Makes no difference who is president or who controls Congress. There were no good answers twenty years ago and there still aren't any.

The Citizens United Supreme Court ruling basically legalized graft and influence peddling:
latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-mcdonnell-corruption-20160627-snap-story.html

I'm sure that George Soros and Hillary Clinton were as happy as one over the USSC ruling referenced above.

I agree with Lewis that individual company influence at the state/local level is likely more potent; I had been thinking more in terms of national influence (see thread subject). I also agree with Maurice that this fund is a gimmick.
The case in the article cited and George Soros (as contributor) do not depend on Citizens United. The underlying problem is that the Supreme Court said decades ago that money was equivalent to speech. Citizens United merely extended that idea to companies and such. Regarding corporations as people (or at least sharing certain rights with people - see Hobby Lobby), it follows that corporations, like "other" people, can spend whatever they wanted on a candidate in their exercise of "free" (there's an irony for you) speech.
Individuals have been able to throw money at candidates, well, freely, for many years.
The Hill (2016), Happy birthday to the case that was even worse than Citizens United

FYI: Risk is a tricky concept to grasp because most people don’t really understand what their true risks are. We tend to worry about things that are readily available in our memories while spending little time worrying about problems that could be years or decades out into the future. For the majority of investors, their biggest risk is not meeting their goals, or worse, running out of money. This piece I wrote for Bloomberg looks at a study that sheds some light on another risk associated with longevity.
Regards,
Ted
http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2017/08/the-biggest-risk-for-most-retirees/

Thanks @Maurice for posting this.
"Buffett’s firm pulled the trigger on a 2011 options deal that lets it buy 700 million shares — at a 70 percent discount to its share price — all for bailing out the bank when it was facing questions about its soundness."
Note that Buffett was patient and waited 6 years for his bet to pay off. And note that he invested in the bank when many considered it a "falling knife" and were fleeing. But Buffet's patience paid off and he gets the last laugh.
I saw him on Bloomberg today and, although he's 15-20 years older than me, he appears to have more energy. Yikes. All that CocaCola I guess. :)

I have minor issues with his methodology and definitions. Nevertheless, his conclusions are reasonably valid. Though rather than saying that there's an inverse relationship (negative correlation) between analyst rating and actual future performance, I'd be more inclined as to describe the relationship as none or random.
M* says that "The Analyst Rating is based on the analyst's conviction in the fund's ability to outperform its peer group and/or relevant benchmark on a risk-adjusted basis over the long term."
The author looked at raw performance, not risk-adjusted performance. So that's one issue. Another is related to the definition of analyst ratings. Obviously M* isn't really looking at a fund's ability to outperform its relevant benchmark. Else how could it give VFINX a gold rating, when with near certainty it will underpeform its relevant benchmark over any time period? M* is really rating funds against their peers.
With that in mind, a better (or at least different) analysis would be to look at the percentage of gold, silver, bronze, neutral, and negative funds that outperformed their peers over his selected five year period (1/1/2012 - 12/31/2016). Using this metric, the results are virtually independent of rating.
6/27 (22%) of large cap gold funds failed to beat their category peer average. (Two additional funds were merged out of existence: Vanguard Tax-Managed G&I, and Morgan Stanley Focus Growth).
3/15 (20%) of large cap silver funds failed to beat their peer average.
3/11 (27%) of large cap bronze funds failed to beat their peer average.
No neutral funds (out of 11 survivors) failed to beat their peers, though Columbia Value and Restructuring (UMBIX) and Putnam Voyager (PVOYX) were merged away.
The author reviews only one of the two negatively rated funds. I assume that's APGAX. Aside from a grouping of just one fund not being meaningful, this fund changed management almost immediately (Feb 2012). Curiously, M* still refuses to rate this now five star fund above neutral, because it says that five years history isn't long enough. The other negatively rated fund, the one I think the author disregarded, is LMGTX. This one also changed in 2012, even more significantly. It changed from being classified domestic to being classified foreign.
Another problem with the analysis is that because of the funds M* selected, there is a tendency to double count. It's as if M* gave medals in 1998, and awarded gold to half a dozen Janus funds, all virtual copies of each other.
That's what happened with at least a couple of families: Yacktman (where gold Yacktman and silver Focused both underperformed), and Weitz (silver Value and gold Partners Value both underperformed).
Overall, I think the best (worst?) you can say is that the analyst ratings are a better indication of which funds are popular (M* doesn't pay much attention to lesser-followed funds) than they are any indication of how funds will perform.

@msf,

Much of the complexity arises from insurance companies' efforts to give people high-priced features that they think they want but don't need. Such as return of principal.

