I'm bearish over the next 3 years maybe. But damn if i have any guesses for the next year let alone month. I usually follow dash of insight for 3-9 month indicators. And he mainly focuses on whether a 20+% drawdown is expected.

“Tonight, it's all about the Astros for us longtime Houstonians.”
Verlander never performed up to his potential in Detroit following one or two good years. His team only made it to the World Series once in his long tenure in Detroit. Arrogant and overly confident. Sometimes disrespects managers or teammates. Easily looses cool. Watch for a heater down the middle when he’s really p’d off late in the game with runners aboard.
PS: Jerking him after 7 the other night was a very smart move. If your bullpen is deep and rested, Astros might slide by. Me doubts it.
:)

@Maurice: Thank for your imput. Earnings aside, I'm still negative on the sector, XLE for example has been in the red for the last five years.
Regards,
Ted

Maybe I missed it, but does John Bogle discuss what impact stock buybacks have had on equities returns and dividend yields? This is especially important when a company finances these stock buybacks with a bond offering. Do we as investors own the bonds that buyback the stock or the now higher priced stock that now has taken on the debt to service these buybacks? Any then there is the hope of repatriating corporate earning into stock buybacks and it's implication of the markets.
From a Forbes article:

“There has been only one major driving force during the market rise of the past eight years: stock buybacks!”

Link (2017):
stock-buybacks-the-greatest-deception
and,

It’s an incredible thought that the driving force of the bull market in stocks may have been these buybacks. It has important implications for investors.

Link (2013):
why-are-stocks-rising
As we move away from a low interest rate environment and less and less QE, many of these financially engineered strategies could negatively impact future investor returns. Are these issues on the radar of smart guys like Mr. Bogle?
Everyone is hoping for a beautiful unwind as the Fed removes QE while at the same time raises interest rates. Not everyone will have chair when the music stops and the cost of capital returns to normal.

While I enjoy Ms. Morgenson's columns and generally agree with them, they nevertheless tend to resemble hit pieces with the occasional questionable statement or two. Never factually wrong, but laden with innuendo.
She decries the "often hefty costs associated with TIAA funds". Yet elsewhere in the article she she states that "the average asset-weighted expense ratio on TIAA’s mutual funds was 0.32 percent in 2016", and acknowledges that this was "lower than the 0.57 percent mutual fund industry average".
She attempts some jiujitsu by arguing that this is still too high (though not calling the fees "hefty" in this section). Here's how she does that:
:
"Although lower than the 0.57 percent mutual fund industry average, it is more expensive than a low-cost provider like Vanguard, whose average expense ratio was 0.11 percent in 2016."
She gives M* as her data source. Here's what M* had to say:

The asset-weighted average fee of Vanguard’s funds fell to 0.11% from 0.14% during the past three years [2013-2016]. This 21% decline was the largest percentage decline among the largest fund providers, thanks to large flows into Vanguard’s low-priced ETFs and index funds and falling fees in some of Vanguard’s largest funds as the fund company passes improving efficiencies to fundholders. During that period, Vanguard has strengthened its leading position, as its market share rose to 22% from 18%. Vanguard’s 2016 asset-weighted average expense ratio of 0.11% was significantly below that of the second-lowest-cost provider, SPDR State Street, at 0.19%, followed by Dimensional Fund Advisors at 0.36%.

What we glean from this is that (a) you need to look at active/passive mix before chastising a family for high fees or lauding it for low ones, and (b) TIAA's 0.32% is right in line with other low cost families. Is Vanguard the only family that advisors are now allowed to use? Who are these other low cost providers that are like Vanguard?
That's not to say TIAA may not have been taken some dubious actions. Likely enough to take some of the shine off its white knight image. But ISTM not enough (or at least not enough documented) to paint it as an especially bad actor.
The one complaint she linked to seems to have merit IMHO. We have to take her word on the whistle-blower complaint though, since it is currently confidential. We don't know what else is in it, just as we didn't know the additional M* data that I gave above. (Yup, there's my own innuendo, without AFAIK misstating facts.)
To repeat, I like Ms. Morgenson's columns, I think she does a great job at digging through the underside of the financial world. But I don't take them (or any columnist piece) as gospel.

