FYI: Global stocks rose Monday, capping a volatile year for markets amid signs of progress in trade negotiations between the U.S. and China.
The Stoxx Europe 600 rose 0.4% in midmorning trade following an upbeat session in Asia. Some markets across the world were closed for the New Year’s Eve holiday. Oil prices also gained while the dollar fell slightly.
On Wall Street, futures pointed to opening gains of 0.9% for the S&P 500. Still, U.S. stocks were on course to record their worst December since 1931.
Over the weekend, President Trump tweeted that he and Chinese President Xi Jinping had recently talked by phone and made “big progress” in trade talks that are due to wrap up on March 1. A team of U.S. trade officials is expected in Beijing the week of Jan. 7 for several days of talks.
Regards,
Ted
WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/global-stocks-rise-to-end-turbulent-2018-11546247179?mod=hp_lead_pos1
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-30/u-s-stock-futures-rally-after-trump-xi-big-progress-phonecall?srnd=premium
MarketWatch:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stock-futures-climb-over-trade-deal-hopes-in-last-session-of-2018-2018-12-31/print
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/dow-jones-futures-stock-market-rally-top-stocks/
Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-lastday/wall-street-may-gain-monday-but-unlikely-to-mute-december-losses-idUSKCN1OU00S
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/31/stock-market-wall-street-stocks-eye-us-china-trade-talks.html
Europe:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-stocks/european-shares-in-tentative-new-years-eve-rise-after-bruising-2018-idUSKCN1OU0C1
Asia: (Most Asian Markets Closed)
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/hong-kong-stocks-rise-in-abbreviated-asian-trading-day-2018-12-30/print
Bonds: (Early Close Bond Market 2:00 EST)
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/31/bond-market-yields-under-pressure-as-market-volatility-continues.html
Currencies:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/28/forex-markets-japanese-yen-swiss-franc-us-china-trade-in-focus.html
Oil:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/31/brent-crude-rises-but-set-for-first-yearly-drop-since-2015.html
Gold:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/31/gold-set-for-first-annual-decline-in-three-years.html
Current Futures:
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

In my family we follow an equitable distribution of family expenses since my income is greater than the wife's. The wife has certain monthly expenses that she covers and the rest fall upon me. If things get to our of whack then I'll ask for some assistance. Notice, I said "ask." And, I don't think I'd be playing the RMD game either. If I need to take the RMD then I take it. And, even if I could push some of it into the next year I'd think on this real hard. Sometimes an IRS audit in one part of the return could lead to an audit of the whole tax return and then into a look back to past years as well. I don't want the IRS to even think that I might be doing something that raises a concern with them and should be looked into.
And, if you have ever been audited by the IRS ... as I have ... then you know where I am coming from with my above comment. It seems if they can't nail you for one thing then they want to keep looking for something else to get you on. My audit covered multiple years. Thank goodness they finally accepted my returns as filed. I'm thinking this might have been in part because I left some gray area deductions, that I might have been entitled to, off the returns.
Simply stated ... You don't want the IRS after you over a few measly bucks.

Ouch! Parnassus has had huge distributions for two years in a row now.

No problem if in an IRA.

I own PRBLX in my IRA as well as taxable accounts. I am keeping the IRA portion, but took advantage of the market correction to make a tax loss sale in the taxable account. I then reinvested the amount in Fidelity’s zero expense total market index fund, which should be much more tax efficient going forward. The bonus is that I can use the losses to offset capital gains from PRBLX’s huge distributions, but I am remaining invested in the markets.

I swear EL bought Sears/KMart for the real estate value and never cared about the demise of the actual stores/brands.
The 2 Sears near me here in Northern VA were dismal, empty, stuffy places for years --I'd only use them for Lands End returns and couldn't wait to get out again.

