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.

This is not unusual for small company plans. Small companies tend to shift the cost of running the plan onto the participants in the form of higher expense ratios (level loads).
Companies are going to spend a certain amount of money on each employee. That includes overhead (desk space, etc.), salary, and benefits. They can choose to pay higher salaries and have you pay more for your benefits (i.e. your 401(k) plan administration). Or they can choose to pay lower salaries and then they cover the cost of your plan. Similarly, they can provide matching contributions or pay more in salary. And so on.
I'm a bit surprised to see a company simultaneously push the cost of administering the plan onto employees and offer matching contributions. If they have money (budget) for matching, companies usually cover the cost of the plans themselves.
What the company is doing is not all bad. By having the participants pay for the cost of the plan, the company is placing the burden exclusively on those employee who are benefiting from the plan.
The bigger issue is why in 2019 any plan, even one for a small company, costs so much that the employer isn't willing or able to spring for the costs. Raymond James as intermediary might have something to do with it. Hard to tell with so little info.
Here's what American Funds says about its R share classes.
https://www.capitalgroup.com/us/investments/share-class-information/share-class-pricing.html#classr
R-2 shares are designed and priced for when "Plan sponsor [employer] wants all or part of recordkeeping costs [i.e. fee paid to CUNA Mutual] to be covered by plan assets [i.e. ERs of funds as opposed to employer paying]". Until you get to R-4 shares, the participants are paying a load (a 12b-1 fee in excess of 0.25%) to cover some of the plan costs.
P.S. The MMF yielded exactly 0.00% in FY 2015, 2016, and 2017. It achieved that non-negative performance only because it waived some fees for those years. With rates on the way back down, don't expect much better going forward.
MMF Prospectus.

@bee, you mention that the new portfolio 'max recovery time' was about 3 years. Was that the great recession period? I'm wondering because the REIT you are putting in your "income" bucket, which I believe you would be withdrawing from while the market recovered, also went down in the -40% range during that time and also took 3 years to recover. I guess I'm just surprised a REIT, which can be just as volatile as equities, would be in the bucket you use to wait out those 3 years. And why wouldn't some percentage of that bucket be cash (MM, CD)?
I'm setting up similar to what you are doing, a 3 1/2 year withdrawal bucket, so I like hearing your ideas.

I am over 50 - Motley Fool said I could contribute $ 6000 plus $ 1000 for a total of $ 7000. because I am over 50 years old.
Fido said NO. Anybody else have any comments or knowledge of the subject.
Thank You

“ I am presently at 5 institutions which I will reduce to 4 by Spring 2020 and 3 by summer 2020 “
Great stuff @bee. I’m a dozen years beyond you in age and facing the same challenges. I went from 5 institutions to 4 a year ago - vacating Oakmark. Tough getting it down further anytime soon. I view both Permanent Portfolio Funds and Invesco as “one-trick ponies” at this point. The first for PRPFX and the second for its gold fund. The bulk, however, is at D&C and TRP - both of which I regard highly.
bee - You incentivized me to count mine: I have 14 funds (which includes 2 ultra-shorts). I find that number quite manageable. (If I counted correctly, you listed 16, including VHT.)
My allocation :
Balanced: 25% (3 funds)
Alternative: 25% (3 funds)
Diversified Income: 25% (2 funds)
Cash (Ultra-short / Short-term): 15% (3 funds)
Real Assets: 10% (3 funds)
PS - As noted recently, thinking about this allocation is a good way to fall asleep. :)

