they still must be losing money. But, I started subscribing to Barrons this summer and decided I didn't need both. As you said, Kips isn't in the same league as Barrons. Take care and enjoy the magazine.

I own WMICX in taxable account for many years. Only in the last several years has the fund turned around and been on a tear. Expenses are high on most of their funds.
I have several of the funds listed in taxable and non-taxable accounts.

This post is about the use of Non-traditional bond oefs, as low risk alternatives in a conservative portfolio, compared to short term bond oefs. Typically short term bond oefs, are low risk options, because of their short duration, and their use of investment grade corporates, securitized assets, and cash and cash equivalents. Lower risk Non-traditional bond oefs, typically hold lower investment grade corporate and securitized assets, but will use a wider array of investing strategies, in an "unconstrained" manner, to produce "absolute return" to protect and grow principal. The M* definition of Non-traditional bond oefs is as follows:
"Morningstar Category: Nontraditional Bond":
"The Nontraditional Bond category contains funds that pursue strategies divergent in one or more ways from conventional practice in the broader bond-fund universe. Many funds in this group describe themselves as "absolute return" portfolios, which seek to avoid losses and produce returns uncorrelated with the overall bond market; they employ a variety of methods to achieve those aims. Another large subset are self-described "unconstrained" portfolios that have more flexibility to invest tactically across a wide swath of individual sectors, including high-yield and foreign debt, and typically with very large allocations. Funds in the latter group typically have broad freedom to manage interest-rate sensitivity, but attempt to tactically manage those exposures in order to minimize volatility. The category is also home to a subset of portfolios that attempt to minimize volatility by maintaining short or ultra-short duration portfolios, but explicitly court significant credit and foreign bond market risk in order to generate high returns. Funds within this category often will use credit default swaps and other fixed income derivatives to a significant level within their portfolios."
Four lower risk, non-traditional bond oefs, worthy of consideration as alternatives to short term bond oefs are as follows:
1. MWCRX/MWCIX: It has a standard deviation of 1.02, duration of 1.8, credit rating of BB, rated as Low Risk by M*, has total return of 1 and 3 yrs as 6.36/3.82. The bulk of this fund is investment grade assets, but does hold close to 20% in HY assets.
2. SEMPX/SEMMX: It has a standard deviation of .77, duration of 1.39, credit rating of B, M* risk of Low, has total return of 1 and 3 years as 5.28/5.09. The bulk of its assets are in lower grade securitized assets.
3. CUBAX/CUBIX: It has a standard deviation of 1.26, duration of .99, credit rating of BB, M* risk rating of Below Average, and its total return for 1 and 3 years as 6.25/3.33. The majority of its assets are investment grade but does hold almost 1/3 of its assets in HY, and its assets are in both corporate and securitized categories.
4. PMZAX/PMZIX: It has a standard deviation of 1.05, duration of 1.16, M* credit rating was not rated (typical of PIMCO), but M* risk is rated as Low, and its 1 year and 3 year total return is 5.36.4.06. The majority of its assets are in securitized assets.
Many will not consider anything other than investment grade short term bond oefs, but these non-traditional bond oef funds have performance tracks that are very smooth with upward trajectories, and they have held up very well in downmarket periods, and their total return is very good for a lower risk portfolio role.

An average for an entire period is not every year in that period.

No it's not. On the other hand, I can't predict when international might rise to the top, or crash to the bottom. I don't have forever to give it an equal weighting to some other categories in my IRA like small, mid, large, REITs, utilities, health, and consumer staples; in the hopes that something might change. Most of my fund managers have the freedom to fish in foreign waters if they see fit.
Commodities out-performed in some of those years too. And I might add a small stake given their depressed price. But a lot would have to change before they became a large and concentrated feature of my IRA portfolio. The same would have to happen with foreign equity.
I have had Vanguard International Growth bubbling along since 1992 in my taxable account. So if foreign goes on anything resembling a sustained surge I would do just fine.

You both were stating you were waiting 20 to 40 years for international and emerging markets to outperform. Some of those years in the last 20 to 40 you would’ve strongly outperformed in international and emerging.

You win Lewis.