Hi @hank: Thank you for your inquiry about Old_Skeet's investment mythology.
Here is the defination of overbought. The term a stock is "overbought" when the stock reaches a point in trading where technical indicators suggest the next price move of the stock will be down. When a stock's price has risen too far, too fast and it is beginning to look expensive to investors, it is overbought.
While I'm not an analyst and just a retail investor much like others on the board I have been working on someting to measures market value. Through my fifty plus years of investing I developed my barometer to aid me in determining better times to add new money to my portfolio. This lead me to develope a market barometer to help measue value in the S&P 500 Index. With this, I came up with three main feeds in my barometer plus some minor feeds. The barometer's three main feeds are a breadth feed, an earnings feed and a technical score feed. These three feeds are scaled and when combined produce a barometric number. The barometric number is then scaled into extremely overbought, overbought, overvalued, fair value, undervalued, oversold, and extremely oversold scalings. When looking for direction I often use the minor feeds to help determine this. A higher barometer reading indicates there is more investment value in the Index over a lower reading. At the first of the year the barometer had a reading of 183 which based upon the barometer metrics indicated the Index was extemely oversold. Presently, the barometer reading of 133 indicates that the Index is extremely overbought. So, in two months the Index has moved from extremely oversold to extremely overbought. Remember, at the end of last year many hedge funds were closing and sold into a vaccum on Christmas Eve. This selling pressure drove stock prices extremely low. Also, the FOMC had been on an interest rate increase campaign plus a number of other market distractors were taking place as well. This selling pressure created an extremely oversold market. As we have now progressed into the new year there has been good investor interest in stocks and their prices have been driven upward through some furrious buying to the point that they are now reaching a buying climax and by the metrics of the barometer become extremely overbought.
As you know (or should know) markets can stay overbought and oversold for extended periods of time. However, for the past couple of weeks I have detected a softening in the money flow. This means, to me, investors have been booking some profit. In addition, there seems to be a good number of companies recently reporting a decline in their earnings and anticipated revenue growth. Will it be enough for the Index to pull back? Perhaps. So, unless there is some news event that would entergize the market and encourage investors to pay up even more for stocks I'm following the barometer reading and looking for a nearterm pullback.
Just because I'm looking for a pullback does not mean that it will take place. But, until I see some higher barometer readings (indicating there is more investment value in the Index) I'm not putting any new money to work at this time. And, since I have no open special investment positions (spiffs) I'm not selling at this time either as the barometer generally drives my purchase and selling of spiffs. If I had any spiffs in play I'd have already closed them.
I hope this helps you have a better understanding of Old_Skeet's investment mythology because my market barometer has help me have a better understaning of stock market movements. With this, I'm posting this for information purposes only. It is not meant (or should not be taken) as investment advice.

Old_Skeet's market barometer finished the week with a reading of 133 indicating that the S&P 500 Index is extremely overbought based upon the metrics of the barometer.

Thanks @Old_Skeet for your discussion of how you are positioned.
- I’m curious what you believe an “overbought” reading for the S&P implies for whatever action(s) one should take? I realize you are not offering investment advice, but it still leaves open the question of what an overbought reading might suggest the investor should do? Some obvious choices are: (1) Ignore the overbought reading and stay put, (2) move some or all of the overbought asset to cash, (3) move some or all of that overbought asset into a different asset - perhaps one having a reading of “underbought”.
- Are your metrics based primarily on valuations or on technicals? Perhaps a 50/50 slice of each?
- While it might be discouraging to be buying into an overbought market, a really long time horizon helps. Had you poured all your $$ into the S&P when it was arguably overbought in the 1997-98 period, I believe you would still be very happy with your return today, some 20 years later. :)
Appreciate any thoughts.

If you compare AUEIX to BRK.B they are pretty close over the six years AUEIX has been in existence. But what's the point? If you want to invest like Warren, invest with Warren. I doubt the investment philosophy will change once even after the dies or retires.There has been little turnover in the top positions at Berkshire in the last ten years and the key people have been there for decades.

