Have held IHI for over two years, which replaced PJP in my retirement portfolio. Since I already had an overweight in health care (still do) I wanted a portion in this subsector. Have been very happy I did since it has outperformed pharma since purchased. I do have health care mutual funds for general exposure in addition.

FYI: While for the entire year thus far, the average US stock fund or ETF is showing small positive returns , if one looks at how most funds have done since late January, we see that generally there have been no gains, and even losses.
Ten months is a long period for stocks to have been stalled, especially considering how they did during the prior 5 years from 2013 through 2017. For example, looking at three major domestic stock index funds, we can see this visually:
Regards,
Ted
http://funds-newsletter.com/dec18-newsletter/dec18.htm

In my retirement accounts I've refunded to just over 10% retirement is 30 years away...

I use PRIDX. It's all over the map, with 12.5% in EM. I re-deployed profits earlier this year and am letting the principal ride. I held SFGIX for several years, almost since inception, but unloaded it.

Good point. The high expense ratios are sizable drag on performance, year after years.

I've read somewhere that, on average, for every 3 (or 4?) up-years for stocks there is one down-year.
The total market has been up every year (including this year, so far) since 2008.
And checking "BND" at M*, the total bond market is down 1.95% YTD, and the only time since BEFORE 2008 (which was an up-year) bonds were down was in 2013 at -2.10%.
I'm not sure what the concern is. Do most people really think that markets should only go up every year?

Just doing a little research on the RiverPark CMBS fund David profiled under "Your 2019 funds watchlist," and the fund history seems a little sketchy, or maybe just poorly reported/covered by the usual online suspects.
The fund's own fact sheet shows performance back to 2010, with a footnote saying that from mid-2010 thru Q3 '16, it was an interval (private) fund. So far, so good. Then, from the beginning of Q4 '16 to to Nov. 12, 2018, when it "was reorganized as an open-end mutual fund," it was something else. Per a brief mention in David's profile, it was apparently a CEF (?).
But M* reports results back to 2016 as if it had been an OEF all that time, but shows zero portfolio info on it, as if it's not a fund they covered until just recently. MarketWatch shows nothing but a current price, no history whatsoever, and Yahoo shows prices as an OEF back to Dec. 4, 2017 (huh?). I web-searched for a CEF that may have existed for the "missing" two years (Q4 2016 to Nov 12 this year) with no luck.
A mystery, then, at least to this kid.
Edit: okay, finally found a reference to what happened in 2016. RiverPark took over the private interval fund (technically closed-end, but not a publicly traded closed-end fund as most of us think of the term) and kept it going as a private interval fund until Nov. 12 this year.
I can't reconcile M* or Yahoo's coverage with the apparent reality, but then that's not an unusual thing. Suffice to say, the fund is now in a format that exposes the investor to liquidity risk, but with an attempt to provide a "quality" overlay to limit that risk. However, I'd think the history as a private fund is not 100% transferable to expectations for the brand new open-end fund.

My tax deferred accounts in total are down about .8% YTD 2018, pretty much zero change over 1 year.

That’s excellent @MikeM. Even T. Rowe’s fine conservative TRRIX (40/60) is off more than that at -.92% YTD. And their newly minted TMSRX (an attempt at running a hedge fund) has been on the skids since its inception in March. Off close to 4% last time I looked. They won’t get many takers with that kind of performance. (Unfortunately, I took the bait and own a small slice of it.)
Like you, I’m off slightly this year. In recent years my down years were followed by pretty good years. Of course, could be different this time around.

Read about the "Sell in May" strategy directly from Stock Trader Alamac.
After reading one can decide for themselves if the strategy might be for them.
I have used the strategy in the past and found that it worked, for me, more times than not. I did not employ the strategy this past year as I have moved away from actively engaging the market myself although I still do invest in funds that do.
Currently, I am in the process of reducing equities and raising my exposure to both cash and bonds due to an age based rebalance now being 70+ years of age. And, it does seem to me with the high frequency trading systems now in place the markets are not as seasonal as they were in the past and are now more driven by news.
https://www.stocktradersalmanac.com/Strategy.aspx

I think Boston Partners Long/Short Equity BPLEX has been the poster child for comparisons in this fund realm. It seems to do it's very best when the market falls down and goes boom but nothing spectacular otherwise. A quick look at M* shows a somewhat enviable 10-yr return but not much over the last 5 years. Still, it's good to be positive than otherwise.

