FYI: For many younger investors, 2018 marked the first time they experienced meaningful declines in their investment portfolios. And for others who have been around the markets longer, it brought back unpleasant memories from 2008.
Whenever the stock market comes unhinged, it causes investors to wonder whether they should be invested in stocks. The short answer for most people is yes. You’ll need the potential of stock market returns to reach your retirement goals. But, to be successful in the stock market, you have to learn how to handle bear markets. Because we haven’t had a bear market in over 10 years, let’s review four fundamental investment rules for handling big declines.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/01/06/road-to-retirement-four-rules-for-handling-bear-markets/

Hello: For what it is worth. I've been looking at the table and did an analysis of the top three asset class leaders for the past 20 years, 10 years and 5 year lookback periods. For the twenty year lookback period real estate appeared 10 times, emerging markets 9 times and US fixed income 8 times along with non US equity. For the ten year lookback period US large caps appeared 5 times and real estate, emerging markets, US fixed income along with high yield all appeared four times. For the five year lookback period US large caps appeared 4 times, US fixed income 3 times and high yield and cash appeared 2 times. These were the top three leaders over the respective time periods according to the table.
With the above in mind this is one of the reasons I feel I am better off with a well diversified portfolio not knowing which asset class will be the annual top three leaders thus I feel it is better for me to own and position some of each. Now, I might hold more of some over others based upon my perception of what might be working (or going to work) the best in the near term.
So, for me, the table does provide investment value and demostrates why diverification works.

I had been thinking of this before, but it had been closed. Is this a good one for long term? for me is 10 to 15 years

FYI: This could be the year of the worrywarts. The recent ugliness in the market suggests that investors are becoming more sensitive to the risks building in the economy—including rising interest rates, slowing global growth, and political turmoil.
Fund managers who invest with an eye toward risk could look better than they have in years. Their funds have not necessarily sparkled during the nine-year bull market, when investors rushed headlong into riskier parts of the market and distinguishing between stocks didn’t pay off much—one reason passive funds have done so well.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-best-stock-funds-for-risky-markets-51547156975?mod=djem_b_Weekly Feed for Barrons Magazine

Ted. Thanks for sharing this. It may be the important link you have ever posted in terms of true, long term significance. When the history of the last two years is written ( and I was a graduate student in America history) the big plot line will be that the Republicans TOTALLY put party over constitution and country. Perhaps we can excuse the maga voter by saying they don't know better but all those GOP senators certainly understand what they are allowing to happen. Shame on them.

FWIW - VMOT is fully hedged, both US and international. So, it is effectively cash since January 1st. Also, their website is now updated with the historical composition by month over the previous five years.
https://etfsite.alphaarchitect.com/vmot/#indexinfo

Here is the inflation adjusted prediction made by John Rekenthaler. It seems to result from well reasoned, middle of the road crystal ball gazing. The buildup to the prediction is worth a look.

my stylized outlook is to accept the experts' view of 1% in average inflation-adjusted annualized gains over the next 10 years, then 6% annualized for the succeeding 20 years. If so, that would make the annualized average for the full, 30-year period 4.3%. Per this prediction, U.S. equities from 2019 to 2048 will have annual real returns that are about 1 percentage point less than my parents' generation, and about 2 percentage points behind what I have enjoyed.
It's good to be me. That said, while the initial few years may be rough, this column's back-of-the-envelope analysis suggests that stocks should remain the purchase of choice for the patient, long-term investor, particularly if that investor suffers losses calmly. Some might be forthcoming.

FYI: Tuesday's column discussed the primary investment lesson over the past 30 years: Own equities. Own as much as possible for as long as possible. To a first approximation, it was never wrong to buy stocks, and never right to sell them.
Today's installment addresses the more difficult task of looking forward. It's one thing to appreciate how successful equities have been. It's quite another to determine whether their marvelous results will continue.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/907507/the-30year-outlook-for-us-stocks.html

As I pointed in my first post I like to include links to prove my points and why I included a chart. Please include charts to support yours.
I'm not going to buy his book because I can find his ideas on the web + I'm looking for indicators that work in the next day-one week. Over the years I read of several indicators/"gurus" and proved they were all wrong or can be off by months and years. (link)https://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/p/379703/3896435.aspx#3896435
It looks pretty reasonable that a market that went down over 10% will be up close to that in the next several months.
Since I can't change things that I posted I will not post here very much because I may make a mistake and/or want to change my narrative.
You are welcome to post on M*, any comment is welcome and we can discuss anything, I don't understand your comment "This board does not allow lively discussions because of the manner in which it is monitored." I do that all the time.