FYI: (This is a follow-up article.)
During a time when many investors struggled and lost money, Henry Ellenbogen thrived.
The star stockpicker led the best-performing mutual fund at T. Rowe Price Group Inc. last year. The New Horizons Fund, with a 4.04 percent return, ended up being one of the top funds across the U.S.
Ellenbogen told fund shareholders in his final letter before departing next month that the key to success is identifying a select group of small-cap companies that will achieve 20 percent total annual compounded growth over 10 years. He calls those companies "compounders." Small-cap companies are generally considered those with a market capitalization of between $300 million and $2 billion.
Ellenbogen, a who has worked at Baltimore-based T. Rowe Price (NASDAQ: TROW) since 2001 and managed the New Horizons Fund since 2010, is leaving the company on March 31.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2019/02/22/t-rowes-star-stockpicker-ellenbogen-details-keys.html?ana=yahoo&yptr=yahoo

Buffett lost his edge years ago. In the last 10-15 years, information is quick and available globally so it's much harder to find hidden nuggets. Buffett can still make better deals than most such as: influence management from within, make deals when markets collapse because of his huge assets/cash.

Where to start?
Catch 22: When you don't know much, you have no idea if your broker (or even your financial adviser) is good, when you get better you don't need an adviser.
Brokers are not Fiduciaries. I would not use a FA(financial adviser) Fiduciary either.
Remember, a FA is a jack of all trades master of none. A FA can give advice after just several months of passing 2-3 courses(I did it in 3 months but never practiced). If you need a tax advice use a CPA. If you want to set up a will, power of Attorney, a trust you want an attorney. Think how many years it took to become a CPA or an attorney.
One of the most important myth for a FA is to put their clients' interest first but if they do that they will starve. A good FA needs about 2-3 hours to set up a typical client (I can do it under an hour). This setup should be good for several years unless something drastic changed. This means, you should pay a $1000 every several years but the reality is a typical FA wants to have a long-term relationship with you (I'm already married :-) ) so they can charge you based on your portfolio size. Why would I pay someone according to portfolio size and not by the hour or the job? Please run. That's how a CPA works and they are real experts.
Here is an easy way to see why your broker has his interest first, send him an email (because you want to see it in writing) and ask him what is the commission to buy 100 shares of AAPL, 500 shares and 1000 shares. Please report back(Hint: it's only $4.95 regardless at Fidelity + Schwab).
Lastly, if you walk in the street and see a broker please cross the street asap, if you see a FA say hi and keep walking :-)

@MFS and @Old_Joe: Thanks for making comment.
I'm very thankful that my grandparents and parents had the wisdom to become investors many years ago. They we just average working and farming families who decided to put some back from their wages into the stock market. In addition, they sold off some of the family farm land to raise capital for investment purposes. And, as a grandchild I was provided a cut of the land sales which I invested pursuant to their wishes over spending. My first fund was Franklin Income Fund which I still own today.
This early wisdom has now made my life so much easier for me and my family. One of my cousins and I attend the same church that our parents were raised in asked me the other Sunday. He said ... "I know I made more in my working days than you as I was the smarter and made better grades." But, now you seem to have so much more than me. How'd you do it? My answer. The wisdom of our grandparents. Some of us followed it and some did not. I was one of the ones that did. Plus, I live below my means.
Thanks again MFS and Old_Joe for making comment. It is much appreciated.

"But for larger investors, fund families pay for those services out of their own pockets - not from loads. This is common industry practice. In a sense, not only is Skeet getting shares at NAV, but he's getting a kickback in the form of a payment from the fund family to his broker for services."
This is the setup we have at American Funds. Like Skeet, some of their funds have worked very well for us over the years. The ER at American Funds is typically quite low compared to similar competitive funds, so if you can buy at NAV without a load it's a good deal.

@msf thanks for researching this. I have to admit that I'm really not up to speed on how foreign tax credits affect taxes that we pay on the funds. How big an impact would this have on global vs. international fund? Over the past 3 years, global has outperformed international by about 2 points on average annually.

Hi @slick: Interesting that you're invested in UBVSX as this fund, if I remember correctly, was one of the positions that was presented in an advisor advised package of funds for my consideration. Anyway, I did not cut any money off to this firm because what they presented was a fee based program something I've chosen to stay away from. The the other fund that we own in common is FISCX and one that I've held for better than ten years. About a year ago I did cut some money into AOFAX form a net asset transfer from part of my SPECX position as it had grown quite large. I'm thinking AOFAX is another fund that we might also own in common. Just wondering whatelse you have that you are happy with? They might be something I'd be interested in reviewing to see if there is a fit within my own portfolio.