FYI: George Herbert Walker Bush led the U.S. to a swift and decisive victory in the first Persian Gulf War and presided over the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union and unification of Germany, before a painful recession cost him a second term as president.
He died on Friday at age 94. His wife of more than 70 years, Barbara, died at the age of 92 earlier this year.
Mr. Bush was the last American president to serve in World War II, a fight that helped shape his life and the lives of many in his generation. He went on to build a sterling resume—businessman, member of Congress, envoy to the United Nations and China, head of the Central Intelligence Agency—before becoming Republican Ronald Reagan’s vice president in 1980 and then succeeding him in the White House in 1988.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/george-h-w-bush-americas-41st-president-and-father-of-43rd-dies-1543641078?mod=hp_lead_pos1

I have in the past invested in both of these two funds (PASAX & PAUAX) and had dead money for a good number of years in them. Mr. Arnott has favored emerging markets ever since I can remember that they were an asset class of choice. And, when they waned he still favored and continue to favor them. I found these funds were not the dynamic funds that I thought they were. A fund that I like that has been dynamic in the markets and kicks off a good income stream to boot has been PMAIX.

I received this email from Vanguard yesterday concerning the conversion of my S&P index investor class taxable account with Vanguard (I submitted my request for the conversion):
Our index funds changed investing forever. Now we’re making them even better.
Fund newsNovember 19, 2018
1805
234
link to comment section
More controls (activate to access)
If you’re like many successful investors, you like to keep it simple. That means saving consistently in low-cost, straightforward investments like index funds. We get it. We pioneered index investing for individuals. Simplicity, transparency, and low fees are core to who we are. And we’re constantly looking for ways to build on those values.
That’s why we’re making a change.
We’re lowering costs for more than 1 million current index fund investors and giving new investors one more reason to choose Vanguard. To do that, we’re dropping the minimum investment for Admiral™ Shares on 38 index funds.
Our Admiral Shares were previously available to investors with over $10,000 per fund. Now you’ll only need $3,000 to take advantage of the low expense ratios Admiral Shares offer. In turn, we’re eliminating higher-cost Investor Shares of those same index funds for individual investors.*
What this means for you
Whether you’re just starting out, adding to your portfolio, or catching up, this change can help you:
Reach your goals faster. Lower expense ratios mean more of your returns stay in your account, so it can grow faster. For example, $50,000 invested in Investor Shares might cost an average of $90 per year versus $55 per year in Admiral Shares. A $35 difference might not sound like much. But when it’s compounded over 10 years, it can add over $600 to your bottom line.**
Diversify your portfolio. When choosing how to allocate your money, you’ll have more flexibility to diversify. For example, if you have $10,000 to invest, you can still put it in a single index fund. Or you can split it up into 3 different index funds and get the same low-cost benefits.
If you currently own Investor Shares of any affected funds, you don’t have to do anything. We’ll convert them to Admiral Shares over the next year. Or you can immediately and easily convert your shares using our online process.
Already own Admiral Shares? The change doesn’t affect your current investments. But if you choose to purchase a new fund in the future, you don’t need $10,000 to get the same low expense ratio you’re used to. And you can be sure we’ll continue to look for the best ways to lower costs and help you meet your investment goals.
On a mission to give investors the best chance for success
Vanguard’s story begins with low costs but it doesn’t end there. Vanguard is built for investors. As a client-owned† firm, everything we do is because we care about our clients, want them to succeed, and have no competing loyalties.
This change is one more way we’re looking out for investors. It will allow us to deliver an estimated $71.2 million in savings to clients.††
“No other firm in the industry has demonstrated Vanguard’s track record of delivering cost savings and value to its clients,” said Vanguard CEO Tim Buckley. “Our unique, client-owned structure enables us to consistently pass along economies of scale and lower the cost of investing for our clients, so they keep more of their returns.”
See which index funds now offer $3,000 minimum investments for Admiral Shares
*Investor Shares will still be used in certain situations, such as in retirement plans and fund-of-funds investments.
**Vanguard Investor Shares average expense ratio: 0.18%. Vanguard Admiral Shares average expense ratio: 0.11%. All averages are asset-weighted. Source: Vanguard, as of December 31, 2017. This hypothetical example assumes a $50,000 investment held for 10 years, with an average return of 6%. It doesn’t represent any particular investment. Your actual savings could be higher or lower. The rate is not guaranteed.
†Vanguard is client-owned. As a client-owner, you own the funds that own Vanguard.
††Estimated savings for the identified funds is the difference between the Investor and Admiral expense ratios multiplied by eligible average assets under management (AUM). Eligible average AUM is based on the daily average assets over the past 12 months (November 2017 to October 2018).

