Only reasons I can think of are (1) reduce volatility and have money to invest if valuations dip and (2) you don’t think bonds are attractive due to the low rates and fact they don’t do well in rising rate environments. Personally, i still pay for housing, transportation, food, medical etc with cash, so think having some on hand useful instead of having to sell equities often to meet those anticipated needs. Rather than holding 3 years of expected future expenses in a cash reserve, as @BobC and others have recommended in the past, I simply draw from the invested cash (no emergency reserve) - probably one reason the % looks high,
BTW - Some prominent investors do hold cash. Their reasons may be different and their amounts are more than I ever dream of. https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/11/07/warren-buffetts-109-billion-cash-problem-how-much.aspx
Warmest regards @Ted and @davidmoran

The sad fact(s) that affect a company as Amazon and now related tech. sector companies, which of course, affects one's investments in a variety of equity holding types; is that this country has a physical sized adult, with child like behaviors presenting daily distractions in an attempt to misdirect attentions.
While I find this behavior fully disgusting, regardless of political party affiliation; I remain optimistic, as to positive outcomes for the majority of tech. related. There may be other forces that come into play for the financial markets in general, and tech. may flat line for a period; but I don't believe the majority of large tech. to be in the same boat as during the dot.com bubble. Today's companies have real business models with real earnings. Were techs. overpriced? Perhaps.
Regardless of the recent sell down in tech.; I suspect the major trading houses also have a forward positive view for large tech.
I have money in the game, too; as with all here.
Aside from whatever else worries the POTUS at this time; envy of the monetary worth of others may likely also cause him to be "plain angry" for no good real reason; aside from pure ENVY.
Lastly, to all of our investments being affected by machinations from DC-land; I have wondered whether a message has been delivered by whatever method, from a Chinese official, as to: "This tariff thing is dangerous, agreed? If necessary, we can always purchase the proper futures contracts for Treasury bonds, and begin to unload our U.S. Treasury holdings. We've already made money from holding these issues over the years and will make more money on the sell side, too."
Let us discover what comes from upcoming announcements regarding tariffs upon what products. Maybe we're inside of a virtual game, in an alternate universe, of the "Apprentice" and don't realize, eh?
I am reminded of the movie, "War Games" and the computer, WOPR; asking, "Do you want to play a game?"
We remain living in dangerous times, eh?
I've chores to get started and finished.
Take care of yourselves,
Catch

Hi, Elie.
I was invested in Artisan Small Cap Value, virtually from the day it launched until the day it merged into Mid Cap Value. Many good years, some bad ones but I tend to stick with managers through thick and thin. (A recent Morningstar study looking at funds with great 15 year records concludes that many will trail their peers for 12 or 13 of those years.)
I don't know what the Artisan folks are up to. That's not a slight on them, it's just a report that we haven't talked. In general, I'm told that the senior Artisan partners had an equity stake in the firm and that stake became exceedingly valuable when the firm went public. One number bandied about, but not verified, from one of the most senior folks was $100 million.
Mr. Satterwhite left in 2016 after 32 years in the investment industry and 19 years at Artisan. He is, I believe, 60. I could easily imagine someone in those circumstances deciding that it was time to move to life's next adventure, whether as entrepreneur, philanthropist or vacationer.
For what that's worth,
David

Hi Guys,
Diversification is one solid foundation when making asset allocation decisions. Diversification is a winning strategy, but too much diversification can do harm. That harm is captured when diversification increases portfolio volatility as measured by an increase in return standard deviation.
Here is a Link to an article that approximately defines net long term geometric return as average annual return minus standard deviation squared divided by two:
https://www.kitces.com/blog/volatility-drag-variance-drain-mean-arithmetic-vs-geometric-average-investment-returns/
I am not comfortable with an even split allocation because of that subtraction component of the equation. International returns seem to be highly volatile with both huge up years and down years.
That's my primary reason why I limit my portfolio's international exposure to 20 to 30% of its total value. All this is approximate so I am typically not in a considerable rush to make adjustments.
The costs of many adjustments usually operates to reduce long term performance. But that just might be lazy me. Everyone has their own plan and how to operate it that puts themselves in their comfort zone. That's what makes markets work.
Best Regards to all