You can also read my responses in that thread. RPHYX has not had a single losing year, and only one losing quarter. Theoretically it should be impossible to outperform cash (under your mattress) 100% of the time while maintaining the same liquidity.
Put money at risk, any risk, and sooner or later a bad thing will happen (though perhaps not in your lifetime, let alone within your investment horizon). That includes putting money in banks (which can and do fail, freezing funds for short periods of time) and MMFs (which can break a buck and/or put a hold on your cash).
It's not a question of whether it is "worth taking risk" to outperform cash - if you want to generate any income from cash you have to take on risk. It's a question of characterizing the risks (lower return/loss of principal, volatility, liquidity), quantifying them, and then seeing if you're satisfied with the returns given the estimated levels of risk.
Actual performance of RPHYX does not appear to have been declining over the past three years. Its three year performance (as of Sept. 30th) was 2.20%, its one year performance was 2.32%, and its nine month YTD performance is 1.72% (which annualizes to 2.30%, though based on its October month-to-date performance is a figure that likely won't be achieved).

Moved some of our taxable account from SWTSX to PONDX probably will need it in the next 3-5 years, so lowering equity exposure while allowing room to run still. 30% bonds, 15% international index, rest still us index. A bit nervous having a bond fund in a taxable account. But it seemed better than the NTF nontaxable funds available to us.

This time, this is not even a follow up, but a duplicate. From the article:

The article “New Target-Date Funds Are Geared for Withdrawal Time” first appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

MFO: New Target-Date Funds Are Geared For Withdrawal Time
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/35821/new-target-date-funds-are-geared-for-withdrawal-time
Having taken a closer look at the TRP fund, it appears to be simply another managed payout fund, like VPGDX. As such, it's not a new type of fund. The Vanguard fund targets a 4% payout based on the fund's value over the past three years, while TRLAX targets a 5% payout based on the fund's value over the past five years. I haven't compared glide paths.
The Fidelity funds, in contrast, claim that they're designed for RMD distributions, but don't manage the payouts. So ISTM that what's new with them is the marketing pitch, not the funds themselves.
Managed payout funds (including the TRP fund, but not the Fidelity funds) seem designed for people who want an annuity (cash stream) but are unwilling to cede control or ownership. As MikeM highlighted in his quote of Wade Pfau, if what you want is a cash stream and potential legacy, annuities are still the better way to go.

Re - How many funds? ... Does it matter?
John Hussman’s been trying to convince his investors for years that one fund is all they need.
Do the math.
1 X -10% = -10%.
18 X +10% ÷ 18 = +10%
In the above example, the 18 funds clearly were better. In reality, it matters very little.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
October 12, 2017
Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
This week marked the 30th anniversary of the October 19th, 1987 market crash when the blue chip Dow plummeted nearly 25%, behaving like the shakiest of emerging markets. It’s a stark contrast to the market’s current behavior which is eerily subdued and trading at record highs.
What caused the Dow to drop 508 points on that single day, now forever known as Black Monday? As Ben Levisohn wrote in his excellent article in Barron’s titled Black Monday 2.O: The Next Machine-Driven Meltdown:
“…experts found a culprit: so-called portfolio insurance, a quantitative tool designed to use futures contracts to protect against market losses. Instead, it created a poisonous feedback loop, as automated selling begat more of the same.”
Fast forward 30 years, and that type of automated trading program seems almost quaint. Quantitative, rules-based systems known as algorithms, computer- based trading programs and strategies have grown exponentially in number, trading volume and complexity since then. And as Barron’s Levisohn wrote: “…bear a resemblance to those blamed for Black Monday.”
How risky are the markets now?
That is the focus of this week’s WEALTHTRACK and our guest, a leading expert on risk. We’ll be joined by Richard Bookstaber, Chief Risk Officer in the Office of the Chief Investment Officer for the $110 billion University of California Pension and Endowment portfolios. Bookstaber has had chief risk officer roles at major investment firms ranging from hedge funds Bridgewater and Moore Capital to investment banks Morgan Stanley and Salomon Brothers. From 2009 to 2015 he switched to the public sector, working at the SEC and U.S. Treasury. Among his projects was helping build out the risk management structure for the Financial Stability Oversight Council and drafting the Volcker Rule which restricts proprietary trading by banks.
Bookstaber is also an author of two highly regarded books on financial risk. His most recent is The End of Theory: Financial Crises, The Failure of Economics, and the Sweep of Human Interaction. His first, A Demon of Our Own Design: Markets, Hedge Funds and the Perils of Financial Innovation, published in 2007 presciently warned of the perils of the explosion of financial derivatives, some of which he helped create.
In a 2007 WEALTHTRACK appearance he alerted us about the twin risks of high leverage and complex financial instruments. How right he was. On this week’s show we will discuss the new risks he sees in the markets now, some created by regulations created to solve the old ones!
If you’d like to see the show before it airs, it is available to our PREMIUM subscribers right now. We also have an EXTRA interview with Bookstaber about his new book, which can be seen exclusively on our website. Also, a reminder that WEALTHTRACK is available as a YouTube Channel, so if you are unable to join us for the show on television, you can watch it on our website, WealthTrack.com, or by subscribing to our YouTube Channel.
Have a great weekend and make the week ahead a profitable and a productive one.
Best regards,
Consuelo

