FYI: A decade after target-date funds were damaged during the financial crisis, they have re-emerged bigger than ever as retirement investments. But they still have vulnerabilities.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-weve-learned-about-target-date-funds-10-years-later-11557108540?mod=article_inline

How can there be "long-term" robo data when the concept is only a couple of years old, if that?

@Art- Well, since the funds that you mentioned are only 10% of your portfolio, that gives a much better overall picture. It's reasonable to surmise that the other 90% is invested so as to give you decent diversity. In that case, it seems perfectly reasonable to reduce a number of similar funds to only one or two. I'll leave the specific recommendations on that to the other folks here, who have a better idea of funds which are currently doing a decent job.
We, like Ted, are now disinvested in the general market except for a very small part of our resources. During our accumulation years we primarily used American Funds, and while they certainly have some excellent funds with reasonable ERs, I can't recommend that anyone invest in a load fund in this day and age.
Best of luck!

@ MikeM:From statement below you said,"
Over the last 5 years or so I've simplified my self-managed portfolio to about 8 funds that I feel good about. That's 1/2 the pot. The other 1/2 is in a well diversified robo.
Would you care to let the cat out of the bag, & report which did better for 4/th Qter 2018 ?
I'm thinking I may put some money to work in a robo or directed account.
Thanks for your're time , Derf

Congrats on your coming retirement Art. I'm about there myself, but will probably work part time to ease into retirement.
Over the last 5 years or so I've simplified my self-managed portfolio to about 8 funds that I feel good about. That's 1/2 the pot. The other 1/2 is in a well diversified robo. The 8 self managed funds include equity and fixed income funds. About 20% of that is in 1 balanced fund, PRWCX. I am not a believer in duplicating funds in categories or asset classes but to each their own. I also believe a 1 fund portfolio can be a fine idea coupled with a cash bucket in retirement. That 1 fund would be a target/retirement fund. How simple is that, but I don't think that is what you are looking for.
You, having 7 world/global funds, tells me that you and I have different portfolio building ideas, so I can't offer much help. 1 or 2 of those would be fine in my mind (or none depending on what else you hold). You can't go wrong with TRP (I'd pick PRGSX fwiw), and maybe even holding one of the Grandeur Peek funds might make sense IF they were different enough from TRP.
Good luck to you.

@NumbersGal I have had $'s invested in AKREX for several years. Thanks for the heads up.

Krugman: “What all this tells us is that Republican positioning on economic policy has been in bad faith all these years.”
Nothing new here. Don’t need Paul Krugman to know that. Have already noticed they believe they can “scrounge up” 8.5 bill in unused funds to erect a glorified 18th or 19th century wall - apparently without raising taxes. While same folks can “explain away” food for hungry kids because: “there's no demonstrable evidence“ it helps their performance.
https://www.romper.com/p/trumps-budget-manager-says-feeding-hungry-kids-hasnt-been-proven-to-help-their-performance-45235
(By the way, the fella who did all this explaining has since been promoted.)

This looks at past motives, which appear to have considerable momentum:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/04/opinion/the-sabotage-years.html

FYI: When I was a junior analyst at Sanford Bernstein nearly 25 years ago, our betters drummed into our heads that everything in the investment world went back to normal and that John Templeton was right when he said that the four most expensive words in the English language were “this time it’s different.” Bernstein had a sophisticated computer model that we referred to as the black box; its job was to tell us worker bees the most statistically cheap sectors every month. Like good worker bees, we would more or less automatically buy the stocks in those sectors and sell stocks in the most expensive sectors. The black box minted money for the firm and its clients for decades, precisely because everything did eventually return to normal. Cheap auto stocks appreciated to fair value, expensive tech stocks returned to average, and the investing world was good—safe and predictable. It was indeed dangerous to think “this time it’s different.”
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/reversion-to-the-mean-is-dead-investors-beware-51556912141?mod=past_editions

Junkster

I referenced this symbol back in January 2018 and have been following it since. While impressed with its performance, there is a caveat. It is prone to out of the ordinary daily trading gains. For instance most of its outperformance YTD can be attributed to an outsized daily gain one day in January. It was the same way last year where just a couple trading days contributed to its yearly gain. I worry that could cut both ways and you could see an outsized daily decline. Also, how much longer can the good times continue in securitized credit more specifically non agency rmbs.