I think the same is true for divorce and remarriage; with each expiring "contract" the price goes up. I still contango with my original spouse, so I have no direct experience with divorce nor any standing on the issue.
Our physical gold has lost half its value since we were given it six years ago. I sold our commodities ETF at a profit last year, but have no inkling to get back in. No doubt prices are low, but so are EM stocks and other "sure bets."

Arnott's funds are FoFs and seem to be a place for PIMCO to get more AUM for its various funds.
Arnott had a 20% short S&P position in PAUIX (one of his big popular alt funds) and held it for *years* during the 'bull' market post-'09. Why? His 'model' said to hold it in the fund. Yes, you could have held the sister fund that didn't have the short position but that was very telling that he was so beholden to his quant models that he could't change with the times.
I held PAUIX for a while in the mid-00s but sold out of it early during the GFC recovery. TL;DR I am not a huge Arnott fan.

Commodities? Folks have waited for that day for at least twenty years. Even within commodities, the separate classes have been cyclical. While I own a bit of a gold ETF for pure hedging (and it hasn't worked all that well, either), paying a ridiculous fee to own futures contracts seems a loser's game.

I chuckled reading this. The fund description is "a disciplined and contrarian approach" supported by "robust research". If you had held this fund for the last five years, your return would have been zero, all the while paying Mr. Arnott and PIMCO a 2.74% management fee every year. Another case of alternative strategies not panning out, but milking investors with high fees.

FYI: Lately, commodities have performed so poorly investors would be forgiven for thinking people no longer need anything to eat, drink, or fuel their cars—just iPhones and subscriptions to Amazon Prime. In the past five years, the average commodity mutual fund has lost 8% a year, while the S&P 500 has gained 10%.
Worse, even when commodity prices have gone up, most commodity funds have failed to fully capture those gains. A phenomenon known as “contango” has been a drag on fund performance. Investors rarely buy commodities directly, instead favoring futures contracts, which are derivatives with expiration dates. Contango occurs when a commodity future’s price is above the current or spot price, so that every time a contract expires, investors must pay more for a new one.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/if-commodities-day-has-come-this-fund-should-be-a-winner-1543496400?refsec=funds
M* Snapshot JCRAX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/JCRAX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot JCRAX:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/jcrax
JCRAX Is Unranked In The (CBB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/jcrax

That is a great point @Old_Joe for anyone who is not watching the cash in their brokerage portfolio. The adviser I work with at Schwab pointed out to me a couple years ago that I should keep cash in their money market option instead of the sweep. At that time MM accounts weren't paying much more than the sweep account, but it was great advise because they sure are now. I believe Schwab's MM is over 2% now where the sweep is in the .2-.3% range. When you need the cash to make a fund or stock buy it's a quick click on the computer to move it back to the sweep.

How can a strategy said to be market neutral plunge 13-15% YTD?

It’s been an especially rocky and nasty year for most hedge-type funds. In fact, they haven’t done well for many years. And the big hedge funds have experienced huge outflows this year. I don’t pretend to understand it. But there might be more at work here than simply “stupid managers.” High fees for sure. But, possibly, “insane” markets as well based on unsustainable increases in a few large indexes (ie - the elephant chasing his tail).
-
Edit: A couple added late-night thoughts:
- Some hedge funds (including so called market neutral funds) may be betting on an eventual break in the unusually strong Dollar. This might involve holding gold or EM bonds - both of which have slumped sharply since the beginning of the year (explaining some of their dismal showing). The reasoning behind this is that the Fed will “blink” after U.S. equity markets have turned down and stop raising rates. I think they’re right in that assumption - but it’s hard to say when that will happen. BTW - Ray Dalio of Bridgewater is one hedge fund manager who is hedging with gold.
- I think the term hedge fund as a style makes more sense than market neutral. If you want a truly “market neutral” approach - go 100% cash. Excepting that extreme, don’t know how you can remain truly neutral.