FYI: If you started saving 30 years ago, you got a quick education in the worst Mr. Market can dish out. The Dow Jones industrial average plunged 508 points, or 22.61%, the worst one-day crash in history. Those who weren’t scared out of the stock market have done well: The Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index has gained an average 9.59% since then. But a few funds have done exceptionally well and are being run by the same management team today. Here are the stock funds that have done the best since Wall Street’s darkest day.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/gallery/20171019/FREE/101909999/PH
1. Federated Kaufmann (KAUFX)
2. Vanguard PRIMECAP (VPMCX)
3. Janus Henderson Small-Cap Value (JSIVX)
4. Wasatch Small Cap Growth Investor (WAAEX)
5. First Eagle Fund of America (FEAFX)
6. ClearBridge Aggressive Growth (SHRAX)
7. Gabelli Asset (GABAX)
8. Ariel Fund (ARGFX)
9. Heartland Value Investor (HRTVX)
10. Elfun Trusts (ELFNX)

I know free ETF/stock trades sounds great at Robinhood, but I'm curious how many investors here value things like security and stability of their financial institutions. What I mean is sometimes when I look at these small upstart brokers, I wonder how likely they are to be hacked like Equifax and how stable their financial resources are if there was suddenly a run on the bank style type crisis like 2008. I'm not saying big brokers like TD and Schwab and Fidelity can't be hacked or experience such runs, but I do think they are better able to handle distress than maybe newer brokers can. And I also wonder how many online security people a broker like Robinhood can afford and whether running maybe on a more shoestring budget makes them more vulnerable to cyber attacks. I also sometimes wonder about things like credit quality at all brokers. For instance, I know that for a while E*Trade didn't have the best of credit ratings, although it has improved in recent years. The other issue is narrow breath of product and financial tools, but most investors seem cognizant of that when they sign up for Robinhood.

@ MFO Members: If either or both of these funds do anywhere as well as their parent funds, they should viewed as buys;
Regards,
Ted
Wellington: 88 years 8.29% Average Annual Return
Wellesley: 47 years 9.84% Average Annual Return:
As 9/30/17

My issue isn't with the State Street changes, but with TDA promoting a new and improved, expanded list, when in fact it had nothing to do with the State Street improvements and dropped funds (not only Vanguard but iShares (what's the excuse there?).
It's the age old claim of "new and improved", where the changes are minimal and potentially harmful to existing customers. At $50 to sell existing ETF shares and possible taxable gains in the process, it could take years or decades for current customers to "benefit" from a drop of a few basis points.

Very interesting thread and thanks to all who contributed. 3 years ago I nixed my advisor who gave me high fees and low returns. Started using VCSH for a "cash" bucket, GTLOX for moderate and GTLLX for growth.
I sold a house 1.5 years ago and all the proceeds still sit in my Vanguard sweep account waiting for a dip (but that's an issue for another thread!) Those proceeds are now my (much too large) cash position, VWELX and VMVFX my conservative positions; POSKX moderate; POGRX, PRGTX and VWIGX growth positions.
I am 50, hoping to avoid completely screwing up, having enough to retire, and learning enough for the confidence to never hire another high-priced advisor.

"I stopped reading his commentaries years ago. I’ll admit they were brilliant."
@hank- Sounds a bit like something my wife said to me the other day...

I've owned this fund for a few years now. 4 years ago there was some discussion about it. Currently it seems quite. I own about 10% in my 401k. About a year or so from retirement. I have to say it has always bothered me that the expense ratio has been so high for the low return rate. Curious as to members opinions on this fund as well as alternatives. Thanks in advance.

