Hello,
I've been traveling in Central America the past couple of weeks spending a lot of time in Panama. There is a lot of new construction taking place in Panama with a good bit of the old infrastcture (ferry crossings) being replace with modern suspension bridges. In addition, they are developing a modern day mass transit system which is underground in most of Panama City but will be above ground in other parts. Still, the main economic driver for Panama is the canal. With this, there are those that have (a few) and those that have not (a good number). An example of this is a senior pilot on the canal can make upwards toward (and above) $250,000.00 leaving the average worker and citizen earning much less. Naturally, those working on the canal earn much more than those working elsewhere.
Life can be good for some as our host were of good means. But, for the Panama Indians still living in the interior (where no roads go) life is as it much was many, many years ago. Visited two tribes on our visit and while life is simple for them it is something I'll leave to them to enjoy.
Moving on ... This week Old_Skeet's market barometer finished the week with a reading of 161 indicating that the S&P 500 Index is oversold. With this, I did a little buying in a couple of my hybrid funds (PMAIX & AZNAX) and opened a position in a money market mutal fund (AMAXX) putting a good bit of my demand cash held in one of my accounts into it as its current seven day yield is about 1.5%.
Next week earnings season begins. I'm not sure if stellar earnings will be enough to overshadow the threat of a trade war. However, I am looking for earnings to surprise to the upside. Might give us some temporary relief but until the tariff on imported goods mess is concluded I not looking for much advance in the stock market. Perhaps, by fall this "turd" will have passed.
This past week my three weekly mutual fund leaders came from the growth & income area of my portfolio and were PMAIX, HWIAX & SVAAX (all held in different sleeves).
Closed out my spiffs this past week (consumer discretionary) and moved the other spiff position (emerging markets) sell proceeds into my emerging market fund found in my specialty sleeve. This increases my on going exposure in emerging markets (NEWFX) within my portfolio.
It's good to be back home ... and, thanks for stopping by and reading.
I wish all "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

FYI: Sam Eisenstadt says investors can expect mediocre six-month returns.
Investors should give up any hope that the stock market will hit a new high within the next six months.
That at least is the latest forecast from Sam Eisenstadt, the former research director at Value Line Inc. Though he retired in 2009 after 63 years at that firm, he continues to update and refine a complex econometric model that generates six-month forecasts for the broader U.S. market. That model’s latest projection is that the S&P 500 SPX, -2.19% will be trading at 2,775 on Sep. 30 of this year — more than 3% below its January all-time high.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-guru-who-called-sp-500-gains-sees-no-new-market-high-before-october-2018-04-06/print

What makes Fidelity Total Bond unique to has beaten the Bloomberg Barclays US Aggregate Bond Index by one percentage point annually over the past 10 years?

Talk about lock up of one's money.........my recall is that the investors in the private hedge fund, by contract; can not remove more than 1/8 of their own money each 3 month period. So, one's last monies could not be fully removed until the end of 2 years.
Such a deal, eh???

FYI:(Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
If you’re a fan of active management, there’s ample reason to like the Fidelity Total Bond mutual fund. It’s Gold-rated by Morningstar and has beaten the Bloomberg Barclays US Aggregate Bond Index by one percentage point annually over the past 10 years.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=tDrHWpzTLtHr5gLSyr8w&q=The+Best+Actively+Managed+ETFs&oq=The+Best+Actively+Managed+ETFs&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30k1l2.3128.3128.0.4466.3.2.0.0.0.0.96.96.1.2.0....0...1c.2.64.psy-ab..1.2.200.6..35i39k1.104.Ih422H7_eR4

As I read the comments, I thought did you read David's commentary this month. If you did you have your answer. This month and his commentary for several months going back. It seems obvious that the prospects for 10 years to get back to even is a very good argument for why you leave a chunk money in Money markets and Short term Bonds.
Of course market timing is difficult but losing 50% is also very difficult. Many people who thought they would never sell after the 2009 sold out never got back in or have just recently got back in the market.

