I figure every day has a 50/50 chance of going up, or going down. Historically there have been a lot more up days than down. We are wired to remember the down days and "forget" the good days. So the moral (IMHO) is to create an allocation that allows you to sleep at night, knowing there will be some down days and some just plain awful days, in addition to the great days. Timing these things is impossible. Be sure you have any cash needs for 3-5 years from the portfolio held in cash or short-term bonds. Yes, it may be "fun" to look at the accounts every day, but it really doesn't matter. Make changes along the way when really needed, and try to keep expenses as low as is practical. Don't think you will find a magic bullet, and don't spend too much time trying to find the perfect manager. Don't be afraid to index, especially in domestic stocks. Get a life if you don't have one. These are probably over-simplified, but they have worked for me...when I adhere to them.

@Maurice,
Since Ford is a major shareholder of Mazda, they used Marza 's small engines due to Ford's reliability issues with small displacement engines. Mazda 323 engine is still used today's Escort and few other compact cars. Today vast majority of foreign cars are assembled in US with foreign parts, except for few low volume and higher price point German cars. Some American cars are assembled in Mexico and has been that ways for years. The boundary between domestic and foreign cars (or other products including cell phones) does nor really exist anymore.

http://funds-newsletter.com/aug17-newsletter/aug17.htm
Unless there are no generalizations that one can make about fund/ETF investing, over 30 years of experience should yield some highly worthwhile conclusions.
In this article, I try to extract some of the most important ones that have been highly successful for me, while suggesting choices that might be avoided.
Of course, many strategies for getting the best long-term returns are almost universally understood, but here I try to elaborate on those that likely aren't common knowledge.

There absolutely has been strong evidence for many years:
https://db.com/cr/en/docs/Sustainable_Investing_2012.pdf
This is specifically for the model I'm describing of ranking by ESG factors not exclusionary screens of entire sectors. There is a ton of supporting evidence for ranking by ESG factors.
Anybody can data mine evidence to support their camp. And back tests don't tell me anything or give me any confidence that this will be effective moving forward.
RBC has a piece that supports ESG/SRI, but at least they still point to the lack of evidence it outperforms.
"This has also been illustrated in an updated study by di Bartolomeo and Kurtz (2011). Performing a holdings-based attribution analysis using the North eld U.S. Fundamental Equity Risk Model, they examined the risk and return characteristics of the S&P 500 Index and the KLD 400 Index for an 18-year period between January 1992 and June 2010. Within the total 18-year period, 2 sub-periods were also analyzed: January 1992-November 1999, and December 1999-June 2010. The KLD 400 outperformed the S&P 500 during January 1992-November 1999, but underperformed during the latter period. Di Bartolomeo and Kurtz concluded that the strong performance in the 1990s was entirely factor driven, during which time the KLD 400 Index had a higher market beta, bets on higher valuation, and an overweight position in the Information Technology sector (i.e., growth stocks). The underperformance following the 1999 peak
was said to be due to an over reliance on the same factors."

What's interesting and not many people understand is there are two important kinds of socially responsible investing. In one version, many call the old model, certain sectors are completely excluded from the portfolio--oil, weapons, tobacco, etc. These are so-called exclusionary screens. In another kind every sector is included, but the fund ranks the stocks in each sector on ESG criteria and chooses only those that rank the highest while excluding the lowest. So for instance oil companies will still be in the portfolio but only those that rank the highest in ESG.
The former older exclusionary model studies have shown can match the market or slightly lags it. The latter model which ranks on ESG actually has outperformed the market over time. Companies that do good do well performance-wise. However, there is another step that I think can take an ESG oriented fund to the the next level. If a socially responsible fund is going to for instance own oil companies, it should I believe also engage with corporate management to improve its ESG record, voting for shareholder proposals that would force oil companies to disclose more of their climate risks. It should even file proposals itself. This would be in accord with the values of most of the shareholders who buy socially responsible funds. I think divestment as many universities do actually is less of an socially responsible approach than shareholder engagement. Challenge CEOs to do better. The market actually rewards them for doing so.

@LewisBraham: This is not always so, though I see the case you're making. Over the years, I've come across shareholder petitions from Orders of nuns to promote one thing or another, and Management ignores them. (...Because...? No one else gives a shit?) Interaction by shareholders with Management in order to lobby for more socially responsible policies on the part of the company might work, sometimes. Yet several denominations have finally chosen to divest from companies making money in connection with the continued Israeli occupation of Palestine. HP, Caterpillar, Motorola, just to name a few. Because Management simply ignored the questions and petitions, offered from within the company structure. Boycotts and divestment are always a last resort. But they have been resorted to. Everyone knows about the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott...