Well, I can’t argue with the premise that if you’re in the market for a LONG period, B&H has worked and should (we hope) continue to work.
The author says that “… a buy and hold strategy will put me ahead.”
Ahead? That’s it? Ahead?
Roughly 70% of the money that I earned in the stock market came from trading.
I don’t suggest that people should trade. It’s just that I think that these articles
are intended to make you feel less like a dope when the market is crashing and sucking away a sizeable amount of your hard-earned money.
Sure, if you have 20 or more years before you retire, you can watch as the bottom falls out and plan on buying at a lower price point – sometime in the future.
But if you’re 50 or more, you must be aware of the sequence of returns.
If you’re nearing or in retirement, and you don’t have a healthy fear of losing money, then you’re open to losing your money and kissing a secure retirement goodbye.
If you lose money when you’re 60, you haven’t merely lost money; you’ve lost
your edge – edge being your money’s time value, which is all the income that your lost money could have generated.
When retirement is in sight, you’ve entered a new investment challenge. That challenge is the preservation of your money. So it’s primarily an age thing.
Sequence of returns
https://www.thebalance.com/how-sequence-risk-affects-your-retirement-money-2388672
http://abovethecanopy.us/sequence-of-returns-biggest-risk-to-a-successful-retirement/
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sequence-risk.asp

I never understood why 403(b) plans were offered to non-profits when 401(k) plans were the preferred offering in the private sector.

I never understood why employer-sponsored health plans were offered in the US when government-sponsored health plans were the preferred offering globally.
Same reason - historical accident.
403(b)'s history goes back about 3/4 of a century before the advent of 401(k)'s - to Andrew Carnegie, who created the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, with the an objective "to remedy the disparity between the great value conferred on society by higher education faculty and the miserly financial benefit society gave faculty in return." The focus was on providing pensions for educators.
This led to the Carnegie Foundation creating TIAA using annuities as the best way to provide pensions. It required no employee contribution for many years. As TIAA grew larger, that became unsustainable. TIAA was spun off, and employee contributions were added. As market returns became more important post WW2, TIAA created CREF. Finally, in 1958, Congress enacted legislation covering these plans. Thus 403(b).
401(k)'s come from the private sector, where gold watches and pensions were unfunded gratuities that employees couldn't count on. (See Studebaker, 1963.) While the Studebaker failure was the impetus for ERISA, the private sector had had CODAs (deferred compensation plans - cash or deferred arrangements) for decades, and these led to 401(k) plans.
While 403(b)s and 401(k)s are much more similar than they were in the past, they have different histories and different quirks.
Regarding the story linked to by Bee, what it doesn't say is that the company used, Aspire, charges participants $40/year and skims 15 basis points off their investments, which add their own ERs. Many of TIAA's 403(b) participants can do a bit better, e.g. VFIAX at 14 basis points, all in.
https://www.aspireonline.com/resources/faqs/-in-category/categories/categories/fees

@bee, what if you has no option in your pension plan other than an annuity? Taking a lump sum is often calculated a reduced value. I still has 10-15 years to go.

If you are participating in a 403(b) plan, ask your plan sponsor if there are 403(b)(7) options. If there are no 403(b)(7) options, you have a right to petition for these options. This usually requires a lot of work (on your part) and a little bit of luck, but is well worth the effort.
403(b)wise is a good source of information on 403(b) plans and has a discussion board where you can post questions. Might be a good place to gather information.
https://403bwise.com/
A Story:
https://403bwise.com/k12/story/129

@bee, what if you has no option in your pension plan other than an annuity? Taking a lump sum is often calculated a reduced value. I still has 10-15 years to go.

Sounds like insurers are pushing their agenda in Washington as they attempt to buy votes for this bill's passage.
I never understood why 403(b) plans were offered to non-profits when 401(k) plans were the preferred offering in the private sector. Insurers carved out their customer base by pushing 403(b) and are now are looking for additional customers.
Good article on the differences:
https://humaninterest.com/blog/403b-compared-to-401k-retirement-plans-for-non-profits/
and,
https://investopedia.com/ask/answers/100314/what-difference-between-401k-plan-and-403b-plan.asp
Most 403(b) investment options are variable annuities that have loads, management fees, sales fees, wrap fees, rider fees, early redemption fees...even rules that limited upside capture of market returns...feh! These TSAs are offered by insurance companies that, like AIG, are not immune to failing.
As a teacher, we fought long and hard to "force" management to offer 403b(7) investment options with low fee firms like Vanguard.
Any annuity (Insurance product) should be competitively priced and closely regulated.
Once you head down the (Annuity 401(k)) rabbit hole its expensive tunneling out.
Alternative:
Invest in low fee funds during your working years, then consider buying an immediate annuity with a portion of your investments to compliments your retirement income. This decision can wait until you are close to retiring and in fact even later into retirement if that makes better financial sense.