For all the preaching about staying 100% invested in stocks, we learned in 2008-2009 that taking a -40% haircut is not for the faint of heart. If only we had "hedged" a bit.
Now its almost 10 years later, and the market has gone on a wicked tear. Pullbacks have been rare. Complacency has set in for many investors. This cycle has already gone on longer than the typical Bull run.
If we were to enter a recession (these things are cyclical), a -30% drawdown would be reasonable. There is an urge to try to time the market....especially after a big, long, Fed fueled melt-up starts sputtering. Volatility has returned. And maybe this is healthy.
The other side of the coin is that "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent". Hey, to all you who can ride the big-boy rollercoaster all day long, hats off to you! Equities do yield the best returns over time. But it can get rough, and we haven't had "rough" in over 9 years. Cycles play out, and this time will not be different.

@Davidmoran,
HA. I don’t want to make it personal. Sorry if I got carried away. Defensive? Maybe.
Please know that I claim no expertise in financial affairs and don’t recommend my approach to others. I simply love following and discussing financial matters, along with science & astronomy, because in those disciplines a given input equals a given outcome. In other words, both disciplines rely on logic and provable facts. Compounding works. Buying low and selling high is demonstrably more profitable than the reverse. Management fees make a difference in the long-run, etc. etc. Contrast that type of intelligent commentary with most of the garbage that gets consumed daily in our media driven society. Thus reason to read the board and share ideas.
Dick Strong and some of his cohorts gave market timing a bad name back in the late 90s. (I dunno how he escaped prison.) And the fund companies than were more or less forced to tighten their regulations to prevent timing. Without going into detail, the practice (timing) can be profitable for a few smart (or shrewd) investors, but “dings” the fund returns for most so invested (a practice sometimes called skimming).
Anyway, my plan - scatterbrained though it is - was designed to keep me from shooting myself in the foot by trading frequently. Just about everybody here, including myself, seems to agree that frequent trading is detrimental to long term returns. That’s why 75% is essentially “locked away” in a diversified core portfolio. Except for annual distributions and rare rebalancing it’s hands off with that portion.
The 25% “Flexible” portion is a concession to my perceived need to be “hands on.” I can’t tell you whether the incremental adjustments to cash/equity holdings based on perceived market risk over the years have worked or not. My guess is it’s probably been a “draw.” I can say that in ‘98 when the tech-bubble burst, bringing down the whole market, and again in late ‘08 / early ‘09 when the last bear market ended I did have a sizable cash stash to put to work. It felt good anyway to be buying low. But maybe I’d been better off if I hadn’t carried the cash/equity equation over the preceding years.
I know your OP was “Why cash?” ... It’s highly liquid for one thing. It doesn’t pose the same downside risk as short selling does. It doesn’t carry the high expenses / fees that using various derivatives would. And most fund companies don’t put restrictions on your ability to move in and out of their cash / cash equivalency accounts - as they do with their other funds. As I said earlier, bonds pose some special risks in this low rate environment that might not ordinarily exist.

I bought a fund of recent vintage, GQGPX which I had to go to TD Ameritrade to buy, it seems they are they only brokers selling it. Ihave called the fund company and Fido to ask that it be on Fidelity's platform, but so far no dice. I was able to buy its sister fund GSIHX which is subadvised by GQG Partners but its only 20% emerging market, not 80% of GPGPX. I had mentioned this new fund before, it is managed by a boutique firm started by Rajiv Jain, former manager of Virtus Emerging Market which he managed for over 10 years with excellent results. Im adding to it until Fido decides to carry it, I would rather only have one broker.

>> Fido Money Market- "FZDXX" is yielding 1.69% at the moment.
Well, study this in some detail -- fn5, fn4 / minimum if applicable, performance details --- it has outperformed (somewhat) 3-month t-bills; 1y as of last week was 1.16%
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/31617H805?type=o-SrchResults
http://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/fundfactsheet/31617H805

I prefer a money market to short-term bond funds because right now FZDXX is at 1.70%, and each week it will increase a few basis points as long as interest rates continue to go up. And for the near-term, that's the trend.
For those parking funds in Cash for a few weeks or a few months in the interest of market-timing or whatever the reasoning, MMkts are ideal. The odds of a negative return are almost nil (unlike short-term bond funds). I've compared to TRBUX, GILPX, MINT, etc. Money markets are finally giving a small return, and people still think they are yielding close to 0%. That is finally changing.
My next level up is a Floating Rate fund. I own SPFPX .
And then SEMPX (MBS).
Not everybody has the desire to be at 100% equities. After a long bull market, some of us will get cautious. The market is finally showing some volatility after years of smooth sailing thanks to Fed intervention. That intervention has been slowly fading away.
Now we have a "leader" starting a trade war. Perhaps some caution is warranted. But that's just my 2 cents.
I have been buying ITOT this week on dips. But I keep a solid cash stake on hand to buy many, many more ITOT lots this summer on continued dips. If that doesn't happen, I'll be stuck earning close to +2%. A gamble I am comfortable with.

