If you have 5 or 6% college debt I am doubtful that you should invest in the stock market unless you have the possibility ofa match in your 401k.A great many experts such as John Bogle think the average return over the next 10 years will be about 6% . THis makesa riskless ^% paying off loans apretty good idea./ And, if your debt is say 3 0r 4% that seems like a close decision.I made my first stock market investment about 30 and it was years before I had as much as 20K in the markett

This is not my conclusion thou. I am holding on to stuff purchased years ago either at a discount (pdi) or at par (pty). What keeps me in them is extraordinary and consistent NAV performance and reinvestment at a 5% discount. I wouldnt buy at these levels, but am not selling. I did sell PCI, DMO, DSL - DMO just insanely expensive provided its scheduled termination, the other two are just more volatile due to EMD exposures.

@davidrmoran is correct about a discount or premium continuing to grow even though it seems to defy logic. M*'s quote page for any CEF provides a lot of information about current discount/premium, the historical d/p, and the 1-year Z-Statistic, a measure of how far from the past the current discount is. PDI has a Z-Statistic of .91, meaning the fund, at a current premium of +8.3%, is almost a standard deviation above the relatively modest premium the fund traded at in the past few years. Traders of CEFs often look for a Z-Statistic of -2.0 or greater when searching for a fund that may be a value. If you don't like to trade, you can buy the CEF trading skills of Patrick Galley at RiverNorth in various OEFs and CEFs.

Frankly ... and I don't mean to start a dogmatic fight here ... but I've never been a big fan of such "rules" about allocation percentages, rebalancing, and so forth. I don't rebalance any of my long-term accumulating portfolios, other than to make sure it's allocated in sectors/companies/position sizes that let me sleep well at night. (I'm 90+% in equities and equity funds across my various accounts....but what works for me may not work for someone else, as is the nature of many things in life, including investing.)
My 403(b) is 95% in one largecap equity fund (RWMGX) with a smidgen of idle cash in the account ready to deploy onto that position if there's a market swoon before employer contributions resume in the new academic year.

401(K) is a long term investment for 30-50 years horizon. Unless one is invested in target dated funds, rebalancing on a regular basis (quarterly or annually) is necessary rather than leaving it on autopilot.

All ratings have been updated on MFO Premium site, including MultiSearch, Great Owls, Fund Alarm (Three Alarm and Honor Roll), Averages, Correlation, Dashboard of Profiled Funds, and Fund Family Scorecard.
The latest up-market cycle reached 101 months, from March 2009 to July 2017, inclusive ... about 8.5 years.
Annualized return for SPY over that period: 17.8%, or just under 300% total return ... for those wise, lucky and flush enough to invest at the bottom ... and brave enough to hold.
Remember when this was the most hated bull market? And to some, it remains so.
The top 10 US Equity funds over this period, based on absolute return, are shown in table below. Most have nearly doubled SPY total return and interestingly, three are PIMCO equity funds!

401(K) is a long term investment for 30-50 years horizon. Unless one is invested in target dated funds, rebalancing on a regular basis (quarterly or annually) is necessary rather than leaving it on autopilot.

Barrons strikes me as continuing to "dumb down". And I say this as someone who as subscribed for + 10 years, and picked it up at the newsstand regularly for decades before that... The article is a prime example.
A couple glaring problems with the article/survey:
-While the survey asked respondents about where they would invest money not be spent for 10 years, psychologically, I doubt young people will accurately "mentally account" for that span of time. More likely a sizeable chunk of them are saving for their 1st home. So they are naturally "investing" in cash (i.e. their down-payment) and plan to "invest" in real estate. OTOH, few boomer-age households are saving for their 1st home.
-Contrasting how differing age groups invest today, provides much less insight than comparing/contrasting how different age groups invest vs. their similar age groups in prior decades. In the 1970's were early boomers really investing in stocks? I don't think so. Most 20/30-something then were probably using passbook savings accounts and CDs and going to buy their 1st house.
-Stating another obvious factor: A growing % of boomers are collecting their govt annuity (Soc Security) & have less of a need for a rainy-day fund than working age folks. -- Further, presumably seniors have a lifetime of savings. So any rainy-day fund would likely be a smaller portion of their assets, on a % basis, than younger, working-age folks.
-Lastly, the real estate benchmark used to demonstrate comparative returns vs stocks SEEMS to be a price-index only. However, for those who invest directly in real-estate rentals, price appreciation is only one component of returns. Other, equally important component of returns is the cash rent received & tax-deferral of income (via depreciation).
The very predictable takeaway that Barrons wishes to leave with readers in the article is the Millenials need to own more stocks. Given the flaws noted above, its not a conclusion I would necessarily agree with.

Highly leveraged with a healthy high yield portfolio. When the bears start to run, those in it will be in a world of hurt. I will stick with my PIMIX/PONAX and sleep better.