The fund has a limited number of holdings because of its current size. So a move in a single security can move the fund’s performance on a daily basis. I would say that more than a few days influenced RCTIX performance last year, and most daily moves in most funds are noise.
In many cases, only a few days account for the performance of many investments.
For example if you missed the 20 best days in the stock market over the past 20 years(1/99-12/18) your annualized return was -.33% vs 5.62%.
Yes, in January they monetized a bond at a significantly higher price than the pricing services were pricing it at. Their investment thesis on the bond was realized faster than they had anticipated, and when they were offered a very attractive price, decided to monetize it.
Also, there's more to securitized credit than just non-agency RMBS. They don’t know how long the good times can last, but relative to other credit sectors such as investment grade or high yield, they think securitized credit and non-agency RMBS can still offer strong relative returns.
Non-agency RMBS won’t produce the returns they have in the past, but today they still offer good yields with capital appreciation opportunities. Housing continues to improve, borrowers continue to pay their mortgages, and loan to values continue to improve. So they think these underlying trends will continue to support the non-Agency RMBS market -- which I noted in my article.
JoJo26

That's what you get with less liquid underlying instruments... Honestly, a daily liquid mutual fund probably isn't the best package to offer a strategy that is largely structured credit.
If the fund gets larger and then subsequently sees large redemptions, it will be difficult to unwind positions without taking severe down marks.

With regards to liquidity, the fund has a 60% investment grade minimum specifically designed to meet the daily liquidity needs of investors. Between cash and Agency mortgage TBA’s over 60% of the fund could be in cash tomorrow.
Additionally, regarding the non-agency RMBS, there is strong demand for this paper, and it can be liquidated quickly as well. The sector has recovered substantially and trades very well.
Investors would be wise to consider fund size with regards to liquidity in non-agency RMBS. Many of the mega funds who would need to liquidate billions of dollars in Non-Agency RMBS would have a much more difficult time than a smaller fund such as RCTIX.
Last, RCTIX invests across the capital structure of the individual securities they own. In many cases, they've invested in the senior tranches of the structure. Also, the fund is not investing in odd lot securities that can be difficult to trade.
I hope that this additional information is helpful. I'm done reporting on the fund and moving on.
Best.

FYI: The “Fastest Two Minutes in Sports” is on Saturday at Churchill Downs in Kentucky. Since the founding of the race and racetrack (in which the company draws its name) in 1875, Churchill Downs Incorporated (CHDN) has branched out to a number of other lines of business including ownership of other race tracks and casinos around the US in addition to online gambling sites. CHDN has been like Secretariat over the last decade, posting a "10-bagger" by rising more than 10x in value since its low in 2009.
So how does the stock perform around "Derby Day" specifically? In the past 20 years, the period leading up to the Kentucky Derby has typically been pretty shaky for the stock with declines in the month and week leading up to the race. Historically, in the month before the derby, CHDN has only risen 28.57% of the time with an average decline of 2.26%. The week before has been slightly better, but still declines over half the time. This year bucked the trend, though, with the stock rising 12.11% over the past month and 6.91% in the past week; similar to 2016.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/interactive/posts/think-big-blog/churchill-downs-chdn-off-to-the-races

