I don’t make predictions about the markets or pay attention to those made by others. The returns in 2019 have surprised me, but I’m always surprised by particularly good years. I disagree with the characterization of 2019 as the best year ever, but certainly hasn’t been the best for my portfolio. For example, returns in 2009 were much better for me. I’ve been investing for more than 30 years and there have been many years during that period with comparable or better returns.

Hello dtconroe. I have similar thoughts to your investing style. But I have a 50% allocation to equities so my bond OEF allocation may be a little more "conservative". 50% of my bonds are in DBLSX and MWCIX and 50% is in what I call "higher yield". My higher yield contains SEMMX, IISIX, VCFAX. I am not as structured as you. I plan to hold these long term (hopefully years) unless the bond market crashes as some people are expecting.

By far PRWCX which ranks for performance at M* for 1-3-5-10-15 years at 1-3% top funds.
Instead of POAGX you can own QQQ which made more money + better risk attributes. See (link).

This has been a very nice exchange of ideas and facts. Thanks to Bee for initiating it and to everybody who added to it. This kind of conversation is one of the major strengths of MFO.
It made me curious about how Fidelity (where I do almost all of my business) handles fees on TRP funds, so I checked.
Most, but not all, charge no fee.
PRWCX is NTF (but closed to new investors).
TMSRX has a 49.95 fee
PRSCX (one of my favorites since I owned it for years in my 403b) is NTF. I think I prefer FSCFX now.
PRHSX is NTF
PRDGX is NTF
PRFRX is NTF.
There are many more ...
David

@Sven. I've held SFGIX since it opened. Owned his growth and income fund, MACSX, before that. Foster's writing is compelling and hopeful and I'll keep holding his fund as a less volatile EM option for diversification purposes. But I'm not a hot fund collector or one to jump on the band wagon of other peoples thoughts. Those days are long past.
All I'm saying is people have been predicting Asia (edit: China in particular) taking over the economic world for decades. Nothing new today. Things are different? That was said then too so lets wait and see. Asia was a huge topic on the FundAlarm board in the late 90s' early 2000s'. Even had it's own daily updated post. I'll ask you this, if hypothetically you could only invest in Asia or the US right now and have to keep the money there for the next 20 years, which would you choose? I guess that would be the answer to really believing the hype that Asia is the future, because of course that would imply the US is not. In my opinion, that's not happening in my life time.

I tend to agree with hank. Peter Lynch was an outstanding money manager of Fidelity Magellan fund in the 80's. He managed to outperform the S&P index for a number of the years. He left his money manager role and took on other duties while staying at Fidelity. Since then Magellan have had a number of managers and the fund never recovered the old glory. I say that was a lot of luck and the timeframe of the 80's before the digital age when information was not readily available to the general public.
If you read Peter Lynch's books, they are all about how he outdo the market. Quite a contrast if you read Warren Buffet's books.

Hi Hank,
Wow! Did not look at returns.....and, you're right. Saying that, here's what I see:
PGTAX - 5G all across Asia......now, more to come next year. China stimulating.....helping tech. The want to be No. 1.
FSDAX - have owned it for years. Added many times. It's worked out well. See no difference now. New U.S. military budget out.....no surprise it increased. But bought this last time because of Boeing.
FEMKX - Central banks across the world are all cutting. If I remember, there were 60 rate cuts this year. So next year, they should really kick in as it takes 6 to 9 months to show up.
SO, those are my reasons for what they're worth. Also, did you see WealthTrack this weekend? Ed Hyman was on. He said a lot of good things that I agree with.
God bless
the Pudd
p.s. SVEN + 1

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4313638-gold-stocks-remain-cheap
Gold stocks remain cheap
Summary
Gold stocks remain very undervalued relative to gold. They’ve spent most of this bull languishing under stock-panic extremes, which means they still have vast room to mean revert higher.
Such low gold-stock prices compared to prevailing gold levels virtually guarantee the miners will enjoy seriously-outsized gains during future gold uplegs. They can way-outperform gold for years before normalizing.
But that longer-term super-bullish fundamental outlook doesn’t negate the need for periodic corrections to rebalance sentiment. The recent one is likely still underway today, as key gold-stock indicators haven't bottomed.
Maybe time to dip a little into gold and pm...

@Derf - I wasn’t trying to hype TMSRX. It came up as part of a larger discussion about investing late in the retirement years. I took the time to address your question about the 16% cash position and tried to share a few thoughts on a fund that’s barely one-year old.
I’d be very surprised if anyone else who posts here owns it. I own a great many funds that are not currently popular. I have to answer only to myself. So, you invest your way and I’ll invest mine.