FYI: This is a special edition of the scorecard that looks at the performance of most prominent mutual funds over the past year. This aims to give readers a snapshot of what mutual funds posted the best and worst performance year-to-date and explain why. The performance is calculated from January 1 to November 30.
Overall, mutual funds experienced another year of carnage in terms of flows. Around $43 billion were withdrawn from mutual funds year-to-date, with equities particularly disliked by investors. Equities had outflows of around $126 billion. Bond mutual funds saw positive flows of $124 billion, while hybrid funds experienced $41 billion in outflows.
The flow picture for 2018 is similar to 2017 and 2016, with strong outflows from equities were offset by bond inflows. However, one difference between 2018 and 2017 is that last year total outflows were positive at $67 billion. 2016 was the worst of the three years, with total outflows standing at $196 billion.
The macroeconomic footprint was driven by several factors. In the second year of the Donald Trump presidency, he delivered on some of his promises and started a trade war with China, although a temporary truce was reached lately. A positive for markets overall were Trump’s tax cuts, which gave a boost to the U.S. GDP.
The Federal Reserve continued to raise interest rates this year but signaled recently it may put the brakes on future rate hikes.
The Eurozone economy slowed down in 2018 after a few strong years, thanks to the support provided by the European Central Bank.
Regards,
Ted
http://mutualfunds.com/news/2018/12/25/mutual-fund-scorecard-annual-edition/

@johnN: Happy New Year !!
Regards,
Ted :(
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/46427/for-investors-an-ugly-three-months-after-10-very-good-years#latest

https://gulfnews.com/business/markets/for-investors-an-ugly-three-months-after-10-very-good-years-1.61074505
Article from Dubai but gives very interesting perspectives
-Many are worried that the best days are in the past — at least for the foreseeable future-

A report of "Harold Evensky’s final presentation on investing."
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2018/09/26/the-investment-world-according-to-harold-evensky
Very straightforward, nothing earth shattering, though several points I've seen elsewhere are included here:
"Evensky cited the Shiller CAPE ratio, which is 31.1 versus its historical average of 16.2. 'It’s a very expensive market,' he said."
Maybe not as expensive as three months ago when this presentation was made, but still far from cheap.
"If a manager cuts turnover from 100% to 50%, the marginal reduction in taxes is negligible, Evensky said. Managers need to be closer to 10% turnover to be thought of as tax-efficient."
Which is why I may fret about Dick Strong-type churning, but don't obsess over "moderate" turnover. Though turning over an entire portfolio within a year still isn't "moderate" from other perspectives.
“'Our clients don’t need cash flow,' Evensky said. 'They need real income.' The problem with dividends is that they are not consistent; interest is also volatile, as bonds are subject to interest rate movements. 'Our clients need reasonably consistent income,' he said".
Hence a focus on total return.
“'we tend, particularly in planning, to focus on the probability but ignore the consequences. That can be really dangerous in planning.' If you know the probably of success is 95%, the consequences of failure still matter, he said. We need to plan, for example, for additional longevity of our clients."
Which is why I continue to be concerned about simulations showing 95% success that don't also tell me how bad the results are in those other 5% (miss by just a little, or spend golden years of poverty?)
Evensky has changed his outlook about annuities, which he once derided as an inappropriate vehicle for his clients. Single-premium immediate annuities (SPIAs) and deferred-income annuities (DIAs) will be the single most important tool in the coming decade, he said, mostly because their fees have come down