this is the second article on tax wash out- it also leaves a lot to be explained but more than the first
The first to benefit was the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund. Investors’ end-of-year tax forms abruptly stopped showing capital gains in 2001
"Top executives at the Malvern, Pennsylvania-based firm don’t want U.S. policymakers looking too closely at how they’re doing it, according to a former insider."
"But a review of financial statements and trading data shows that Vanguard relies substantially on so-called heartbeat trades, which wash away taxes by rapidly pumping stocks in and out of a fund. These controversial transactions are common in exchange-traded funds—a record $98 billion of them took place last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg News—but only Vanguard has used them routinely to also benefit mutual funds."
"Here’s how it works: Vanguard attaches a more tax-efficient ETF to an existing mutual fund. Then the ETF siphons appreciated stocks out of the mutual fund without incurring taxes, often using heartbeat trades. Robert Gordon, who has written about the concept and is president of Twenty-First Securities Corp. in New York, calls it a tax “dialysis machine.”
If I personally did a wash sale I would get wacked. Still don't understand!
"Rapidly pumping money into and out of the exchange-traded portion of the Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund removes taxable gains for the benefit of the mutual fund’s shareholders."
"Rich Powers," ( YOU SLY DOG) "Vanguard’s head of ETF product management, acknowledged the design’s tax advantages. But he said in an interview that they’re not the driver of the company’s strategy and that all of its trading complies with the law."
"Taxable Gains Begone
Unlike competitors that follow similar indexes, Vanguard mutual funds stopped saddling investors with ◼ taxable gains once ETF share classes were added."
"The main benefit of avoiding taxable gains in a mutual fund is tax deferral. Funds distribute their taxable gains to investors, who pay income taxes on them in the same year. By avoiding tax events within the fund, investors get to delay taxes until they sell the fund, which could be years or decades later. It’s akin to a zero-interest loan from the IRS."
"Theoretically, owning stocks through a mutual fund or ETF works the same way. If the fund sells a stock for a profit, the taxable gain shows up on each investor’s end-of-year Form 1099."
"But thanks to an obscure loophole in the tax code, ETFs almost always avoid incurring taxable gains."
Any one else know about this loophole???
"The rule says that a fund can avoid recognizing taxable gains on an appreciated stock if the shares are used to pay off a withdrawing investor. The rule applies to both ETFs and mutual funds, but mutual funds rarely take advantage of it because their investors almost always want cash."
"ETFs use it all the time, because they don’t transact directly with regular investors. Instead, they deal with Wall Street middlemen such as banks and market makers. It’s those firms, not retail investors, that expand the ETF by depositing assets or shrink it by withdrawing. These transactions are usually done with stocks rather than cash. The middlemen, in turn, trade with regular investors who want to buy and sell ETF shares."
What is the charges of fees by the middlemen surely they are not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts??
Does the VANGARD and the middlemen eat all your capital gain?
To me it looks like Vanguard has found a way to feast on your cap gain so you don't have to pay taxes on them. How sweet a deal------ For Vanguard and the MIDDLEMEN!!!
THE DEVILS IN THE DETAILS
QUOTES FROM Bloomberg
JUST MY 2 CENTOVOS!!

@hank According to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission there may be at least one place where there is too much pot.....

Oregon is producing twice as much cannabis as people are using, according to a new study from the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. And Oregon has been overproducing marijuana for a while — leaving more than six years’ worth of supply sitting on shelves and at farms.

https://opb.org/news/article/oregon-cannabis-surplus-2019/

I’m unable to access the article. But the elephant in the room here would appear to be: What’s the rest of the money invested in? For someone heavily allocated to aggressive growth funds, a higher cash level might be appropriate. But, if you’re holding a lot of balanced, diversified income or asset allocation funds, than those already hold some cash (or short term bonds) and so your own cash allocation might not need to be as high. Like so many other questions postulated here, the answer can only be answered in context.
Personally, I target 15% in my static allocation (possibly appropriate for the 70+ crowd). That’s not strictly cash, however. Also includes some short-term bond funds. I’ve considered taking it down to 10% and putting the 5% into something a bit more aggressive like TMSRX at T. Rowe. That fund should pull a couple percent higher than cash over intermediate term (3-5 years) without a whole lot of additional risk from what I can see. But there’s more liquidity with cash. So I’ll let it rest.
While cash isn’t trash, If one can afford even a modicum of fluctuation in value (and dispense with FDIC backing), there are better alternatives.