Bee...several funds you listed are common to what I have as well. I don't have it broken down into the annualized categories that you've described, but I think the result may be similar.
I have a group which can go by many names...1-3 year funds, bucket 1, etc...the objective of the group to hold spending money for the next 3 to 4 years regardless of what the market does. A secondary objective is to contribute 2-3% account growth to offset possible cash drag. In an ideal world, these dollars are not touched because the second and third groups are supplying needed funds used for income. The initial group consists of:
Taxable Account: VWITX and VWAHX
IRA: PIFZX, SSTHX, ZEOIX, and SUBFX
The next group consists of a bunch of items which throw off income. This has changed in my recent retirement, as these now generate the dollars I use for annual spending, where before it was reinvested. It consists of:
Taxable: FKINX and then a half dozen dividend paying stocks
IRA: VWINX, PONDX, WATFX, PTIAX, SAMBX and then 4 individual REITs
Funds for growth....in both taxable and IRA, I have a slew of funds whose goal is to provide appropriate growth that I can periodically, when the funds hit a specific dollar threshold, take a slice off the top to send to my checking account. It holds a variety of usual suspects, all equity funds.
Falling outside these classifications, in both IRA and taxable, I do hold a few individual equities that are "flyers"...things which are generally inadvisable but could send me and siblings on a cruise to French Polynesia.
Bee....as I think the process is equally important as what you actually hold, how do you determine when the subsidiary groups cough up their contribution to the group (1-3 year, Bucket 1) used to hold your spending dollars?

One strategy that I have attempted to include as part of my portfolio review and yearly reallocation is to use "allocation funds" as the destination for other funds that need paring back. I consider these allocation funds as having attributes that served my goals well when I started investing and I now see them as serving a different goal in retirement.
I began my investing (call this my 30's) by first owning well diversified allocation funds such as VGSTX, OAKBX, VWINX, VWELX, DODBX, PRPFX, PRWCX, and others. These funds provided me with a way to funnel small contributions into one or a few of these funds based mainly on their availability to my workplace retirement plan. It exposed "my meager, but dear savings" into what I consider a long term well managed (hopefully), well diversified investment. These funds often had a history of good risk / reward, solid management, were reasonably priced (low ER ratio) and made "staying the course" pretty certain.
As my savings increased and my knowledge base grew (call it my 40-50's) I began realizing that I could create my own personal portfolio allocation using not only these funds, but a combination of "non-equity" funds (Bonds, RE, Commodities) and equity funds that had an "alpha/growth" strategy (sector, size, class, valuation, manager, etc.). These "fund combos" provided me with the biggest momentary losses and the largest momentary gains, but in the end have kept me up at night more often than the allocation funds I also still owned.
I began to discipline myself to trust my fund choices to "stay the course" and use these momentary ups and downs in the market to reallocate between the "non-equity" portion and the "equity" portion of these investments, but as I reach my 60's, 70's and beyond I see myself developing a third approach.
I see some of my low risk / low return "non-equity" funds along with some very conservation allocation funds as serving a roll in holding a portion of my portfolio for short term needs. (1-3 year, call these PONDX, PTIAX, CBUZX) for distributions of income, RMD, emergencies and retirement "fun".
I see the higher risk / higher reward "non-equity" funds along with the higher risk / higher reward "equity" funds as serving a roll in maintaining long term growth. (10 years and longer), and I'll place my stallions here (POAGX, VGHCX, FSRPX, etc). Note to self: "I have too many of these..."
I see my conservative, moderate & aggressive allocation funds as having a larger and key place in my retirement portfolio as the core of my holdings will occupy this space. These are investments have a (3-9 year) holding period that provide good portfolio diversification as well as "growth and income" to reallocate and "feed" ongoing (1-3 years) needs.
The Conservative Allocation fund (3-5 year) needs in VWINX, GLRBX or CBUZX.
The Moderate Allocation fund (5-7 year) needs in JABAX or OAKBX.
The Aggressive Allocation fund (7-9 year) in PRWCX or BTBFX).
Each of these allocation funds will periodically "feed" the 1-3 year funds over time.
Each of the long term funds (10 years or more) "feed" the allocation funds.
Hopefully there will be enough "feed" to go around.
If you have any thought on this approach or suggestions for potential candidates for:
1-3 year funds -
3-5 year funds -
5-7 year funds -
7-9 year funds -
10 and longer funds -
I'd appreciate it.

sma3 said, “He talks a great game but doesn't really execute”
I stopped reading his commentaries years ago. I’ll admit they were brilliant.