As part of my end of the year portfolio review I try to simplify my holdings without compromising performance. I am 60 years old and have a pension, but no Social Security (SS's WEP provision eliminated SS for me). I see the next 20 years as a time to spend a little bit of what I have saved knowing full well that, if I am lucky enough to live into my eighties, spending priorities will begin to shift away from "foot loose and fancy free" to "foot wear that's loose and free".
Simplification comes in two forms. One, I am attempting to simplify what I hold (the number of funds) and two, where I hold these funds (the number of institutions where I hold the funds). I manage all of my investments independent of advisors. I do attempt to seek out mutual funds that are managed. So, in a sense, I do pay for investment management advice as a function of the Expense Ratio (ER) of the funds i own that have fund managers or management teams.
Over the next 20 years my withdrawal from these investments need to fund:
- Yearly Income gaps - the yearly shortfall when I subtract my projected yearly expenses from my retirement income.
- One time Expenses - For gift costs (weddings, tuition, holidays), travel costs, medical procedures costs (not covered by insurances), large one time item costs (a car, boat, real estate)
- Roth Conversions up to the 12% tax bracket limit (25% of my retirement accounts are in deferred taxable IRA, 75% in Roth/HSA).
- Help fund retirement needs beyond 80 such as income gaps as a result of inflation, out of pocket health care costs, funeral expenses, providing for surviving spouse, and gifting to beneficiaries (Spouse, Kids, Charities)...oh yeah, and loose fitting shoes.
Here are my present holding by percentages of total:
71% Moderate to Aggressive positions (for long term growth and periodic withdrawals)
PRWCX - 22% (half Roth, half SD IRA)
PRGSX - 10.5% (Roth)
PRMTX - 7.5% (Roth)
PRHSX - 4% (SD IRA)
VMVFX - 6% (Roth)
VHCOX / POAGX-11% (Roth)
VHT - 2% (Roth)
FSMEX - 4% (Roth)
FSRPX - 4% (Roth)
6% Balance position (to cover Long term HC costs)
BRUFX - (HSA)
23% Conservative positions (to cover sequence of return withdrawals, to provide cash for buying opportunities, lower portfolio volatility)
FRIFX, VWINX, PTIAX, VFISX, PRWBX, SPRXX - (mostly Roth)
I am presently at 5 institutions which I will reduce to 4 by Spring 2020 and 3 by summer 2020
Recently, I back tested a portfolio consisting of PRWCX (34%), PRMTX (33%) and PRHSX (33%) which I consider moderately aggressive.
Its past 20 year performance had a MAXXDD recovery period of 3 years. I consider this a reasonable time frame to cover a sequence of return risk withdrawal.
Having at least 3 years of retirement income money earmarked for these future time frames (market pull backs and recoveries) seems reasonable to me. A combination of FRIFX / VWINX / PTIAX / ST Bonds are my choices for this part of my portfolio.
Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated.

Recently accepted a job with a new employer who offers a matching 401k plan. Employer has around 15 to 20 eligible employees. It's been 22 years since I've had access to a 401k plan. Below are the offerings. I've included the corresponding class A shares for each fund which are not available to plan participants. The disparity in expense ratios is staggering in most cases. I'm not going to turn down free money, but I'll only contribute enough to maximize the company match. The plan's adviser from Raymond James stated that changes are being discussed. Sounds like Target Date Funds are among the discussion and hopefully some Index funds, but I fear what the ER for those funds would end up looking like given this lineup. The plan is through Cuna Mutual, whoever they are. I gathered the ER from M*.
Bonds
AMF High-Inc R2 RITBX 1.45 AHITX .73
AMF Bond Fund of Amer R2 RBFBX 1.36 ABNDX .60
AMF Interm Bd Fd of Amer R2 RBOBX 1.35 AIBAX .64
Large Cap Stocks
AMF Washington Mutual R2 RWMBX 1.37 AWSHX .59
Calamos Growth C CVGCX 2.04 CVGRX 1.29
Victory Diversified Stock R GRINX 1.34 SRVEX 1.05
International Stocks
AMF Capital World Gr & Inc R2 RWIBX 1.55 CWGIX .76
AMF Europacific Growth R2 RERBX 1.59 AEPGX .83
AMF Smallcap World R2 RSLBX 1.78 SMCWX 1.08
Asset Allocation
AMF Balanced R2 RBABX 1.48 ABALX .57
AMF Capital Income Bldr R2 RIRBX 1.39 CAIBX .58
Calamos Growth & Income C CVTCX 1.85 CVTRX 1.10
Money Market
AMF US Government MMkt R2 RABXX 1.41 AFAXX .38

From the linked web site:
"MoneyCheck is a fast-growing online publication launched in 2018 with the aim of covering personal finance and investment news.

