OK. Thanks for the words, obviously informed statements. I just never heard of a mutual fund doing such a thing: investing in a hedge fund. And perhaps right now is not the time? It's a global fund, and there's a ton of political feces going around about now. I would be diversifying away from holding so very much in PRWCX. It's 35% of my stuff. And when I look at performance numbers between the two, I could do nothing at all and come out better off. I can build some cash. Which I've neglected to do for all these years, and eventually put THAT into RPGAX. I would do RPGAX as a regular investment account. In a couple of years, I'm going to stop re-investing everything, and take profits, whether dividends or cap. gains, for current income. Wife will continue to work, at age 45. And it will happen somewhere other than here. AMEN. Thanks, guys.

Fascinating to watch how value comparatively fails from 15y on it, by year, when you do $10k-growth graphing.
If you do that, be sure to include RPG and RPV (can't start 15y ago), to assess how 'large-capness' is key.
Growth has really taken off the last couple years.
For the last 5.5y it was interesting (for me) to see how CAPE differs from LCV, when it does.

Morn'in @Old_Skeet
You noted above in this thread:
"Today, most fee based accounts (new school way) charge at least a 1% fee on balances held within these fee based wraper accounts plus the investor pays fees on the mutual funds themselves. That's fees on top of fees."
I know some folks who use advisers; some small independent advisers as well as the larger companies with whom some smaller advisers have become a part of over the years.
In either case, 1% is an average fee; being "adviser fee" for the small, independent organizations and the name "wrapper fee" for the large organizations.
As you note "wrapper fees"; I will presume some of your investments are inside of a large, adviser organization.
***A few questions:
---Based upon your writings, I presume you manage your own investment choices.
With this in mind (if accurate), what is your advantage to maintain an account that charges 1% for doing none of the work?
--- 2. Regarding your investment firm connection and that your investments are likely stuck with this firm. Is one able to negotiate the "wrap fee"? If they are not really providing an adviser service, why give away 1% of your hard earned monies?
Thank you.
Catch

@ Old_Skeet
@davor
Thanks for your replys. It appears I need to see tax accountant. I was about ready to trash account info from wife who passed a number of years back. I've kept accounts separated so this should help.
Thanks again,
Derf

Hi @Derf,
Thanks for the question.
The transfers came several ways. Those by gift retained the donor's cost basis. Those that came by inheritance received cost basis step ups. Since they were retitled, to me, years back they have appreciated in value. Thus sizeable capital gains have been built through my years of ownership.
With this, I now sell some fund shares annually and harvest some of these capital gains. Kind of a self built annuity (of sorts).
Old_Skeet

Hello,
Last week Old_Skeet's market barometer finished the week with a reading of 161 indicating that the S&P 500 Index was oversold based upon the barometer's metrics. This week the barometer closed the week with a reading of 155 indicating that the Index has now moved to an undervalue reading.
Although, I closed out my spiffs a couple of weeks ago I move some spiff sell proceed money into my emerging market fund (NEWFX) last week; and, this week I added to my commodity strategy fund (PCLAX) which gained better than 5% this past week.
Years back I was more of a momentum strategy investor and have migrated more towards a modern portfolio theory investor. My portfolio returns were much higher under momentum strategies than they have been under modern portfolio theory. With this, I am moving some money back into momentum strategies although I never did completely leave momentum. PCLAX is a momentum position within my portfolio. This week, I may continue with momentum and put some money to work in my small/mid cap sleeve or I may continue to build my commodity position should it maintain it's upward move.
Wishing all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

Over the last 2-3 years I'm actually seeing the pendulum swing WAY to the other side. Surprising to see large financial firms not getting ahead of such things. At a minimum they don't need such press.
So much for their ANALytical capabilities for picking stocks and bonds. First figure out your employees.

@CathyG, In responding to your question on global equity funds held many of my global equity fund exposure have been held since the 70's in family portfolios. Some of them were passed on from gift and inheritance transfers. They might not be the ones I'd buy today although, through the years, they have served the family well.
In my global equity sleeve found in the growth & income area the funds held are American Funds, Capital World Growth & Income (CWGIX), Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Global Dividend Income Fund A (EADIX) and Dreyfus Global Equity Income Fund A (DEQAX).
In my global growth sleeve found in the growth area the funds held are American Funds New Perspective Fund A (ANWPX), American Funds Small Cap World Fund A (SMCWX) and Thornburg Global Opportunities Fund A (THOAX).
My emerging markets fund, American Funds New World A (NEWFX) is held in my specialty sleeve which is found in the growth area of the portfolio. In addition, this sleeve also holds my ALPS Global Private Equity Fund A (LPEFX) and my Virtus Global Infrastructure Fund (PGUAX).
These three sleeves would be where my global all equity funds are held. I have another sleeve that holds my global hybrid funds. The funds held within this sleeve are American Funds Capital Income Builder A (CAIBX), Pioneer Multi Asset Income A (PMAIX) and Thornburg Income Builder A (TIBAX).
Hope this helps.
Old_Skeet

FPA Crescent has been long Naspers and short Tencent as a paired trade for years.