When I considered an annuity for myself a few years back (almost 8 years now) it was somewhat comforting to know that my lifetime income stream also had what I called a "cash value". This "cash value" has incrementally been drawn down with each annuity payment I have received (at a rate equal to 25% of all annuity payments). So, in a sense, each annuity payment consist of 75% return "on principal" and 25% return "of principle".
I have calculated that somewhere in my mid 80's I will have "drawn down" the cash value. Prior to that my beneficiaries will receive a death benefit equal to the annuities starting value minus 25% of the total payout over the life of the annuity.
What seemed missing in the article is the fact that we are in a very low interest rate environment and this could be a singular reason to not lock ones money up in an annuity product (whatever flavor) at such low rates.

Hi @Maurice
Thank you for the reply.
The overall comments were of this type:
1. They didn't mind the mix of the political as relative to effect upon the markets. They think this is indeed valid. But, obviously as we know too; when the topic of a statement or question about politics moved away from the investment effect and the thread became a shout down about politics.
2. Threads that started with a direct question about a fund or funds and others opinions; but that also wandered away from the original question or statement into some other subject matter, not really related.
3. Personal attacks, the cat fights.....
I will offer my own "thread start" example. I have not and will not post such a question here.
As Mr. Trump and the Republican party has had and continues to have problems regarding any resolution related to a "changed" healthcare legislation; what impact will this have upon healthcare sector investments? I suspect not all healthcare sectors would have the same investment pluses or minuses from changes.
This is a valid question for our house, as 35% of portfolio at this time, is invested in various healthcare sectors. I imagine this thread would blow up regarding argues ranging from libertarian to communist forms of "healthcare" for the regular folks.
Getting close to an unwind of the more active involvement with our portfolios anyway. So, "Happy Trails to You, until we meet again....." will be the future song relationship for this house.
ADD: I had a few email exchanges with Roy (FundAlarm) over the years about a few posts. :)
Take care,
Catch

Hi Guys,
While what device is used to complete a trade is the specific topic under discussion, that's a detail that doesn't inspire me too much. A far more meaningful discussion would center on how a decision to trade is made and what tools are used to help make that decision. I'll focus my reply on that issue.
Based on my earlier posts, you guys all know where I'm going. The single most useful tool to guide the investment decision is a well organized and easy to use Monte Carlo simulator. All kinds of what-if scenarios can be quickly explored in terms of options and likely outcomes. These simulators output the range of possible outcomes and the odds of a successful survival for specified timelines.
Here are two Links that get you to a free simulator that explores 1000 possible scenarios for every case examined:
http://www.flexibleretirementplanner.com/wp/
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/monte-carlo-simulation
I have used both tools extensively. They are reliable codes. These websites have been functional for many years.
Explore the impact of inflation rates, withdrawal rates, estimated returns, the standard deviation of those estimates, and various timeframes on endpoint outcomes. These can all be evaluated in just minutes.
Making minor adjustments to a proposed plan can enhance a survival likelihood significantly. Small changes do matter, and these tools can guide you in the right direction. Avoiding a dangerous portfolio decision is priceless. Pitfalls are everywhere.
Please consider adding these tools to your decision making toolkit. They'll contribute to your understanding of what is important and what is not so critical. Your comfort zone will be increased. Relax!
Best Wishes

I've checked brokerage balances, maybe even made trades from transit stations. Just killing time waiting for trains. Platforms used to have payphones, and brokers didn't add a surcharge for automated phone orders (800 numbers).
Though I don't think this is quite what you had in mind for trades executed by phone.
A few years ago I made a Roth conversion in Asia, when the market swooned. (On my laptop using a friend's home network.) Had the market taken a nosedive while we were away last month, I would have done the same thing.
Never anything unplanned though. Not like the ad (which always reminds me of the downing of a US plane in Hainan, 2001).

A dedicated laptop with exactly five dropdowns on it (3 brokerages, one bank and one credit card company.) No surfing, no e-mail. So far, no spam, or other incoming junk. Three years and hoping. Probably will add the two-step verification thing.

FYI: Tocqueville laid out why Americans, sooner than any other nation, would prove apt to embrace indexing 150 years later.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=823295

I use my iPhone for information and limited trading while I am on the road. Otherwise I use Macs and Linux for everything else. Much secure than Windows PC.
We left our brokers years ago as we embrace the coming of the information age. The internet leveled the playing field on investment ideas and choices for those who want to be informed investors like ourselves. So we don't use brokers at all.

It seems to be pretty much in line with the usual suspects, CAIBX, MDLOX, SGENX, TIBIX.
Slightly better performance, but looking at its portfolio, that could be explained by its slightly more aggressive stance. It's a bit more growthy than the others; allocation funds typically lean toward value.
It also piles on the junk bonds with 1/4 BB, 1/4 B, 1/10 below B. That's similar to TIBIX (the other funds hold much higher rated bonds). But unlike TIBIX it uses a barbell strategy with 1/4 AAA-rated. (TIBIX has 1/3 in BBB, and little above that.)
Counterbalancing the higher credit risk is a much reduced interest rate risk with a very low duration of 1.88 years, unlike the other funds.
The only downside I see is the potential end of the fee waiver (0.24%, currently set to expire 2/28/18, but these are often extended indefinitely). On the plus side, it's significantly smaller than the funds above.
BenWP's RPGAX is not a fund that one (or at least I) normally think of. But it may be the one closest to GAOSX. Similar growth leaning, similar average market cap, virtually identical std dev and Sharpe ratio. The bond side has a little less junk though still a lot, and is a little more evenly spread out in credit ratings, but still has a barbell feel. Much longer duration though. RPGAX has the lowest AUM of all the funds mentioned.