Technically (and more from the top of my head than bc I am delving deep into their portfolio), PDI, PCI, and it's PIMCO CEF cousins are mostly NOT high yield funds. They make a lot of their return on smartly-purchased MBS, but also on swaps and derivatives that both hedge their portfolios to swings in interest rates and add to their returns. Look at the performance of their NAVs on days when interest rates rose.
As far as premiums go, think of PDI as the equivalent of a single bond. (I know I know it's not! Just work with me here....) Would you rather hold a bond that matures in, say, 10 years (I know PDI doesn't mature and return your full par value.....just an exercise), and pays 8% interest along the way (again, I know it's distribution is not fixed like a bond....), or would you rather own a bond with similar maturity that pays 4% interest along the way? Leaving out price of the bond. The yield-starved market is pricing these CEFs that earn 8-10% on their NAV, at premiums, that still allow an ~8.5% distribution (give or take a %) on current price. And yes, prices are volatile compared to their NAVs or to OEFs.
Just my thoughts. Currently hold PDI, PCI (bought later 2 just yesterday for a small account I help manage), PFN, PTY, PKO, for full disclosure. But I would also like to see their prices decline some so I can purchase more in various accounts. So talking them up defeats that purpose some ;)
Lastly, on the topic of "highly leveraged", is a fund that holds bonds picked by arguably the best bond-picking managers/team around presently, levered up 1.5-to-just-under-2 times, really a bad thing? Plus managed with "the full toolbox" available to bond managers today--hedges, swaps, derivatives, so dampen the effects of macro interest moves. mREITs are often levered up multiples of that and generally much less diversified in their holdings.
Finally, and yes, then I'll get off my proselytizing soapbox, for those who worry about asset gathering and forced redemptions, these CEFs do not deal with that, as success leads to investors purchasing the fund, driving up the premium perhaps. Conversely, sales do not force the managers to sell to meet redemptions. These are $1-2 billion-sized Ivascyn funds (best of ideas maybe? Or at least able to invest across the spectrum of holding sizes/availabilities). Imagine investing in PONDX/PIMIX when it was only this size.....

Hi folks,
Good discussion on the reporting of cash held within a portfolio. For years I counted cash as a part of my portfolio and factored it in with portfolio performance reporting since cash is an asset class. My brokerage firm still reports performance with cash being considered. However, Morningstar's portfolio manager does not factor cash into portfolio performance reporting. So, with this, it is very easy for me see both ways what the cash drag or its benefit is and by how much. Thus, I started tracking portfolio performance reporting with and without cash. If I report portfolio performance it is for everthing held (including cash) and for investment returns it is for everything held without cash. Because I am holding about 20% cash within my portfolio returns as a whole are currently about 20% behind investment returns. However, should we get into a market downdraft I'm thinking the amount of cash held will help soften the performance decline.
In addition, I do not factor cash as a part portfolio principal to compute retirement withdrawals. This is done on invested assets only. Generally, I take no more than one half of my five year average investment return. In this way, principal grows over time.
So, when the "Bear Comes Calling" ...
By keeping a good store of cash and the fact I've not overdrawn my portfolio in retirement I should be OK when the bear comes calling with an ample amout of cash "on hand" to invest for the rebound. And, my dividend and interest payments should (for the most part) keep rolling on in. In addition, my asset allocation is also something for me to consider and will also play a role in how I fair in a bear market.
Skeet

Hi fundalarm: I've worked w/ edward jones before but IMHO the firm is a rip off. the advisors charge 2% annually and every bonds I find /they sell ~ 1% more more than other firms. The little guy like myself keep loosing $$ at the firm for advisor fees. Stopped using them since 4 years ago. Edward Jones can give you good analysis regarding bonds you want to buy, and most of them are safe BBB- or higher rated but you probably can do all the research yourself about bonds and set up a google.com/alert the tell if the bond will bankrup or go to moodys.com- very simple things to do to find research about the bonds. you can also ask schwab-bond specialist to do research about the bonds before you buy. Most bonds at schwab are very good ratings but sometimes I want to buy bonds are little junky higher yields BB or higher. If you buy good companies risks of bankruptcy is very low. I think bonds maybe more attractive than stocks, Funds/ETFs because you dont pay a fee, you still make little money if market is up or down and you can sleep better at night.

I never know how to define 'core holding', but I guess PONDX is a fund I have faith in (faith in the manager). I'm in it and I tend to stay in it because it is to me the best multisector fund available. I like the adjustments the manager makes, like moving more globally in recent history and shortening duration substantially. And the secret derivative sauce seems to work. I actually might think of a core bond fund as one that stays fairly consistent in it's investments, like MWTRX or DODIX. I don't think PONDX can be classified as such. But if the definition of core becomes a fund you will stick with through thick and thin then, well, in that sense is core for me.
I have 4 classified bond funds which I own because I'm hoping they are the place to be moving forward through rate hikes and an often talked about shift to global fixed income having better returns in the next 5 to whatever years.
I own:
PONDX because of the great management track record and it's flexibility
PFIDX also has Ivascyn on the team, classified as a low duration floating income fund
MAINX and PGMSX for the Asia and global sector
All 4 funds are at about equal percentages. Also have a lot of bond exposure which I can't control within my 2 balanced funds, PRWCX and ICMBX... FWIW