Our goal is to simplify and explain in clear language, what can be a confusing jumble of terms and concepts. We hope to provide clear, unbiased facts so people can make up their own mind about important financial decisions."
Being curious and using same to gather knowledge about investments; I'll periodically "bite" at a title that pronounces "Complete Guide". One never knows about a new and undiscovered individual who may actually be qualified in a subject area; and with the rare gift of presenting subject information in a clear and defined manner. When such articles are discovered here and elsewhere, at a minimum, I pass these along to friends and family to help provide for continuing financial educational purposes.
BUT, I'm not quite sure what is going on with this "financial" write. Complete isn't a qualifying word with this. Periodically, one discovers some common terms for a U.S. marketplace, such as; CD's, 401k/403b, etf tickers, etc. As Mr. Oliver is an online media company owner, it is not clear whether he or a contributor wrote this article; nor to what are his or others qualifications to discuss some of the information provided. Or whether any number of the publications are for the sake of only generating revenue from site hits and clicks to other pages. While there is some valid info in the article, I don't find "complete" and if there is a click link to another page; I won't be traveling there.
A few of the head scratchers for me, from the article:
--- You might already own a 401(k) or IRA through your employer. However, you’ll only gain access to this cash when you turn 59.5-years old. If you have to draw down on your account before this date, you’ll end up paying penalties and fees on any money you withdraw.
>>> Well, yes and no. Ready cash for immediate needs = yes; as loans may be available from a 401k.
--- Visit your bank and open a Certificate of Deposit (CD) instead. Banks are always looking for more capital. By taking a CD with a bank, you agree to pay them a fixed amount every month in return for interest on your money.
>>> I must be out of the loop of knowledge for CD's as I don't know what, "agree to pay them a fixed amount every month", means.
--- Bonds are another attractive savings vehicle for long-term growth. Bonds couple interest earnings to the Federal Funds Rate, and you earn coupon payments on your principal investment. However, while relationships are a stable and liquid investment, they don’t offer much in the way of returns. At the moment, you can expect a yield of 1.75%, and if interest rates drop, then your profits do as well.
>>> Huh ???....." and if interest rates drop, then your profits do as well." Well, I think I know what he is trying to portray; but this would confuse the hell for most folks as to the relationship between bond yield movements and pricing to cause a profit or not.
Apparently, the writer hasn't kept up with U.S. bond funds returns for 2019, YTD.
--- Oliver Dale is Editor-in-Chief of MoneyCheck and founder of Kooc Media Ltd, A UK-Based Online Publishing company. A Technology Entrepreneur with over 15 years of professional experience in Investing and UK Business.His writing has been quoted by Nasdaq, Dow Jones, Investopedia, The New Yorker, Forbes, Techcrunch & More.He built Money Check to bring the highest level of education about personal finance to the general public with clear and unbiased reporting.[email protected]

--- Oliver Dale is Editor-in-Chief of GardenBeast and founder of Kooc Media Ltd, A UK-Based Online Publishing company. He has had a love of gardening for many years now and spends the spring to autumn months working on his own garden where he carries out one large project each year ( this year was decking & patio area ).
Oliver oversees the day to day running of the website & publication of our articles.
IMHO, the article offers a few decent things to think about for some folks (considerations for owning a home), is very confusing in areas noted above and doesn't qualify as Investing 101, and COMPLETE is, well..............NOT even close, eh? Does Mr. Dale or others provide a peer review of the information before publishing?
Not an article I will pass forward to others; and I don't understand why this link/article found its way to this site.
Lastly, I don't plan to visit their GardenBeast site.
My 2 cents worth and Take care,
Catch