how quickly we leave the conditions set in the OP
not talking about having cash for equity purchases unless you are doing timing, which is a separate discussion
not talking about having cash for nearterm (~n years) needs or indeed emergency stash / buffer
if for sleep-at-night, cool, just realize that and say so

Gosh - Market timing? Don’t know. You can judge. As laid out in some detail in one of Puddenhead’s threads last November, I split my portfolio between a “Core” position (75%) which doesn’t change and a “Flex” position (25%) in which I attempt to correlate my exposure to equities & cash with my perception of market risk at the time. The normal cash range runs from 10% to 20%. Not a perfect system for sure. But that’s the plan I’ve followed for 22 years since retiring and it meets my humble needs. Other than cash or short term bonds, where else would one move to when valuations appear high?
Now - Does that make me a “market timer“? Don’t know. I’ll say that all of my fund companies have strict rules designed to prevent market timing. Some I’ve been with for 30 or more years. None has ever identified me as a market timer or abusive trader. But if I am a timer, where’s your problem? It’s not illegal, unethical or immoral as far as I know. And it strikes me odd that the term would be tossed out in a derogatory fashion on a board where the most popular thread each month is: What are you buying, selling or pondering? Seems like a case of The pot calling the kettle black.
Re: Sleeping well ... I think having a clearly thought out investment plan and adhering to the plan rigorously does go a long way in assuring a good night’s sleep.
Cheers!

This looks like someone trying to reverse engineer what literally two fund families have done into some industry "trend".

This new class is called the D or N share ... There are still a few D shares available but many are closed to new investors

So which is it, are D shares a new share class or a dying share class?
What he's observing is that many years (decades?) ago, Janus closed its funds to direct sales, requiring you to go through brokerages. (That's the opposite of what he wrote: " Many fund families, like Janus Henderson, for example, will offer access to their no-load funds if done directly.") Janus allows only shareholders who already invested directly with them to continue to do so, buying their direct-only D shares.
The article might have been triggered by PIMCO's shuttering of D shares. Those two families are the only ones that come immediately to my mind that offered D shares. One other point about PIMCO - its D shares were not cheaper than its A shares. That's contrary to his statement: " the fund [D/N share] has a lower expense ratio than its A and C share equivalents."
It is true that over the past several years, we've seen many funds offering N shares. Doubleline (DSEEX, DSENX), William Blair (BGFIX ,WBGSX), etc. But these are usually just retail versions of the institutional shares, with extra 12b-1 fees. Not noload versions of load funds.
When Harbor split its funds into two share classes, it raised the min for its existing shares and added "Investor" shares with the old min and an extra 12b-1 fee, e.g. HIINX, HAINX. N shares are not like I (or institutional) shares. They're just vanilla retail shares. The only thing special you might infer from the 'N' designation is that they're more likely to have 12b-1 fees than "Investor" class shares. But that varies from family to family.

Why does anyone here hold or go to cash if truly not needed soon? Many market-timers, seriously?

It helps me sleep at night. In my IRA I can be anywhere from 0% to 100% invested. I just follow a model honed over 3 or so years. I don't even have to run the model every day. Once a week I look and whatever it tells me I do.
It's not about "market timing". That word has gotten such a bad rap, why even use it except in a derogatory way. Let's call it something more intelligent like "tactical allocation".
Why can't I do my own tactical allocation? I can also look at "macro trends", and "market strength" and the crystal ball I keep in my garage.

how quickly we leave the conditions set in the OP
not talking about having cash for equity purchases unless you are doing timing, which is a separate discussion
not talking about having cash for nearterm (~n years) needs or indeed emergency stash / buffer
if for sleep-at-night, cool, just realize that and say so

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