PRDSX. +32.96% ytd.
+15.58% over 10 years.
+10.83 over 15 years.
I'm keeping it. Although I've cut back on the small-cap allocation in the portfolio, overall.

The shorting strategy is similar to what Pimco does with their bond funds. The fund is still fairly new. Will keep track on this strategy.
funds also hold high cash position and they are lagging their peers.

It’s hard for folks to get their head around a fund like this. It’s not intended to be a growth fund.
It can’t keep pace with stocks or bonds when those markets are advancing. One willl probably never produce a M* “Manager of the Year.” Their best use, I’d think, is with an older and very conservative investor who would like to earn a couple % more with an investment than cash or short term bonds are likely to provide without assuming a lot of additional market risk.
We tend to think mainly of equities as risky. However, under some circumstances, all but the very shortest duration bonds can entail quite a bit of risk. We’ve become somewhat immune to the potential risk in bonds because interest rates have been generally falling or stable for the past 25 years or longer. These alternative type funds carry a lot of baggage of their own as well. More fail than succeed. A lot depends on the manager getting the timing right. The markets / market sentiment have been running against them for quite a while as well. And they carry higher expenses and fees, somewhat justifiably because of the short selling and other derivatives they invest in. Just one ingredient to consider as part of a broader portfolio if one is highly risk averse either by nature or by age and circumstance.

Master Stockpicker Peter Lynch: If You Only Invest in an Index, You’ll Never Beat It
https://www.barrons.com/articles/master-stockpicker-peter-lynch-if-you-only-invest-in-an-index-youll-never-beat-it-51576874071
By Leslie P. Norton
Updated Dec. 20, 2019 4:24 pm ET / Original Dec. 20, 2019 3:34 pm ET
Photograph by Heather Sten
“Invest in what you know.” Those five simple words from Peter Lynch helped launch a nation of stockpickers.
His advice—along with his 13 years running the Fidelity Magellan fund (ticker: FMAGX) with great success—led to investment banter at cocktail parties, cab drivers doling out stock tips, and the rise of the star fund manager. Lynch still holds one of the greatest track records—an astonishing 29% annualized return from 1977 until 1990—nearly double what the S&P 500 index produced in the same period.

Title likes that qualify as "click-bait". It is a joke at best.

No disrespect intended, but titles like that are well received by inexperienced investors who may not have been around the block a few times. I recall grabbing an occasional copy of “Money” off the supermarket racks - Oh, some 25 years ago - and eagerly devouring those type stories.
We really haven’t experienced a serious market hiccup or burp since early ‘09 (and 10% either way hardly qualifies as anything to get excited about). I think it was Justice Potter Stewart who, after having difficulty defining pornography, simply stated: “I know it when I see it.” Likewise, rather than reading frightening magazine articles, everyone will recognize the next 25% one-day plunge or 40-50% yearly decline when they see it.

I've been in RPMGX in my taxable account for nearly 22 years. Yummy! I've had PRWCX first in taxable. Sold there and bought the next year in my Roth. Double yummy! I bought TRMCX around 2010. It's been ok, but not that wonderful. But I expect (or hope) it will catch up. All 3 are keepers for me.
Dave

Kitces:“ Once ... buckets are established, the retiree then might use the following decision-rule framework for liquidations:
1) If equities are up, take the retirement spending from equities
2) If equities are down but bonds are up, take the spending from bonds instead
3) If both equities and bonds are down in the same year, take the distribution from Treasury bills ”
(or, in my case, from “Alternative” investment funds)
Thanks for the link @msf - I’d never seen any analysis comparing the two approaches before and somewhat humbled that Kitces sees some merit in what I’ve been doing. Of course there will be other experts who disagree.
My method IMHO only works if one is willing to sacrifice some current level of return in exchange for being fully invested at all times (a lousy misleading term anyway). So, I carry what some would consider expensive, low performing or erratic performance funds as an offset to a severe equity sell-down. Funds like TMSRX, PRPFX, OPGSX - none of which would pass mustard based on the metrics most mutual fund investors use or receive high marks on this board. There’s also a static 15% weighting in the mix devoted to ultra-short and short term bonds. (I just recently increased that frim 10%.) And as Kitces mentions, you have to be willing to sell your winners in a downturn and hang on to your losers.
One big problem is in trying to backtest anything. For most, 10-15 years seems like an eternity. But in terms of really important global financial turning points 10-15 years is little more than a drop in the bucket. And some of the alternative investment funds (like TMSRX) have only become available recently.