Curious to see if anyone owns this fund or their thoughts about this fund? Thanks for any information provided.
Fund website is http://www.tbil.co/
Already contacted the 800 telephone number on the above webpage. Telephone number appears to be to its main offices in Las Vegas, not the transfer agent Mutual Shareholder Services, LLC (http://www.mutualss.com/welcome.aspx ). Other telephone party directed me to contact Mutual Shareholder Services, LLC for an application if I was interested.
Fund investment strategy is:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1679960/000116204418000562/state497201809.htm
Principal Investment Strategies
Under normal market conditions, the Fund primarily invests its net assets (exclusive of proceeds (collateral) received with respect to securities lending, repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase agreement transactions) in U.S. Treasury securities, which include bills, notes, and bonds issued by the U.S. Treasury, that have remaining maturities of three months. The balance of the Fund’s portfolio will consist of a mixture of cash and U.S. Treasury securities, which include bills, notes, and bonds issued by the U.S. Treasury, with remaining maturities of less than three months and remaining maturities of longer than three months. In addition, under normal market conditions, the Fund will hold at least one U.S. Treasury security with a maturity of at least 14 months, as measured at the time of purchase, and the Fund will maintain a portfolio with a dollar weighted average maturity of at least 90 days. The Portfolio manager may adjust the dollar weighted average maturity of the Fund’s portfolio within the stated limit based on current and anticipated changes in interest rates. The foregoing specific maturity lengths are described as measured at the time of purchase. U.S. Treasury securities are backed by the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. Government, which means that the U.S. Government guarantees that the interest and principal will be paid when due. All of the Fund’s assets will be invested in U.S. dollar-denominated securities.
In order to enhance income, the Fund intends to enter into securities lending, repurchase agreement and/or reverse repurchase agreement transactions that provide the Fund with income at either fixed or floating (variable) interest rates and fees. The Fund may lend its portfolio of securities to broker/dealers, institutional investors, institutional investment managers, banks, mutual funds, and insurance and/or reinsurance companies located in one of the member countries of The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”). Securities lending allows the Fund to retain ownership of the securities loaned and, at the same time, earn additional income from fees paid by borrowers. Loans will be made only to parties who have been reviewed and deemed satisfactory by New York Alaska ETF Management LLC, the Fund’s investment adviser (the “Adviser”), pursuant to guidelines adopted by the Board of Trustees (the “Board” or the “Board of Trustees”) of State Funds (the “Trust”), and which provide collateral, which is either (i) 102% cash or (ii) 102%-115% U.S. government securities. The collateral is marked to market daily and, if the value of the existing collateral decreases or the value of the securities lent increases, the borrower will be required to post additional collateral.
The Fund may enter into repurchase agreements and/or reverse repurchase agreements with broker/dealers, institutional investors, institutional investment managers, banks, mutual funds, and insurance and/or reinsurance companies located in one of the member countries of the OECD. Repurchase transactions involve the purchase of securities with an agreement to resell the securities at an agreed-upon price, date and interest payment. Reverse repurchase transactions involve the sale of securities with an agreement to repurchase the securities at an agreed-upon price, date and interest payment and have the characteristics of borrowing. the Fund will invest over 5% of its assets in reverse repurchase agreements in which proceeds (collateral) received with respect to reverse repurchase agreements will include cash, U.S. Treasury securities or debt instruments secured by U.S. Treasury securities. The Fund will earmark or establish a segregated account equal in value to its obligations to hold the aforementioned proceeds (collateral).
A bond’s “maturity” refers to the length of time until the bond’s principal must be paid back. “Dollar weighted average maturity” (“WAM”) is the weighted average amount of time it take for the Fund’s bond portfolio to mature. This means that the higher the Fund’s portfolio’s WAM, the longer it takes for all of the bonds in the portfolio to mature. WAM is calculated by computing the percentage value of each bond instrument in the portfolio. The number of days or months until the bond’s maturity is multiplied by each percentage, and the sum of the subtotals equals the WAM of the bonds in the portfolio.
WAM is not the same thing as “duration.” Duration is an approximate measure of a bond’s price sensitivity to changes in interest rates. If a bond has a duration of six years, for example, its price will rise about 6% if interest rates drop by a percentage point, and its price will fall by about 6% if interest rates rise by a percentage point. For investment purposes, the Fund uses the Macaulay method of calculating duration, named after its creator, Frederick Macaulay. Macaulay duration is the weighted average term to maturity of the cash flows from a bond. The weight of each cash flow is determined by dividing the present value of the cash flow by the price.
The Adviser may, but is not required to, use a securities lending agent to facilitate its securities lending transactions or may itself act as agent, for which the Adviser will receive no separate compensation. The Fund may split fees earned from securities lending with any unaffiliated lending agent, but in no event will the Fund pay more than 15% of the interest or fees earned from securities lending to a securities lending agent who administers the lending program in accordance with guidelines approved by the Board of Trustees.
The Fund seeks to maximize income from securities lending and reverse repurchase agreement transactions through entering into such transactions with counterparties who may reuse the securities obtained through securities lending and/or reverse repurchase agreements with the Fund to collateralize other transactions with different counterparties. Such counterparties may be willing to enter into securities lending and/or reverse repurchase agreement transactions with the Fund on more favorable terms than would otherwise be available.
Under normal market conditions, the Fund will invest not less than 80% of its net assets (exclusive of collateral with respect to securities lending, repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement transactions), plus any borrowings for investment purposes, in U.S. Treasury securities, which include bills, notes, and bonds issued by the U.S. Treasury, that have remaining maturities of three months.
The Fund is not a money market fund and thus does not seek to maintain a stable NAV of $1.00 per share. Additionally, the Fund’s investment strategy will cause the Fund’s portfolio to exceed the dollar weighted average maturity requirements imposed on money market mutual funds. Furthermore, the Fund’s use of reverse repurchase transactions will have a leveraging effect on the Fund’s NAV, which is generally inconsistent with the stable net asset value associated with money market mutual funds. In addition, although the Fund may invest in securities that may be held by money market funds, it is not subject to the regulations applicable to money market funds.