Interesting that 2018 was the only year CASH WAS KING in the past 20 years. Before 2018, it came in 3rd a few times, but never 1st or 2nd.

Not to belabor this - but I retired more than 20 years ago making $70,000 at the time (1998).
I was maxing out my 403B, which was automatically deducted by employer. Where I worked we also contributed a sizable amount each pay to the employer sponsored defined benefit plan. I paid extra having opted for the most expensive (but better) plan. Seems to me I also paid extra for the best health plan available to employees. State and Federal taxes hit me hard. Also, mandatory Social Security. And monthly dues to our professional association were deducted. After all that I was lucky to see 50% of my gross pay.
Still had a house payment (downsized after retiring) and a payment on a new pickup truck. Where I worked (Detroit area) vehicle insurance rates were high to start with and even higher if you drove over 10 miles each way to work. No credit card debt or consumer loans. Lived pretty well (fitness center, trips to Florida, etc.) Probably had enough in non-retirement savings to last a month. After that would have had to start running up a credit line to stay afloat.
Just me. Others may have developed better thrift habits or might have had family members to help tide them over.

Trump’s paycheck to soybean farmers is being held up if they recently filed the paperwork. However, those (like one frequent poster I presume) who got their paperwork in before the shutdown will continue to get paid by Uncle Sam. It’s usually the little guy that gets hurt by these.
http://newschannel20.com/news/local/government-shutdown-affecting-payments-for-local-farmers
Feel bad for the TSA folks, air traffic controllers, NTSB teams, etc. Don’t know about most here, but for much of my working years I needed my twice monthly paycheck to cover mortgage, transportation, food etc. Not much left over at the end of a pay period. Yes, the 403B was accumulating, but it’s not easy to get your hands on the $$ if you’re under the required age, So any talk about these folks “making adjustments” is nonsense.

Not to worry David. According to individual #1 in the Florida article "It's mostly Democrats who aren't getting paid." Just think, if we would have had a legislative branch of government completely controlled by the Republicans the past two years along with a Republican president we would have that wall. Oh wait, never mind.
But meanwhile, I heard there's a sign at the local supermarket that it is not accepting food stamps due to the shutdown. Finally, the Republicans are denying food relief to the poor. They must be so proud of this moment.

All looking quite expensive and probably bearing outdated frontend loads and 12b1 fees I bet

Yep. Spot checked 3 or 4 and they all carry front loads. For a few years after the takeover they kept Strong’s symbols, bore similar names, and didn’t charge a load. Strong had some good funds and decent talent at his Milwaukee base. Too bad he wrecked it all with his greedy fingers.

FYI: Wells Fargo says it wants to make things right with the American public. After years of cheating its customers, the bank has a golden opportunity to make good on its promises.
Since the federal government shutdown began two weeks ago, credit unions that serve large populations of furloughed and unpaid workers have offered their members short-term interest-free loans, a variety of fee waivers and increased lines of credit.
But Wells Fargo is not stuffing its Twitter feed or news release list with any such offers. Instead, it’s offering up a few sentences on its website that say that the bank will “work with” affected federal employees and that some borrowers “may” qualify for forbearance.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/your-money/wells-fargo-government-shutdown-loan.html

To The Shadow et al- My financial intention with VEIPX are hold it in a Roth for 10 years/ Ill have contributed 13500 by the end of this year.