Hi guys: Thank you for your comments and your expression of concern.
However, please know that I am an accredited investor and my account(s) have been with my current broker for better than twenty five years. In my taxable mutual fund account I hold a good number of funds from a number of fund families with the biggest being in American Funds and Franklin/Templeton. I pay nothing directly to my broker to hold all of these funds in this consolidated account as this is covered by the 12b1 fees that the funds pay to the broker. Morningstar estimates my expense ratio on this account at 0.76%. Now for me to hold etf's I'd have to open a fee based account that has a fee associated with it based upon the assets held within this account. Thus, I have elected not to hold etfs. I refer to this as a etf wrap account. It is defined in Investopedia by the following description. "An ETF wrap is an investment portfolio in which an investor, with or without the aid of an investment advisor, invests solely in exchange-traded funds." From my perspective, a portfolio can be comprised of one or more funds.
My self directed ira account is set up much the same way as my taxable account as I pay no direct fees to the broker as it's covered by the 12b1 fees paid to the broker form the mutual fund companies. Like the other account it has an estimated expense ratio of 0.76%.
Because of the size of these accounts I can purchase some funds at nav depending on the fund family and others at discounts to their pop based upon how much I and my family collectively hold with the subject fund family.
Also, know that, I am most happy with my arrangement as I can do nav exchanges from one fund to another (within the same family of funds) through a nav exchange program at no direct expense to me.
So, let's not get hung up on how I buy and what I pay because my situation is most likely much different than yours. That is why is why I suggested you consult the fund's prospectus as how to buy and for purchase discounts, etc.
Thanks again @JoJo26 for your expression of concern. It is much appreciated.
Have a good weekend.
Old_Skeet

I'd encourage you to double check all that.

@Vegomatic: The Annual returns: Stocks, Bonds & Bills: 1928 is excellent information that I have linked dozens of times over the years. Thanks for posting.
REgards,
Ted :)

@MikeW: I have been adding to ARTJX, which I bought after I sold OSMAX which I had for 5 years. I like Kanovich too, I think that much of the old portfolio has been sold if you can judge by the return ytd, my highest international performer so far this year.

Interesting question @Soupkitchen.
I've contemplated it-retirement, but at 65 I haven't pulled the trigger yet. But I have given plenty of thought to when I do. My thought for setting up withdrawals for when I do retire would be to have a cash bucket (MM, CD, maybe a short term bond fund) that held maybe 3 years of expenses needed. The rest of the pot would just be distributed in an overall risk-tolerant portfolio bucket. I've even thought about simplifying everything and just sticking the entire 'investment' bucket in a 60:40 robo (1/2 my savings are in one now and I've been satisfied so far). If done that way, the 2 bucket system, I would be more concerned about total return and not dividend income. But in saying that, it would probably be a good idea to have any income generated from the investment bucket not reinvested but go directly to that cash bucket to lessen the need for replenishment. In my case, the 3 year cash bucket would still need to be replenished periodically when markets are up. Investment income alone would not be enough to keep the cash bucket full.
Thanks for posting the question. I look forward to others responses.

@Soupkitchen: Regarding your portfolio retirement distribution question. I take all my fund distributions in cash and let them settle in the cash area of my portfolio. When I need a distribution I take it form this pool of money with the excess being held for new investment opportunity. My portfolio's income generation is such that I do not have to sell shares to meet retirement withdrawal needs. I ran my parent's portfolios this way and it worked well for them through their lifetimes. Since, I have been retired, for better than five years, this has also worked well, thus far, for me.
My rule of thumb is that I generally take no more than one half of what my five year average annual total return has equalled in dollars. In this way, principal grows over time. And, as my principal grows so does my distribution.

Hi guys: Thank you for your comments and your expression of concern.
However, please know that I am an accredited investor and my account(s) have been with my current broker for better than twenty five years. In my taxable mutual fund account I hold a good number of funds from a number of fund families with the biggest being in American Funds and Franklin/Templeton. I pay nothing directly to my broker to hold all of these funds in this consolidated account as this is covered by the 12b1 fees that the funds pay to the broker. Morningstar estimates my expense ratio on this account at 0.76%. Now for me to hold etf's I'd have to open a fee based account that has a fee associated with it based upon the assets held within this account. Thus, I have elected not to hold etfs. I refer to this as a etf wrap account. It is defined in Investopedia by the following description. "An ETF wrap is an investment portfolio in which an investor, with or without the aid of an investment advisor, invests solely in exchange-traded funds." From my perspective, a portfolio can be comprised of one or more funds.
My self directed ira account is set up much the same way as my taxable account as I pay no direct fees to the broker as it's covered by the 12b1 fees paid to the broker form the mutual fund companies. Like the other account it has an estimated expense ratio of 0.76%.
Because of the size of these accounts I can purchase some funds at nav depending on the fund family and others at discounts to their pop based upon how much I and my family collectively hold with the subject fund family.
Also, know that, I am most happy with my arrangement as I can do nav exchanges from one fund to another (within the same family of funds) through a nav exchange program at no direct expense to me.
So, let's not get hung up on how I buy and what I pay because my situation is most likely much different than yours. That is why I suggested you consult the fund's prospectus as how to buy and for purchase discounts, etc.
Thanks again @JoJo26 for your expression of concern. It is much appreciated.
Have a good weekend.
Old_Skeet