@msf The comment @Junkster made fits my situation well. I receive social security and have a modest but dependable inflation adjusted pension. I also receive somewhat substantial investment income (3.5% of beginning principal balance gets withdrawn each year). My three legged stool can probably remain stable after suffering significantly more investment loss than his two legged stool could. After a "bad" investment year, travelling and other frills may decline for one or perhaps a few years. But, day to day life is not impacted......

Yep ... The FOMC killed my "want and desire" spending this year with their continued rate increase campaign which has dinged the stock market. I was thinking strongly of buying a new vehicle this year to repalce my 2006 Jeep Commander (which still runs great) with 212,000 miles on it. About 60% of these miles are road miles traveling form Charlotte to the Carolina coast frequently. After the market swoon and since it is not worth much as a trade-in but still is a solid, clean and good running, well maintained vehicle I decided to delay this purchase. Plus we have two other vehicles. Instead I have choosen to keep this cash ready to to be deployed back into the stock market (spiff position). This has lead me to believe that spending by others will probally be down as well.
I shopped more online this year because of the savings over retail store prices. In doing this I was able to put more spiff money in family members stockings.
So, I am not surprised to read that consumer spending is down.
And, the FOMC continues it's rate increase march under its head wizard Powell. It's my belief that both uncle Ben and Aunt Janet would have had a better handle on the effects rate increases on the economy especially with the trade tif we are currently in with China. Real estate sales are down, auto sales are down, and now general retail sales are down. I sure wish Janet was still around. From my perspective Powell needs to go. He can wordsmith all he wants; but, the results are not anything like of what he utters.
For me, and through the years, if the stock market does well ... I'll spend. And, if it is decline then so will my spending also be in decline.