@msf I am actually still trying accumulate SS credit (part time) so maybe there will be a small SS benefit when I turn 70. On my to do list for 2020...sit down with SS and crunch some numbers regarding my potential SS benefit and this WEP provision.
For others are not familiar with SS and WEP:
https://ssa.gov/policy/docs/program-explainers/windfall-elimination-provision.html
@msf Fidelity's HSA option looks like a good one...on my to do list for 2020.
@Sven @msf mentioned TRP is available NTF on Fidelity's Brokerage platform...good to know.
@MikM regarding FRIFX MAXXDD of -40%...you have a very valid point...though this is a small position in my portfolio I did consider this a non-correlated US market asset (.72) it does pay a dividend that appears to remain constant even as share price fluctuates.
@hank said,

I could be wrong. But my sense is I’m somewhat protected against severe equity selloffs by the diversification I maintain. It’s probably the #1 reason I pay intense attention to different market sectors almost daily and track several funds that represent various sectors. And, if equities drop sharply, I’ll essentially “rebalance on the run” by shifting withdrawals to the fixed income holdings. To some extent this has been an ongoing process over the years. I always pull distributions from the portions that have fared the best.

...seems like a valid approach to me

"could be" is a phrase that should be banned by Wall Street 'analysts'
Things have been reported to "could be" happening all the time but have yet to pan out - or pan out *significantly* .... hence the rise of perma-bears and perma-bulls.
My rule of thumb, learned through trial and error over the years as both an investor and trader: "Markets will fluctuate, be agile, smart, and plan accordingly."

Getting back to @MikeM’s and @msf’s original comments. Like most here I suspect,they maintain a “survival bucket” holding X years worth of anticipated needs in the event of a severe selloff in the risk assets to which one is exposed (presumably equities). I’ve heard estimates ranging from 3-5 years worth of anticipated needs held in cash or cash equivalents by various board members over the years. The idea is not to have to sell depreciated assets during a downturn. The expectation is that downturns will last a relatively short time (perhaps 5 years). Folks cite market history to support the perception downturns tend to be short lived and followed by sharp upticks.
I’d never quarrel with that approach. Certainly sounds reasonable. Personally I’ve never used it. A very conservative investor by nature, I believe I’m better off maintaining 100% invested at all times and pulling annual distributions from that overall pot. (Note: That does not mean 100% in equities or risk assets.) Never have I needed more than 10% from investments in a single year. Most often it’s in the vicinity of 5-7%.
I could be wrong. But my sense is I’m somewhat protected against severe equity selloffs by the diversification I maintain. It’s probably the #1 reason I pay intense attention to different market sectors almost daily and track several funds that represent various sectors. And, if equities drop sharply, I’ll essentially “rebalance on the run” by shifting withdrawals to the fixed income holdings. To some extent this has been an ongoing process over the years. I always pull distributions from the portions that have fared the best.
Just some rambling thoughts. One size does not fit all. Admittedly, my approach is better suited for very conservative investors.

@bee, I really appreciate your sharing since we are in similar timeframe as you. Several years ago we started consolidating our IRAs to two brokerages (Fidelity and Vanguard), and the third with our current employers. While Fidelity online service is second to none, Vanguard offers great incentives for those who meet certain asset levels with free trades and low fees. Like msf mentioned, many T. Rowe Price funds are not available on the NTF platforms on both Fidelity and Vanguard. So TRP was eliminated.
The end result is that it simplifies managing all the funds. Also the ERs was reduced considerably since we use many Vanguard funds and their ETFs.

Just looking at the mechanics, and not the particular funds ...
It looks like with a little flexibility, you could get down to two institutions - Fidelity and Vanguard - pretty easily. TRP is now NTF at Fidelity (and at Vanguard, though I'd favor Fidelity for brokerage/third party funds). The only reason I might have for continuing to invest directly with TRP is free M* premium access.
For the HSA, if you're willing to invest in anything other than BRUFX, Fidelity now offers HSA accounts that are as free as its regular/IRA brokerage accounts. As a side note, you don't have to withdraw money from an HSA as expenses are incurred. You can pay out of pocket and reimburse yourself anytime in the future out of the HSA so long as you hold onto your bills and receipts. So, like other "Roths", you can keep the HSA invested in more volatile funds and draw on the HSA only when it is doing well.
Personally, I tend to avoid sector funds. In part because I don't claim any macro expertise. In part because, as you wrote, I pay my fund managers to make those kinds of decisions. To each his own. I agree with targeting 3 years or so of "survival funds". Even if the other funds don't fully recover in three years, they should come back enough that drawing on them after that time shouldn't be too painful.
A curiosity question, no need to respond w/personal data: my understanding of WEP is that "By law, it cannot eliminate your benefit entirely." (AARP page) So I'm wondering how you're getting hit so hard by it.