At this point I think the 10 year returns are probably more relevant as it has gone through 08, 09 dip. I dont think the next three years will be like the past three :)

FYI: Growth investing has been great for American shareholders over the past three years.
While the best-performing U.S. equity mutual funds between 2014 and 2017 fall into several different market capitalization categories, almost all of them are tilted towards or were designed to capture growth stocks.
The S&P 500 returned about 10 percent annually over the past three years, posting a year-to-date total return of 11.67 percent. All of the funds on our list beat that benchmark.
According to Morningstar data, these mutual funds had the best three-year performance as of Monday were:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.fa-mag.com/news/these-11-mutual-funds-have-had-the-best-3-year-returns-33946.html?print

Open 24 years with less than 500 million AUM and mediocre performance. Maybe Fidelity is getting ready to merge this fund into another global or international fund.

@MFO Members: In 2011 a doctor stood at the foot of my hospital bed and said, "Ted if you don't quit smoking you'll be dead within a year." As a 3 pack a day smoker for over fifty years that was quite a wake-up call. The long-term effects leave me with CHF coupled with COPD that thankfully are manageable.
Regards,
Ted

I taught at Humboldt State University in the early 1970s, and even then spent some time on weekends in what was then a rather small-potatoes Sonoma-Napa wine country. But ever since then, I have visited on a somewhat regular basis. What a transformation there. Even though I have had the privilege of traveling through much of Western Europe's wine regions, I still gravitate to Northern California because of its familiarity. We belong to a number of wine clubs (Robledo, Wilson, Seghesio, Domaine Carneros, Geyser Peak, etc), mostly in Sonoma, and like others here enjoy wine almost every night with dinner. We have a group of friends that has gathered every Thursday night for more than 30 years to share some very good wine and conversation. Good friends, good wine, good food, good conversation. The world could use a lot more of that.

Not quite following your point but sense your defensiveness. Not luck and not lucky.
Just go exploring at Total and/or Costco and you'll see. TJ is fine and d'Alba etc and others from Sicily and southern Italy can be similarly fine, sure. Have not bought a daily-drinking bottle over $10 in any quantity for years, if ever. Those I buy selectively.
Just slogged though a couple dozen gifted 1950s-1990s reds, perfectly stored but 80% over the hill, sad story. Some only slightly sherried, bordeaux and burgundies and barolos and NoCal cabs, so drinkable, and lots of finesse, but muddy by the end.
Was glad to be back to my large cheap cellar of ~~6yo 2000s, all of them under $8 tops. I see some Totals in NoCal unless you're up near Eureka :) , then Costco.

I would agree that there are lucky finds under $10, but if you explore this price range consistently you will drive up the average price considerably, as of necessity you purge the undrinkables. In our area at least, the grouping between $12 and $20 gives the best results for relatively consistent and predictable quality. But there are certainly exceptions- the under $5 at Trader Joe's for the Epicuro group of red wines from southern Italy being an example. We are stocking some four cases of these at this time.
For over thirty years we have kept approximately 40 cases of wine on hand in a small air-conditioned room- nothing fancy, I assure you- but we have a fair amount of experience in selecting relatively inexpensive wines of decent quality.

@OJ,
Costco, Total, and the occasional lucky twofer bin in the front of your local packy have good reds, sometimes, Costco often, for well under $15 and often under $10.
Hard to find, takes some taste-testing, suffering duds.
But for everyday we drink and serve (and have done so for years) good-enough chiantis (principally sangiovese, sometimes nebbiolo-mixed), riojas (principally tempranillo but sometimes garnacha-mixed), malbecs, the rare pinot noir, lots of montepulcianos, and when lucky modest bordeaux, all in the $6.50 - $10 range. Blends, of course, though you have to go through a lot of sketchy stuff.
Hard to find in that range good cabs, merlots other than bordeaux, zins, and shirazes but probably doable. The herbaceous and/or grapy-jammy weaklings wind up going to the cooking deglaze bottle.

Haven't tried those two, but have had some perfectly decent Clos du Bois whites from Trader Joe's- $12-$15 sounds about right. Don't worry about where where you find decent wine at a decent price- grocery store or not. When you do find a good deal, but a case and stash it in a reasonably cool place. Reds should hold up for at least five years, whites for maybe one or two.
Edit: "Good" wine is what you like, nothing more, nothing less. There is absolutely not a direct correlation between price and quality, once you get above, say maybe $20 or so. The price/quality curve is usually fairly well correlated up to $18-$20 or so, and from the on up it really flattens out, to a point where you are paying for an "ego trip", bragging rights, or maybe collectivity, to give Gundlach the benefit of the doubt.
There are exceptional specialty wines of course- limited harvests from a small vineyard plot, and that type of thing. But for everyday use with dinner, $12-$15 should be just fine.