Getting back to @Crash and his original post...obviously utilities have "sucked' lately, but PRWCX is "positive on Utes over the next decade"...@Ted long standing call for "QQQ" (which exists) may be replaced with "UUU" (which doesn't exist).
If you have not listen to David Giroux commentary:
https://wealthtrack.com/how-david-giroux-delivers-stock-market-performance-with-much-less-risk/

Yes, I see PG&E and Eversource in PRWCX. The latter is my local electric company. No love there. This is from last December:
https://digboston.com/eversource-screws-mass-consumers/
Also reminds me of how often, all those years ago in my teens, I'd read in the paper that the insurance companies would approach that criminal--- Billy Bulger (not Whitey)--- whose official title was Insurance Commissioner, asking for rate increases year in and year out. Billy always just said, "Sure! Great idea!" Fox in charge of the henhouse. Same with all the federal agencies and regulators.

In large part this is why I left Merrill Lynch. Limited choices in fund families who do not participate in revenue sharing such as Vanguard. I went back to Fidelity where I had been for the five years previous to my moving to ML. I had to sell a number of funds I had at Fido when I went to ML. Since bought some if those back. I like especially how Fido sells many load fund families ntf and load free.

@Crash, my corporate credit card switched to MasterCard after years being with Amex. We travel overseas on business or on personal that we don't pay transaction fee either on Visa and MasterCard. Why use ATMs when you can obtain cash from your debit cards from grocery stores. BOA started to charge fee on ATMs as we consolidated our banking with a local credit union.

I've been in since 2012. Performance vs. peers is just fair to middling over the past 5 years. It looks good indeed, going back TEN years. More recently, it is a "cellar dweller" as we say in baseball. (But not about the Cubs any longer! ;) )

I am at the highest level of bond & cash in recent years. Don't see outstanding upside. More risk today with possible war with John Bolton on board. Remember Dick Cheney? Trade war is another.

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Stock investors have had a terrific 10 years: The Standard & Poor's 500 stock index has rocked along at a 9.73% pace through the end of February. Unfortunately, the taxman takes his toll — more on some than others. How did the 10 largest stock funds shape up after taxes? Here they are, ranked by post-tax returns. Dividends, gains reinvested through Feb. 28.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=1VG7Woz3CKSB5wKBxrm4Bw&q=investment+news++How+The+Taxman+Hit+10+Big+Funds&oq=investment+news++How+The+Taxman+Hit+10+Big+Funds&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2114.9882.0.11336.18.17.0.0.0.0.188.1580.14j3.17.0....0...1c.1j2.64.psy-ab..1.16.1422.0..0j35i39k1j0i131k1.0.zI6KcFOrdf4
1. T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth
2. T. Rowe Price Growth Stock
3. Vanguard PrimeCap
4. Fidelity Contrafund
5. American Funds AMCAP A
6. American Funds Growth Fund of America A
7. Dodge & Cox Stock
8. American Funds Fundamental Investors A
9. American Funds Washington Mutual A
10. American Funds Investment Company of America A

If she wants to eliminate volatility or risk of principle loss with some of her money you may want to talk with her about CDs. I believe they may do better than bond funds "for many years" going forward as you stated. Below I attached a link to Bankrate.com, but I'm sure you can build a ladder within Fidelity also. I know you can at Schwab.
https://www.bankrate.com/landing/cd-rates/?pid=semgdtexactbankrate&ttcid=bankrate|c|kwd-12967706|g|9005663&gclid=Cj0KCQjw-uzVBRDkARIsALkZAdn4hufz7A77qdsYgiOvc9oacUFBCfBqIzzxk2D533ZPnOTKMsgzNYIaAtIXEALw_wcB

Given the terms of the conversion notice and with Pimco A shares at the time not being LW, though, Fidelity customers were right to at least consider adding D shares to accounts in which they wanted A-LW privileges after conversion. In the end, however, with the change to LW across the board, it didn't matter.

