FYI: Investors use calendar years as a period of measurement. How did the market do last year? Most of us view our investment performance “year-to-date” meaning how the investments have changed in value since January 1. Advisors conduct annual (or quarterly) reviews comparing investment returns to benchmarks which are sometimes appropriate but often are not.
Below are two lists of annual returns for a 60/40 portfolio that is hypothetically invested 60% in the S&P 500 Index and 40% in the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index. The author removed the calendar years on purpose. Take a look at the series of returns and try to imagine experiencing them in succession.
Regards,
Ted
http://blairbellecurve.com/calendar-years-are-arbitrary/

Hi @bee: Years back I did at one time own ODMAX but sold it as I aged and got more conserative. Back then, I also owned NEWFX and retained it. Also, back then, my neutral allocation in the growth area of my portfolio was about 25% today it is 15%. In addition, years back I also owned DEMAX. These three funds comprised my emerging markets sleeve. Now, I am down to one emerging market fund NEWFX but thinking of adding DWGAX in the growth & income area of my portfolio in my global equity sleeve as it pays a quarterly dividend.

NEWFX is one of my three holdings found in my global growth sleeve. It has been a long term holding for me and one that I plan to continue to hold for a good number of years to come.

One of my mutual funds (FDSAX) invest about one third of its money in the Dogs of the Dow strategy (ten positions) and the other two thirds (twenty positions) using the same type strategy for picking stocks from the broader market omitting picks form the financial and utility sectors. I have owned this fund for a good number of years and feel it has served me well. It use to reset its portfolio in the fall of each year; but, in recently viewing its holdings I noticed portfolio changes now seem to be made more often.

For buy-and-hold investors, I don’t see the problem with THOPX. I owned it for a while, including its swoon a few years ago, but its returns over 1, 3, 5, 10 years have been excellent. I don’t understand why M* bashes funds like THOPX but continues to tout funds like MWTRX that have had miserable returns in recent years while becoming bloated with assets. Many so-called quality bond funds have gotten killed by rising interest rates and have seemingly done little or nothing to ease the pain for investors. As long as interest rates continue to rise, investors seeking quality apparently would be better served by ultrashort bond funds, money markets or CD ladders.

We have owned THOPX in the distant past and in recent years, missing it's period of poor performance by blind luck. It's performance of late has been outstanding. M* has long questioned the small team at Thompson and has expressed doubts but it's rare for them to issue a "shouldn't buy" warning. Anyone here consider this article actionable? Anyone have a replacement in mind? When I started building my position in THOPX it was because risk free options were yielding near zero. Now the yield here isn't so great compared to the zero risk choices. Something to think about.

Good analysis by several. I like the ultra-short (TRBUX) mentioned above. Use it as a “cash equivalent” (Not all ultra-shorts are managed as well.). Yet, even over the shorter 5 year period, it lags RPSIX by about a point and a half. So, if willing to tolerate a little more volatility, investors would have been better off in RPSIX.
Another income fund I own is DODIX. i’ve long allowed a smaller portion (no greater than 50%) to count as part of my “cash equivalent” holdings. Of course it’s not really cash - but for allocation purposes I’m willing to include it. DODIX has a longer history than TRBUX. So a 10 year comparison is possible. Here RPSIX still wins with a 6.28% return while DODIX netted 5.61%. Again - you need be willing to accept more volatility to reap the additional income with RPSIX.
While I’m not “married” to TRP (borrowing Crash’s words), it’s my single largest fund manager and has 100% of my Traditiinal IRA. So, I’ll stick with the 15% allocation to RPSIX. We’ve known for 10 years that bonds would suffer when the emergency Fed easing slowed or stopped and rates normalized / rose. Nothing too startling here. Yes, the foreign securities have taken a toll on the fund. I thought PRELX a brilliant idea when introduced. Unlike most of their international / EM bond funds, Price does not hedge this one against currency fluxuations. So the strong dollar has really hurt it. I’ve owned it before but doubt I will again.

I’ve owned RPSIX for 15+ years because it seemed like the best option available at TRP and provides a broadly diversified income exposure. This is its worst year I can remember in comparison to comparable funds and it seems to be due to its large stakes in PRCIX (New Income) and foreign/EM bonds. As a result, it has performed poorly as interest rates have risen. So, for the first time ever, I shifted about two-thirds of my holding in RPSIX to other less interest-rate sensitive bonds funds — namely TRBUX (ultra short) and PRFRX (floating rate). When interest rates finally seem to be stabilizing, I will probably move the money back into RPSIX.
In the past, RPSIX’s primary weakness was its 10-20% stake in dividend stocks, which hurt returns in bear markets. However, this year has shown that it’s also vulnerable to rising interest rates.