@JoJo26

There is no strong evidence that supports ESG outperforming.

There absolutely has been strong evidence for many years:
https://db.com/cr/en/docs/Sustainable_Investing_2012.pdf
This is specifically for the model I'm describing of ranking by ESG factors not exclusionary screens of entire sectors. There is a ton of supporting evidence for ranking by ESG factors.

@Maurice

If investments were truly socially responsible, then they wouldn't invest in anything related to capitalism. Therefore the only thing left to invest in is government. But no profits, dividends or capital gains there.

I believe Treasury bonds, savings bonds and municipal bonds are all investments in the government and have managed to generate returns for investors for many years.

Thanks DavidV. Despite a hyped-up overly sensational title, this actually makes for pretty good reading. Couple of excerpts:
"... active equity funds just absorbed their biggest inflows in 2 1/2 years, according to BAML. This is a sign of confidence not just for the market, but for fund managers that make their living picking stocks. It's a rare bright spot for active management, which has struggled alongside the rise of the red-hot ETF industry."
"... Institutional investors are also holding the lowest levels of cash since the start of the eight-year bull market, survey data compiled by Citigroup show. The measure now sits at less than one-third of a multi-year high reached in 2016."
The first quote seems to explain (at least partially) the fact that S&P ETFs are seeing steady outflows (see other thread). Looks like maybe some of that is going into actively managed funds.
I'm a bit perplexed re the second quote. Are MFs counted as institutional investors? In that case, there would seem to be a contradiction, as just about every actively managed fund I own has been raising cash over the past 3-6 months. (Of course, T. Rowe could be the exception.)
Good article. Just touched on a couple things that stood out to me.

His reboot of 'WSW' was/is a joke and a far cry from Uncle Louis' content and PBS' quality. I saw one episode and barely made it through the whole thing.
As to Mooch himself, I remember seeing him as a regular on CNBC over the years .... he comes across to me as a stereotypical hedge-fund-bro -- slickly coiffed, perfectly-manicured, projecting overconfidence and a smooth/fast-talking Manhattaner. He may be what POTUS wants to have representing him now, but in terms of providing information to the public, I don't think I'll trust him farther than I can throw him. However, I'm sure to those the WH is trying to mollify (ie, its base) he's perfect, b/c he is a "made man" and "exudes wealth and success" which is what POTUS is all about -- ie, he's more concerned w/optics, appearances, and ratings than anything else.

FYI: AS I THINK BACK over the past three decades, I have one overriding investment regret.
No, it has nothing to do with the investments I bought. For much of the past 30 years, I’ve owned a globally diversified portfolio, with 100% in stocks when I was younger and closer to 70% now that I’m in my mid-50s. Initially, I owned actively managed funds and a few individual stocks, but I substituted index funds as they became available, so my stock performance has been what you would expect—very similar to the broad market.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.humbledollar.com/2017/07/looking-bad/

@shostakovich, would you care to mention some international bond funds you are considering? I own a small position in PFODX, but sold out of the 3 Templeton funds a few years back.

In this case, mainly because he never just comes out with a call ("foreign sovereigns look like the place to be the next 15 years or so", "everyone thinks Treasuries are going up, but oil prices tell a different story so we're positioning ourselves differently", etc.) -- he wraps his "read" up in some pseudo-literary naval gazing.
And, among the would be poets out there, he's the worst.

Ted, I am with you. I thought this would happen a long time ago as folks become more educated. But the fact is that even though there are many fewer brokerage firms than there were twenty years ago, the ones that remain are mostly enormous. They have tons of money that they use to lobby Congress to limit regulations on what they do. Consider the DOL rules just recently implemented. There are a ton of exceptions to the new fiduciary requirements, with more and more commission options being deemed "in clients' best interests". Firms that a year ago had drafted very different business structures based on what the DOL then appeared to be, and who were telling their clients that getting rid of commissions was a good thing, have backtracked and are now telling clients that charging commissions is now much better for them.
Yes, the RIA industry, which is the true fiduciary arena, has seen assets grow tremendously. But the average retail client still thinks their "broker" or "advisor" is doing a wonderful job and has no clue how much they are overpaying for what they get. So I think "twilight years" is wishful thinking.