FYI: After a tumultuous few weeks in the markets, the steady income offered by yield-focused investments looks very attractive.
And the recent selloff has created a bounty of opportunities in both stocks and bonds that are among the most promising in years.
Income plays that now look particularly appealing include high-dividend stocks in the U.S. and overseas markets, master limited partnerships, junk bonds, and preferred stock. In these sectors, investors can get yields from 3% to 10% through individual securities, mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, and a hard-hit group of closed-end funds.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-best-income-ideas-for-2019-51546632171?mod=djem_b_Weekly barrons_daily_newsletter

Geez - There’s so many. And today’s winner may well be next year’s looser because they tend to invest in different countries and regions - and in emerging markets to varying degrees. Those diverse markets don’t always march in unison.
PIEQX is a large cap international index fund offered by TRP - 0.45 ER. I’ve held it before. Lipper scores it near the top of its category based on past performance. One thing I like is minimal “manager risk” since it’s an index fund. But it’s not going to have any significant exposure to EM. (The same index is probably available a bit cheaper elsewhere - but .45 for an international fund ain’t bad.)
A conservative approach, also from Price, is RPGAX. Probably best classified as a balanced fund, but a good steady performer which reduces the 40% bond allocation balanced funds typically employ to just 30%. That is accomplished by investing about 10% in a Blackstone hedge fund. I like the added diversification that brings to the fund. I doubt it’s going to boost return long term. But I’m a fan of diversification as a way to dampen volatility. Fund invests both domestically and internationally. Reasonable fees. T.Rowe is a class act with whom to work.
Yep - as noted earlier international funds have lagged. Fees tend to be higher. Many foreign markets aren’t as transparent as in the U.S. which adds risk and expense. Importantly, the dollar has been very strong in recent years - so currency related issues are part of the equation. Japan, once a world economic powerhouse, has been somewhat comatose for past 3 decades. Europe was slower in responding to the global hit from the 2007-8 financial crisis. Hopefully they’ll get up to full speed soon - but seem prone to shoot themselves in the foot.

I think Ed's argument might reflect his work with folks whose annual compensation runs into the tens of millions. For most of us, a $20,000,000 payday is hypothetical; for some in the upper tier of the investment industry, that amount can be quickly followed by a list of names.
The SEC's (antiquated) insider investment ranges top out at $100,000 for directors (some of whom "earn" $300,000+ for their part-time job) and $1,000,000 for managers (some of whom earn, through salary, bonuses, and equity stakes in their firms, tens of millions). With a million dollar investment in their fund, an exceptional year might add $100,000 to their net wealth - i.e., the market plus 1000 bps - or might detract a similar amount.
And really, how consequential do you suppose that is? And really, how do you suppose the star manager's time gets allocated between the $100 million of personal money in his private partnerships, venture capital investments and his derivatives account versus the $1 million in his mutual fund?
So the policy with many small equity firms is, you need to have 100% of your equity investments in your employers products. Alternately, some require 100% of investable liquid wealth. Some require all employees, including clerical, to invest and then offer bonuses on the form of fund shares. I've spoken with a lot of managers over the years and I've yet to hear of a stupid policy; that is, Seafarer does not require their employees to invest exclusively in emerging markets which would be disastrous both for the employee and for the adviser, who'd find it impossible to attract talent.
msf is certainly right about the symbolic importance of such policies. It's sometimes referred to as "the Caesar's wife" problem: it's not enough that you be blameless, you must be known to be blameless. Many of the advisers (i.e., the presidents of firms) I've spoken with are spectacularly dense on all symbolic matters, they persist with the "our job is to invest and let the results speak for themselves." (Fools. There are 8000+ options, each chirping out "look at me," and they think investors will automatically here the $100 million fund's voice clear and sweet about the tumult.)
Had I mentioned that I just spent the better part of an hour at the gym lifting heavy pieces of metal? Hmmm ... perhaps I need a longer cool-down period.
David

The U.S., unlike the rest of the developed world, has almost no options for faithful Muslim investors. I think I've found three active fund family (Amana, Arabesque, Azzard) but no ETFs or index funds. iShares MSCI World Islamic ETF (ISWD) and iShares MSCI USA Islamic ETF (ISUS) are available to folks in the EU, but not here so far as I can tell. Javelin Dow Jones Islamic Market International Index Fund (JVS) reportedly launched in the US about nine years ago, but I can't even find record of it as the SEC.
Something like 3-4 million Americans are Muslim and many are likely MINO (Muslim in Name Only, rather like the lapsed Lutherans and casual Catholics around me), so it might be too much of a niche market (and too hard to cultivate) to attract many issuers.
David