FYI: As Christmas shopping comes to an end, companies within the retail and consumer goods industries will be closing shop for the one day of the year. Following a large number of busy shopping sprees, the consumer discretionary and consumer staple sectors have predominantly successful Q4s in previous years. This year has not to been the case.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etfstream.com/news/5727_fall-in-christmas-shoppers-burdens-the-consumer-spending-sectors

Re: TRRIX - The fund lost 18% during 2008. The S&P was off 36.5% that year. Over the past 10 years (including 2008) the fund has averaged in excess of 6% annual. I’d guess that cash and cash-equivalency instruments failed to return even half that much over the same period.
I’m not a momentum investor. Further, I can afford to have 2 or 3 bad years back-to-back without seriously impacting my subsistence / standard of living. What I never hear mentioned here (or anywhere) are the dangers of paper currencies - implicit in their tendancy to self-devalue over the years. Just think about that new car sticker of $3,000 in 1970 (which I referenced above) to get a sense of what happens to virtually all paper currencies over time. Trying to fight that continuous devaluation of paper is the best reason I can think of for charting a long term investment course.
@Junkster is known to be a superb investor. He was so good trading in and out during his day that he was banned by at least one house. Says a lot. :) And I always welcome his contributions here!

This fund has been on my radar for years -- thanks for calling attention to it again. Its holdings are really interesting: mostly megacap consumer goods & technology, with a number of foreign companies & even a high-yield bond or two thrown it. Just wish it had a lower ER... but a great fund.

@Mark
Thank you for the Canada link.
Canada/U.S. border states and U.S. cable companies in those states may provide CBC tv.
Some cable companies in Michigan do provide this feed; and the NEWS feed is readily available on the net. The network has always been a pleasure and of interest for "their" perspective of the neighbors to the south.
Many years ago, before cable was available; we had a 40' tower/rotor with a high gain antenna and first discovered CBC with this when aimed east, towards Toronto.
If one had access to CBC from years ago and enjoyed very good satire/comedy; two wonderful programs were: "Royal Canadian Air Farce" and "This hour has 22 minutes".
A few web sites from about 20 years ago used to exist that were intended for "discussion" between citizens of both countries. The discussions were mostly civil in nature.
From Michigan soil, one may view Canada to the east and north without much difficulty, but there is no direct land connection. If we had too, we could "blow up" a few large bridges and a tunnel to help keep them out. So, basically; Michigan uses a "moat" , being the Great Lakes and narrow channel waterways, for initial protection. 'Course, some of the waterways are very narrow and may be crossed during a very cold winter period. A land invasion into Michigan, from Canada, would take place only after forces had fallen in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio.
I thank our lucky stars at this house that we took the time many years ago to become fluent in our neighbors language. Useful for travel and perhaps for negotiating for something in the future.
Take care,
Catch

I would be on suicide watch if I was down 4.6% YTD (or for that matter 1% or 2%). and I have definitely been around the block a few times.

I appreciate the sentiment. Different situations require different approaches. But I’m wondering if, perhaps, we’ve been around “different blocks” over our lifetimes? I’ve always associated increased risk with increased potential reward. Over my 50 years investing (my “block”, so to speak), I’ve witnessed the following:
A 22.6% one-day drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (1987).
An 86% one-year increase in the NASDAQ (1999).
A 50% decline in the NASDAQ the following year.
A 50% drop in the S&P in fewer than 2 years (2007-‘09).
The “halving” of home values across large portions of the U.S. over just 3 or 4 years (2007-10)
Japan’s Nikkei 225 topping out @ 39,000 (1989) & bottoming @ 7,055 20 years later.
Gasoline at 16-cents a gallon - and at $5.00 a gallon.
The price of gold @ $35 and @ $1600.
A United States prime lending rate of 22% (1983) and 3% (2015)
Mortgage rates as high as 15-20% and as low as 3%.
New full-sized American autos priced at $3,000 (1970) / new pickups priced at $70,000 (today).
The Enron (energy) fiasco, Michael Milken and junk bonds, Richard Strong and mutual funds, and Bernard Madoff with his ponzi scheme.
The Vietnam War, the 9-11 attacks, the impeachment of two Presidents and attempted assassination of two others.
In short, stuff happens. No one should ever put money at risk in the markets that they can’t afford to (or aren’t willing to) lose.