Well ... It is about time Arnott got the train back on its tracks. A few years back I owned PASAX and it did absoutely nothing for about three years while some other tactical allocation funds that I own dusted it britches thus I kicked PASAX to the curb. I was thinking of buying into the fund again but after some thought I don't want to go through another three years of nothing (again) when the time comes for him to reposition.

I hope no one noticed that I had stated Blackstone instead of Bridgewater for Dalio's hedge fund. Have now corrected that. Sorry for the goof.
Old Joe made an excellent point yesterday which did not escape me. And he generously repeats it here. That being that no one has exclusivity over particular topics. I'll go farther and state that when someone who seldom links stories or does so only a half-dozen times a week puts a story up on the board, I'm much more inclined to perceive their link as worthy of my time and thereby click on it. Human nature I guess. Ol Tom Paine said it well a couple hundred years a go: "It is dearness only that gives every thing its value."
None of this is meant to take away from anyone's contributions. Just that linking interesting stories found while reading has become more of a hassle nowadays than I recall in the past.
---
PS: @Ted, Ol'Joe is the best of the best here IMHO. No reason to insult him or anyone. Drive everybody away through this nonsense and what have you got left? The purpose of new posts should be to initiate/stimulate discussion. Otherwise, Google, Yahoo, Bing can churn out hundreds of financial stories daily.
I've said my piece. I'll shut up now.

@Old_Joe while I appreciate Ted's links, he does not have a monopoly on them.
Ted is quick to point out when others have repeated his links, but he hasn't responded to my request for existing links to help avoid such repetition. It could be that despite having posting multiple times about Tibble v. Edison, Ted missed posting links for more than two years. (Pionline.com published many updates on the case in this time frame.) Or perhaps it's not so easy to find links on MFO that he or anyone else has posted.
The former says that we shouldn't assume everything's been posted about a subject, or even anything at all. The latter says that it's unreasonable to expect us to find all the links even if they have been posted.
The Chuck Jaffe post (second link I gave, above), states that it is a follow up. Follow up to what, who knows? It contains no link to another post, not even a clue other than to say some older post exists. It took me a fair amount of effort to locate that earlier post.
In contrast, there was no note (prior to mine) in this thread that it too is a follow up to earlier posts. No hint at all. Just lucky that I remembered an earlier post.
Now I (and many others here, I assume) appreciate Ted's "virtual digest" of articles of the day. But it's not especially conducive to reducing duplication.
It's always possible that I fail to remember other posts on a subject, either because of a faulty memory or because the other posts were not memorable. No big deal. I can eat more fish :-) and unmemorable posts can be made more enticing.

@Ted How many years did it take you to learn how to use emoticons? It's like you have a new toy.

Found this comment by John Mauldin:
"I am not necessarily calling for an end to this amazing bull market. I’m agnostic about that right now, because the traditional forecasting tools have been taken to the woodshed."
While he is certainly not a perma-bear, he has never been giddy about markets, either. Those who have been yelling from the sidelines for a number of years have become more or less skulkers.

FYI: In the 30 years ended 2016, the S&P 500 returned just over 10% per year. Compounding at that rate, fifty grand invested at the start of 1987 would have grown to nearly $875,000 by the end of last year.
Not bad.
Regards,
Ted
http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2017/08/managing-sequence-of-return-risk/

Though PRWCX was "hatched" a mere 8 months after PRFDX (6/30/86 vs. 10/31/85). At the end of 1994 PRFDX had $3.2B AUM, while PRWCX had "merely" $655M.

Thanks for the documentation msf. I find the closeness of inception dates (PRFDX, PRWCX) surprising.
When I mentioned integrity, one of the attributes I've found with Price is that they do a nice job explaining their funds and the type of investors who might benefit. If anything, they'll probably over-state risk rather than lull someone into owning one of their funds who shouldn't. That practice hasn't changed over the years.
I recall that they presented both PRFDX and PRWCX in the mid-90s as relatively "safe" ways to gain equity exposure. But their presentation regarding PRWCX seemed more subdued / conservative then than now. Not sure if the fund has evolved into a more aggressive fund or whether they're simply being more cautious now due to its popularity. Today, PRWCX ($28.6 Bil) is closed, while PRFDX ($21.7 Bil) remains open to new investors. (numbers from Lipper).