I’m intrigued myself about the fund’s lackluster performance. But like I said earlier, it’s a hard one to classify. Even Lipper (where I normally look) has it scored 3 (out of 5. Over 5 years it hasn’t even beaten their ultra-short (TRBUX) by a full two points. Go figure.
Exposure to PRFDX (Equity Income Fund) seems to have helped in recent years, so rule that one out as the detractor. All I can think is it might be tilted heavier towards high quality (read “rate-sensitive”) bonds than I had assumed or might prefer.
I think a fund like that ought to be able to hold 20-30% in below investment grade debt (and EM). I’ll guess RPSIX is not that high. Another thought: They probably have a good slug of inflation protected bonds in the mix - and those might have been a drag in recent years.
Don’t have time to search for the credit quality breakdown. If anybody has that for RPSIX please share.

FYI: The early October jolt of stock market volatility seemed to awaken investors briefly from a relative sense of calm and reminded us that pullbacks and downside risk are part of the price to be paid for upside performance.
Despite just about every investing fear imaginable, any long-term snapshot of stock market performance will illustrate a persistent bias toward positive performance. Whether looking back 10, 50, 100 years or more, the basic economics of investing in a broad range of publicly traded companies is difficult to deny.
On the subject of whether more market shake-ups are ahead, most financial advisers are rightly positioning the possible impact of the midterm elections along the lines of: "We're long-term investors" or "We don't have a crystal ball."
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=pDfLW_bhBaOVjwTJrbTABw&q=Investors,+don't+lose+sleep+over+the+midterm+elections&btnK=Google+Search&oq=Investors,+don't+lose+sleep+over+the+midterm+elections&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3030.6789..8754...0.0..0.131.233.2j1......0....1j2..gws-wiz.....0..33i299.2_tpbvoSjLQ

Here's a piece on one of John Hancock's plans. It has a 1.69% plan fee - which might be paid by the employer, the employee, or split. If the employee pays that fee or part of it, it could make the fund expense look higher. The example in the article takes a 0.18% underlying fee expense and adds the 1.69% plan fee to come up with a 1.87% fund fee.
https://www.employeefiduciary.com/blog/john-oliver-should-be-upset-his-hancock-401k-fees-are-too-high
The column is a discussion of the Hancock plan John Oliver presented a couple of years ago (and was linked to by MFO, somewhere). Oliver starts talking about the plan around 12:00 in the video:

When things level out intend to buy some more

The problem is, how will you know when it's the time when things level out? It's easy to look back and see it as such.
I added healthcare at the start of this downturn, but it kept going down further, so now I'm not sure if I should hold.
Sold most of my EM, which after almost 2 years, turned out to be much ado about nothing, but at least I didn't lose.

FYI: Ten years after financial markets around the world tumbled toward chaos, they have an anniversary present for you: more stress.
After a gain of nearly 7 percent in the third quarter, October ushered in a rout in the U.S. equity markets. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index plunged 6.7 percent from Oct. 3 to Oct. 11, with Asian and European equities following suit. On Oct. 12, the S&P 500 bounced back with a 1.4 percent gain.
The equity market drama comes amid recent violent surges in Treasury yields and rising trade tensions. As earnings season begins, fear is mounting that these forces will cut into corporate profits and sound the death knell for growth stocks. Meanwhile, a strong U.S. dollar and heavy debt loads in many emerging markets, together with the trade turmoil, are leading to lower estimates for global economic expansion.
It’s a challenging period—and an opportunity. The market’s inevitable cycles, however painful, are made for disciplined investors.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-how-to-invest-10k/?srnd=premium

FYI: Gold prices have rallied recently, but the metal’s behavior in recent years makes it a tricky wager for options investors.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/gold-investing-options-1539918983?mod=djem_b_Weekly Feed for Barrons Magazine

FYI: Today is the anniversary of the 1987 stock-market crash, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 22.6%.
Think again. On Oct. 19, 1987 — 31 years ago today — the Dow DJIA, +0.12% plunged 22.6%. It was the worst stock-market crash in U.S. history. An equivalent percentage drop today would cause the Dow to skid more than 5,700 points.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-stock-market-is-overdue-for-a-one-day-5-or-10-plunge-2018-10-18/print