Let me offer the thesis that strangely enough it may have mattered, though not for any reason I've seen mentioned.
NTF and lw arrangements come and go. Grandfathering tends to be more enduring.
For example, there was a period of time (around 2000?) when American Century dropped out of NTF programs completely for a few years as I recall. Perhaps even worse, it started adding load classes and (again from vague memory), allowed only existing (grandfathered) investors who had owned shares directly through AC to continue buying the NL class. Somewhat like what Janus has done with its lower cost D shares, which can now be purchased only directly, and only if you have held D shares there forever.
Because if this, I hung onto a minimal position in an AC fund I had purchased directly. I finally sold off my last shares just a couple of years ago. The nuisance cost to me was greater than the value in protecting against the small chance that AC would go the same route again and there would be an AC fund that I really wanted at that future time.
It is theoretically possible that at some time in the future, PIMCO likewise would drop its NTF/LW agreements but still protect those grandfathered accounts. Do I expect this? No, not given PIMCO's history. So I didn't open a PIMCO account to protect against this possibility as I had with AC.
Still, I hold onto a $1K Z-share position in a Mutual Series fund at Franklin Templeton. Even though FT has opened up its A shares to LW purchases, so one doesn't need a back door (grandfathered access) for them any longer.

Many load families, like many noload families, enter into bilateral agreements with individual brokerages to sell a class of funds NTF. For example, LCEAX is available NTF at Fidelity but is sold with a load at TD Ameritrade.. Likewise, the same noload fund may be sold without a fee at one brokerage, but you'll have to pay a fee at another brokerage. For example, HOVLX, NTF at TD Ameritrade, but Fidelity charges a fee.
The best thing you can hope to see in a prospectus or SAI concerning NTF load waivers is just that the fund is allowed to enter into these agreements with brokerages.
For example, Blackrock permits front end load waivers for shares sold through "Financial Intermediaries who have entered into an agreement with the Distributor and have been approved by the Distributor to offer Fund shares to self-directed investment brokerage accounts that may or may not charge a transaction fee".
http://quote.morningstar.com/fund-filing/Prospectus/2017/11/28/t.aspx?t=MDDVX&ft=485BPOS&d=b0560dd20f97785f3e555c63cbc03440 (MDDVX prospectus)
Similarly, PIMCO allows load waivers in its SAIs: "Each Fund may sell its Class A shares at net asset value without a sales charge to ... client accounts of broker-dealers ... with which the Distributor or PIMCO has an agreement for the use of Class A shares ... in particular situations in which the broker-dealer will make Class A shares available for purchase at NAV."
http://quote.morningstar.com/fund-filing/SAI/2018/3/23/t.aspx?t=PONAX&ft=497&d=081d50585090e2443fe13f6a9c05c8c4 (PIMCO SAI)
broker-dealer = financial intermediary
has an agreement = entered into an agreement
particular situations = self-directed brokerage accounts
Sure, nothing required PIMCO to offer A shares load waived at Fidelity or elsewhere. If it hadn't though, it would have been bucking an industry trend by moving from no load to load. That's what the industry was doing 20 years ago (e.g. American Century, Invesco adding loads), not now.
PIMCO was already selling A shares NTF, so this was simply a question of where, not if, A shares would be available NTF. Terminating NTF arrangements with brokerages would have been the bigger change; keeping the funds available NTF maintained the status quo.
Was there no plan at PIMCO, or simply no plan that the rep was at liberty to tell you about?

My own investing history goes back only as far as 2003. 15 years. The bull is long in the tooth. I had figured that uncle Donald's cukoo-nuts pronouncements were the MAIN factor in this topsy-turvy market, currently. Politics, not fundamentals. But the market has been disconnected from fundamentals for quite a while, it must be said. Don't mind me, I'm just typing out loud.

FYI: Real estate funds can play an important role in diversifying a portfolio, because real estate returns tend not to be too highly correlated with either the broader stock market or the bond market. Also, because real estate investment trusts tend to pay healthy dividends, these stocks are often seen as income plays. That has broadened their appeal in recent years, as low interest rates have left many investors seeking income wherever they can find it.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.morningstar.com/articles/857081/our-favorite-domestic-reit-funds.html