Thank you, gentlemen. While downside protection is important, i cant pay for large cash holdings within a fund as we manipulate cash levels on the overall portfolio level.
@Old_Joe: the nose belongs to my 11 and a half yo airedale. He is around and kicking. We added a smaller one in recent years..belonging to a Scotty. I havent been around the Boards much as I crossed to the dark side and joined the "retail" world by becoming an advisor. Hope all is well with you and the sunny state of California!

FYI: I begin today’s column with a mea culpa: I have been expecting the imminent death of the brokerage industry for about 20 years. This is something I have been dead wrong about.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-19/stock-brokerage-industry-enters-the-twilight-years

A demographic of baby boomers has allowed seniors housing to become a winning investment—both in commercial real estate (CRE) overall and healthcare realty specifically. And there are plenty of reasons. Research shows that 100,000 units must be built each year through 2040 to meet anticipated demand. When you consider seniors housing is also recession-resistant, many would call this investment a basic “no-brainer.”
Over the past decade, seniors housing has outperformed every other asset classes of CRE. But recently, some investors have expressed concern over rising interest rates and potential overbuilding. In 2016, the occupancy rates declined 0.5+% (to 89.3%), leading some to wonder if oversupply could potentially impact returns in the long term. In fact, some sub-sections of the seniors housing market have already been impacted, specifically skilled nursing.
Which begs the question: is seniors housing still a wise investment? Research indicates “yes.” A survey from CBRE showed nearly 60 percent of U.S. investors actually plan to increase their seniors housing portfolios this year. And that’s an increase from less than 50 percent last year. Many seem confident a wide range of opportunity still lies in the seniors housing sector—if investors can keep the following factors top of mind.
Consider Secondary Markets: It may be true that some primary markets face a potential oversupply, but many secondary and even tertiary markets hold lots of potential for both renovation and new construction. Indeed, a significant portion of supply across all markets is outdated, leaving room for much-needed enhancements, such as making spaces more comfortable and sociable for seniors.
Do the Research: There is no substitute for doing your own due diligence. Whether you’re looking to invest in private equity or a REIT, make sure your chosen fund manager is knowledgeable, experienced, and aware of current market conditions. Request a portfolio showing past investments and new deals, as well as historical returns. Lastly, ensure that the fund manager takes time to consider each individual investment, analyzing existing demographics and competitors before committing to any specific project.
Be Informed: Keep an eye on current issues to make sure the fund or REIT you select is on trend. Skilled nursing declined this last year, and memory care has likewise seen impact in some areas from overbuilding. Meanwhile, independent living is now a favorite, which is off-trend from previous years. In fact, independent living reached a seven-year high in occupancy rates closing 2016—so high that it was actually highest absorption rate in a single quarter since NIC started collecting data back in 2006. The best fund managers will be aware of these trends.
Ask Lots of Tough Questions: A strong fund manager will likely tell you that project operators play a large role in ensuring the success of a given investment—sometimes even the most significant. Dan Brewer, the Chief Fund Manager at SeniorLivingFund.com, says, “The operator is hands-down the most important player in our investment decisions. They can make or break any opportunity, regardless of market or demand.” In other words, don’t shy away from asking who your fund manager may be working with, how long they’ve worked with one another, and to what outcome.
Keep It Real: As with all investment opportunities, market conditions like interest rates or political issues, can impact returns. Although seniors housing has seen unparalleled growth in the past 10 years, it’s reasonable to think the industry will keep growing—if only at a slower rate.
The great news about seniors housing: the opportunities are just beginning. The current wave of seniors now seeking care is the first of many to come. Research shows our 75+ population will likely grow at rates above current inventory growth rates (3.1 percent) until 2021. Indeed, for the 75-79 age group, growth could be as high as 5.7 percent. That leaves lots of room to grow the sector—and lots of room for solid returns for smart investors.

I'm sure there are those who do trade on his (and others) recommendations, not understanding many things about the markets or those who pontificate about them on TV. But hey, it's not my money that's being invested in such cases!! :)
Years ago CNBC had a new program about options trading. Their first-ever guest suggested selling puts on Google when it was around 500/share. I was screaming at the TV for the asinine idea, targetted at retail investors who likely didn't have 500 x 100 = $50,000 cash lying around for when (or if) the stock was put to them and they had to buy.....b/c in a 3-minute piece, you can't also teach folks the intracasies of options-101. The clown simply picked the stock, said it was a good buy, and here's how to profit from it. Thankfully he was never to my knowledge invited back on the program. But I wonder how many people tried to do the trade, or got burned if it went against them, b/c they didn't know the risks of the trade, just got caught up in the possible rewards of it should it work out as intended.