@Old_Skeet
Long held views by some since the forming of the Federal Reserve; involve all forms of control and manipulation to the advantage of a special group of the ultra-rich and all powerful. Beyond any number of conspiracy theories and suggestions; the legal function is described below, although one understands that the institution has morphed over the years as it travels the path of the ever changing financial world. Congressional testimony over the years has found a number of congressional folks plowing along with a "why can't you folks "fix" this or that? The reply is always, this is not our area of responsibility; and that this (whatever) function or change must take place through congressional actions.
--- The U.S. Congress established three key objectives for monetary policy in the Federal Reserve Act: maximizing employment, stabilizing prices, and moderating long-term interest rates. The first two objectives are sometimes referred to as the Federal Reserve's dual mandate.
ADD: Another piece of the puzzle?
The U.S. debt to China is $1.138 trillion as of October 2018. That's 29 percent of the $3.9 trillion in Treasury bills, notes, and bonds held by foreign countries. The rest of the $21 trillion national debt is owned by either the American people or by the U.S. government itself.
China has the greatest amount of U.S. debt held by a foreign country. Japan comes second at $1.018 trillion, followed by Brazil at $314 billion. Ireland holds $287 billion, and the United Kingdom owns $264 billion.
Lastly, one must presume the uttering of POTUS as to his extreme knowledge of just about any subject, without intervention or consul from others. He continues to weave a web into circles of misdirection.

I look at the headline for this thread and then look at its results. -6.43 YTD and a paltry 3.40% annualized the past 5 years. No thanks! But so as not to sound contentious, I fully understand we all play this game from different comfort levels and varied goals. Another thing I have noticed are those who have pensions in retirement see things through an entirely different lens than those of us without a pension.

@Ted: Thanks again for making post about yet another fund (TIBAX) that Old_Skeet just happens to own. I enjoy reading these featured blurbs that you make post of. I have owned this fund for about fifteen years and I have found that it has achieved it's goal to provide a steady stream of increasing income along with some growth of principal through the years since I have owned it. I also like looking through its semi and annual fund reports as they show how the fund's positioning changes, by the quarter, over the past four quarters.
I hold this fund in my global hybrid sleeve which is found in the growth & income area of my portfolio. The two other fund members within this sleeve are CAIBX & TEQIX.
It is funds like these that help me stay the course through the ups and downs of market cycles. Should these funds become cheap enough in the current market swoon I'll be a buyer of their shares.
I like to think that my portfolio is aligned with an income and growth asset allocation of 20% cash, 40% fixed income and 40% equity. For me, this is an all weather asset allocation. I have enough cash to substain myself if the swoon continues and to buy additional shares if and when I feel good opportunity avails. Plus, by staying invested I continue to receive a good income stream and when the market turns upward, there again, I have enoungh equity assets to realize the benefit of the stock market's upward move. I'm strongly thinking of opening an equity spiff (special investment) position soon through a position cost average approach.
In addition, investing is somewhat like farming ... some years are just better than others. In both, you have to plant or invest before you can make harvest.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

FYI: he Thornburg Investment Income Builder fund was launched in late 2002 with a straightforward premise. “We believed that we were going to have an attractive dividend and grow it over time,” says Brian McMahon, one of the fund’s three co-managers, who took part in the launch.
The $14 billion fund (ticker: TIBAX) has been able to stick to that goal by adjusting its allocation to stocks and bonds, in line with the dramatically shifting market conditions over the past 16 years. The fund has grown its dividend at an annual clip of about 4.5%, and added capital appreciation of 3.5% per annum on top of that. The portfolio’s recent trailing 12-month yield was 4.4%.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/an-income-funds-flexible-strategy-pays-dividends-51545390000?refsec=income-investing
M* Snapshot TIBAX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/TIBAX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot TIBAX:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/tibax
TIBAX Ranks #11 In The (WA) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/world-allocation/thornburg-investment-income-builder-fund/tibax