FYI: Charles Shriver earned his college degree in economics and rhetoric, otherwise known as the art of persuasive speaking. You win by “lining up your facts,” says Shriver, who runs about $40 billion across several portfolios at T. Rowe Price .
The facts line up well in Shriver’s case. Both the $4 billion T. Rowe Price Balanced fund (ticker: RPBAX) and the $2 billion T. Rowe Price Personal Strategy Growth fund (TRSGX) beat their respective Morningstar-assigned benchmarks and at least 85% of peer funds over the past three years through January. The more conservative Balanced fund returned 9.4% annually in that span, while the more aggressive Personal Strategy Growth returned 11.4% a year.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/reits-amazon-com-and-other-pockets-of-growth-51550880847?mod=hp_DAY_5

Yes this is a simple portfolio but Maximum drawdown should give an investor an idea of how much they can stand to lose. A lot of people have much less loss tolerance than they imagine probably because they have no idea what to expect. They are surprised and they quit the market losing the recovery.
After 2008 crash which was pretty bad, a 40 stock/60% short term bond portfolio recovered in about 2 years (assuming re-balancing). But that portfolio has a maximum draw down around 20-25%.

I’d be willing to bet that much of TRPs underperformance was due to foreign stocks. TRP allocation funds, in particular, tend to have higher percentages of holdings in foreign stocks than comparable funds. Their bond funds also had a rough year. I’ve invested part of my portfolio (Roth IRA) with TRP for years, and 2018 was its worst year in performance relative to my investments with other firms.

Keep reading ... on down and through ... to you come to the part on ETF Wrap.
Breaking Down Wrap Fee
Wrap fees are generally set up to be a percentage of the assets under management and can cover both retirement and non-retirement assets. The wrap fee is intended to provide payment for all the direct services the customer receives, as well as cover the administrative costs incurred by the investment firm, which tend to be a full-service brokerage or affiliated or unaffiliated broker/dealer firms. One advantage of a wrap fee is that a customer can be assured that a broker isn't trying to excessively churn trades to generate commissions. Wrap fee accounts are expected to more than double to $1.1 trillion in the next five years, according to Tiburon Strategic Advisors.
Wrap Fee Criticisms
Wrap fees can be expensive. They can range from around 0.75% to as high as 3%. And certain actions could incur other fees, such as if a broker for a wrap fee client were to purchase a mutual fund that charges an expense ratio. Such high fees can quickly erode returns. Accordingly, wrap fee arrangements have attracted a greater level of scrutiny from regulators as of late.
Wrap fee programs can have a variety of names, such as asset allocation programs, investment management programs, asset management programs, separately managed accounts and mini-accounts. Whatever the name, such an account can be subject to additional disclosure under Rule 204-3(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. That rule defines a wrap fee as a “program under which any client is charged a specified fee or fees not based directly on transactions in a client’s account for investment advisory services (which may include portfolio management or advice concerning the selection of other advisers) and execution of client transactions.” In December 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission released an Investor Bulletin that provides basic information about wrap fee programs and some questions to consider asking an investment advisor before choosing to open an account in a wrap fee program.
Who Is A Wrap Fee Right For?
Paying a wrap fee can be advantageous for investors who intend to utilize their broker's full line of services. For anyone else, it might be cheaper to pay an investment professional for individual services in an unbundled arrangement.
Compare Popular Online Brokers
Provider
Name
Description
Advertiser Disclosure
Related Terms
ETF Wrap
An ETF wrap is an investment portfolio in which an investor, with or without the aid of an investment advisor, invests solely in exchange-traded funds. more
Fulcrum Fee
A fulcrum fee is a performance-based fee that adjusts up or down based on outperforming or underperforming a benchmark. more
Agency Cross
An agency cross is a transaction in which an investment adviser acts as the broker for both his client and the other party to the transaction. more
Performance Fee
A performance fee is a payment made to an investment manager for generating positive returns. more
Double Dipping
Double dipping is when a broker puts commissioned products into a fee-based account thereby unethically earning money from both sources. more
Soft Commissions
A soft commission, or soft dollars, is a transaction-based payment made by an asset manager to a broker-dealer that is not paid in actual dollars. more