We’ve currently got about 10% of our total savings in cash right now, the highest in many years. This is due to the relatively high yields of CDs and money markets right now, as well as the low yields for high quality bonds. That, plus we need to make periodic withdrawals in retirement and want to avoid having to sell stocks during potential market downturns.

Thanks @Old_Skeet for the comment.
I think the problem we’ve both identified is that it’s hard to tell whether following is intended to serve as (1) a verb or (2) a participial (a type of modifier derived from a verb).
If #1 is the case, than the action (“following”) could conceivably happen sometime after the EM and domestic U.S. markets had already sustained the initial damage. Perhaps the investor possesses excellent timing and only bought EM stocks after the initial damage had occurred in order to to take full advantage of the anticipated divergence.
However, if #2 is the case, than “following” might serve as an adjective / modifier (part of the participial phrase: “following this diversification.”) The phrase serves to identify specifically which years are being spoken of. In this case the diversification likely occurred before the markets sustained the initial damage and (since it remained in place after the damage) served to smooth out future returns. In either case the investor experienced less volatility than had he / she been only invested in developed markets. However, it seems likely he / she would have come out farther ahead in the first instance.
Minor technical point: If we assume #2 to be the case, than the main verb in the sentence changes and becomes “smooths (out”). And in that case, the sentence technically needs a new subject (which it appears to lack). However, the intended subject is “it”, and it’s quite common in standard usage nowadays to omit the pronoun in this case, as the intended reference to the concept of diversification is easily inferred by the reader.
Ol’Skeet is correct that there are several different places a comma might be inserted. The key thing here is to note that whether the comma is placed after years or after diversification makes a significant difference in how the reader interprets the sentence’s meaning.
* I’ve linked this story before, but it’s worth repeating: The Case of the 10 Million Dollar Comma:
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/a-few-words-about-that-ten-million-dollar-serial-comma

Now ... you folks know I'm not a grammar expert or great wordsmith. However ... I'm thinking ... that the comma needs to go after the word this. And, would read as follows: "But for the next several years following this, diversification smooths out returns and leads to less variation in recovery."
Regardless ... Mitch conveys a great message.
Currently, Old_Skeet owns two emerging market funds. They are NEWFX and DWGAX. I've owned NEWFX for better than ten years and just recently purchased DWGAX within the past year. I plan on keeping both of them as permanent positions for diversification purposes.

A very nice run for the last 10 years ! What will the next 10 years bring for these funds ?
A look see how they performed in 4/th Qter 2018 would have added to the article.
Derf

@Mitch - Makes very good sense. Thank you.
May I suggest that placing a comma after “following“ might avoid possible confusion as to meaning?
“For sharp quick increases and decreases all stock classes are highly correlated and will have large movements together. But for the next several years following, this diversification smooths out returns and lead to less variation in recovery.”
(Another approach might be to place the comma instead after “diversification” - depending where you want the emphasis.)

Also the diversification analysis from the article is not that useful. For all the swift large declines as far as I go back (back to the 1987 crash), everything goes down sharply together (no diversification advantage). However in the subsequent recovery there were big differences in different asset performance. In this case for all 2-3 year periods that include 2008, EM stocks largely outperformed USA stocks (probably largely because China hugely stimulated their economy, while the US was frozen on fiscal policy and Europe raised interest rates before eventually lowering them), and this really helped even steady my own portfolio performance. People need to look at diversification in a more modern context. For sharp quick increases and decreases all stock classes are highly correlated and will have large movements together. But for the next several years following this diversification smooths out returns and lead to less variation in recovery.