The part that always bothered me is he'll go on CNBC or do an interview with Barron's and he'll say stuff that's totally true at the moment he says it. Unfortunately he might change his mind overnight and not only doesn't anyone know that but there's not much effort made by these media organizations to be transparent about it other than the standard legal blah-blah disclosures that not many pay any attention to. I guess most people wouldn't trade based on anything he says but I "pity da fool" who does.

"If you look at the fund's trailing SD, you will see it at 18.11 over 10 years, then it drops drastically to 11.41 at 5 years. You think something changed in their investment strategy during that time?"
Not based on that data alone. Since std dev is a second moment, outliers such as 2008 have a disproportionately large impact on the figures.
The S&P 500 std deviation also dropped by around 3/8, from 15.21 to 9.56. Do you think something changed in Standard and Poors' Index Committee's selection strategy during that time? (The S&P indexes, unlike those from other companies, are selected by individuals rather than by mechanical algorithms.)

Again, about keeping DODGX and M* accountable for a clear standard.
The webpage of D&C states (as of June 30), 10 year returns 5.89% - compared with S&P 7.18%. Let's please not search for excuses for underperformance. Without discussing the yearly tax cost of 0.98%.
In relation to the fund performance during the past 5-years, more volatile funds that missed in the downside in 2007-2008, typically have better returns in the more recent period. For this reason I tend not to rely on 5-year returns.
What is different about DODGX (in relation to other outstanding funds!) is that its returns, after the 07-08 underperformance, were not adequate for the fund to catch up with the S&P.

+1
In order to get a full reading of this fund's performance, you have to look back 10 years, not 3 or 5. It's clear to see that they dropped the ball big time and never recovered to keep pace with the S&P 500 over the past 10 years. I held the fund during the disastrous 2007-2009 and dumped it upon a partial recovery. When I bought the fund, it was my understanding that they would hold up better on the downside; they did not. Quite the contrary. *M can talk about its "deep investment team" and "decisive value approach" all it wants. Currently, *M shows the fund's risk as very high. I guarantee it was showing as lower on *M when the credit crisis hit. Clearly, *M misread the fund as well. If you look at the fund's trailing SD, you will see it at 18.11 over 10 years, then it drops drastically to 11.41 at 5 years. You think something changed in their investment strategy during that time? Lessons learned.

"Huh? Gosh, the three ]LCV funds] I moved to long ago from DODGX (before placing everything LCV in DSEEX): PRBLX. YACKX, and TWEIX."
What is long ago? DODGX was in the top quintile for 2009 and top fiftieth (second percentile) in 2011 and 2012. D&C funds often go through multi year funks and multi year spurts. 2008 is an important benchmark, as is 2015 for value funds. (By that latter metric, DSEEX looks good, at least so far.)
If one wants a smooth ride, shorter term, D&C funds are not the way to go. M* seemed to agree, saying that DODGX had enviable long term results. But (assuming that the long term market trend is upward) there is a problem with long term investors placing too much emphasis on the down years.
For example, one investor here five years ago almost to the day (Aug 2012) wrote about another D&C fund (DODBX):
"it certainly seems to have improved, but (recent, tempting) past performance does not etc. I cannot imagine why anyone would automatically prefer it now over Oakbx, Glrbx, and even AOR / AOM, my two 'new' favorite ETFs. "
Here's the five year chart comparing these five funds.
(Data per M* as of 7/17/17) Growth of $10K:
DODBX: $18,358.73
OAKBX: $15,848.45
AOR: $14,959.24
AOM: $13,422.89
GLRBX: $13,366.85
Now I'm not suggesting that one compare any of these funds with the S&P 500 (or S&P 1500); they're a different type of fund and the comparison wouldn't be meaningful. Likewise, I wouldn't go comparing value funds with blend (e.g. SPY) or growth funds, especially over the past decade when growth had a decided advantage. Heck, if I were to do that I'd just dump everything into a growth fund - even the average (median) LCG fund (NMFAX) returned 7.48% over the past decade, beating the S&P 500.
D&C, like many peers (and also unlike many other peers) completely blew 2008, getting caught in a value trap - continuing to hold on the way down. The questions are: how likely is another 2008, has D&C modified its investment process since then, is short term (e.g. 2015) or even prolonged underperformance acceptable in exchange for longer term gains? Different people have different answers.