I haven't looked much at Invesco in the last couple of decades. That's when Invesco merged with AIM. That made it the 12th largest family. It's slid a bit since then, though it acquired Powershares (including QQQ) in 2006 and recently acquired Guggenheim.
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/05/business/invesco-to-acquire-aim-for-1.6-billion.html
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/the--powershares--name-is-no-more-39023.html
My recollection is that at the time Invesco had some curious sector funds, such as Invesco Leisure, Invesco Utilities, etc., as well as Invesco Dynamics (mid cap growth). AIM was a load family, focused on momentum growth (think AIM Constellation). Like American Century at the time, Invesco decided to go the load route.
https://www.thestreet.com/story/10004594/1/no-load-no-way-says-invesco.html
Gradually, Invesco merged away some of its quirky funds (while expanding Powershare non-vanilla ETFs), and did away with brand names AIM, Powershares, and Guggenheim.
https://www.invesco.com/pdf/IFPA-FLY-13-E.pdf (for example)
The only Invesco fund that caught my attention in recent years was LCEIX. Generally, the family seemed slightly pricey (though acceptable), with at best somewhat above average performance funds. Invesco was also involved in the 2003 market timing scandal.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/invesco-aim-settle-fund-trading-charges-for-450-mln
Again, this is not a family I've followed much. More like bits and pieces than a cohesive picture.

Ouch - That one affects me. About 10% in Oppenheimer going back 25 years. A flawed outfit for sure, but I use (and like) some of their more exotic specialty finds for certain portfolio needs. My other houses steer clear, for the most part, of these niche funds. Currently I hold through Oppenheimer: a gold fund, an infrastructure fund, and a pretty good Alternatives fund. The last has had a rocky past, but current manager Michelle Borre, has done a nice job with it.
How good a manager is Invesco? Have they proven themselves ethical? Committed to shareholders? Reasonable re fees? Easy to deal with? One nice thing about Oppenheimer has been very low minimums. This allows you to scale into a new fund gradually or spread out a relatively small stake among several different funds. From an operating cost perspective, I’d suspect Invesco will look to increasing those minimums.
Is this likely to produce turnover among fund managers?
Here’s the AUM for each of my 3 funds as Lipper lists them. I’m surprised the infrastructure fund (recently acquired from Macguarie) has such a small amount.
OQGAX (global infrastructure) 23.86 M
OPGSX (gold/pm) 856.4 M
QVOPX (alternatives) 1.21 B
As one of the last standing “active management” types, I fear this news in itself will precipitate additional exodus out of Oppenheimer and in the direction of passive funds, making it even more expensive for Oppenheimer to manage their shrinking base and harder to retain talent.
Anybody here deal with Invesco? Thanks for any thoughts on how the buyout may affect existing investors.

Maybe it will continue to exist in some form. i thought radioshack also filed bankruptcy right? I still see them.

Filing chapter 11 gives Sears breathing room and protection for not being sued for not paying their creditors. They can restructure debt, which means people they owe money will likely get pennies on the dollar or nothing at all. Stock holders will get nothing. Bond holders may or may not get some payment. Assets or the entire company will either be bought by another company or, if they successfully come out of chapter 11 they can issue new stock for those believing Sears can some how reinvent itself minus the debt burden they once had.
I would guess Sears management had the goal over the last couple years of setting itself up for chapter 11 bankruptcy as opposed to chapter 7 where there would be no chance of restructure. It may have looked like management didn't know what they were doing, but their goal likely was not to be a great merchandiser again, but to keep itself in existence under the protection of bankruptcy courts.
Having seen all this take place with Kodak, the likelihood of reinventing itself after all this is slim to none. I wouldn't touch the new stock if issued at the end of this.

Don't be afraid to trade the fund peepz. Maybe they opened it for same reason IVA opened its funds, to avoid selling and get tax hit. Distributions happen once a year. After it distributes this year I will be attempting to bottom fish.
By the way I sold a bit of each of my Artisan holdings last weekend. I try not to do this every day. Think calmly every weekend. Once a staunch holder of Artisan, I have been an Artisan recycler for the past few years. I take profits and run.

Bill Bernstein’s “If you can”. https://www.etf.com/docs/IfYouCan.pdf
Peter schiff had a video years ago, not sure how good it was.