Hi @CathyG
First, this portion is in regards to your question in another thread about the method used so that you may respond directly to another member and, second, that that member should also receive an email from MFO indicating their psuedo name has been noted in a thread message; or that someone has posted into a thread that they/you initiated.
---When you sign-into MFO, as you have to read this; immediately below your screen name and next to your avatar image (upper left section of this page) you should see "red" indicator in the "Notifications" icon with a "number" for how many notifications you have received within MFO from others.
---You may have at least 2 from me for this thread; one for using your MFO name and another for responding to a message thread started by you.
---When commenting to another, using the "at symbol" immediately followed by your name will send a notify message to their email. Maintain a "space" in front of the "at" symbol and a space after your name to assure the system performs this process properly.
Early in the day here and not fully up to coffee level; so I hope this makes some sense. You have probably already seen and figured out about the notification.
As to value and growth; I've never been a "pure" value fan. In theory, in my head; is that a value stock or fund should be/have a "buy low and sell high potential". But, I always have to ask, why is the stock or fund considered value in the first place. Is the area merely out of favor for period or is the stock or fund in a never-ending cycle for a good reason.
A worse-case example would be the early days of General Motors. The Dort Carriage Company (owned by some of the same folks who founded GM) was fast becoming a "value" company with the birth of the engine powered "carriage". But, surely there were folks who thought that the auto was not about to replace the horse drawn carriage. The carriage company, in a few years, became a ultimate value company; to the point of disappearing, while GM was the growth investment, yes?
There remains for any number of reasons, as to why the growth sector goes through cycles where the companies are out of favor/oversold and do become a "form" of value, but within the growth area. This is where my brain attempts to process the "buy low/hold/sell high" conditions. Value for the sake of value just doesn't do "it" for our house.
---A more recent example of two, long term wonderful growth funds are: FDGRX and FCNTX . I don't recall all events of the period, but these 2 funds, as well as large growth in general were in a funk from April, 2015 through Nov., 2016 (election). Those who purchased this area during this early time period likely scratched their heads about performance for this period. This is my best thought/view of "value"; but value within a growth area. This is where I attempt to find and understand what is going on.....but, with more profit potential versus a long term holding of a stock or fund that has been "value" directed for too long and "their/that" ship never comes in..........
Some investments have their day(s) in the sun and behind the clouds.....market cycles???
Sample: Vanguard value vs growth etf's
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?VTV,VUG&p=6&O=011000
---Bonds: Up until about 1 year ago we could and have run for shelter to investment grade bonds when the equity sector became twitchy......not the case today; except for the traders. At least, not to the case to make some money in this area during a down move in equity. The great bond run for excess profits, at least today/right now is flat, IMHO.
Does this make sense and/or readable to understand???
Okay, I have an early appointment today and must become presentable; and still need more coffee.
I'll do a @Old_Joe here and he should be directed to this thread, via a notification, to discover whether I've said anything nasty about him, as he will see my MFO name attached to the email he will receive......of which, I can't think of anything nasty to write about him. :)
Take care,
Catch

Since it's been a couple of years since I last checked my 4 Portfolios, I'm re-reviewing all of my investments. I used to follow M* recommendations for proportion of Value vs Growth balance, and it did appear then and in the past that Value companies DID eventually come back in favor during tougher times to help mitigate the usually much larger Growth fund losses. After all, "shares of a company with solid fundamentals that are priced below those of its peers, based on analysis of price/earnings ratio, yield, and other factors." (they put it better than I tried to)
But, in checking "VALUE" Mutual Funds and ETFs, ALMOST ALL of them have had greater losses than MANY of the Growth funds DURING the DOWN TIMES, along with the expected LOWER GAINS during the good times. This is not just for the period YTD, but over the last several years.
In looking at many of the actual stocks/companies that are considered "VALUE", so many just seem "Old School" to me, and ones that have not - and will likely not in the future - keep up with what is, and has clearly been for a couple of years, the overall market demands. (And, besides, so many of them I am philosophically opposed to).
The same seems to be true of almost all BOND funds. We've been at these incredibly low interest rates for a long time, so bond funds have been a good counter-investment, with enough minimal gains and certainly far less losses. Even though the government (and others) have clearly stated that there will be regular 3-4 annual increases, I'm thinking it could be at least another year or two. But, at any rate, most BOND FUNDS have not been doing well enough to end up with much more than CDs.
So I would really like to hear your opinions. I am considering keeping so-called "VALUE" and BOND funds to a MINIMUM, and keeping my LARGE % of CASH as my alternative option to those. The cash would then be used to ADD to my existing GROWTH funds WHEN THEIR MARKET WAS DOWN over 10% (assuming those funds were still logical to keep).

YACKX way underperformed the S&P 500 over its first 3 years (26.3% cumulative vs. 46.5%) and its first 5 years (99.9% cumulative vs. 153%). That was to July 1997. The spread in performance only got worse for the rest of the decade, until the dot com bubble burst. For two years, March 31, 1998 to March 31, 2000, it managed to lose 30% even as the S&P 500 was gaining 40%.
(All data from M*'s charts.)
For nearly a full decade, from inception in '92 through the 90s, the fund looked miserable. That did not mean that Donald Yacktman's glory days were left behind at Selected American. It just meant that the market was not good at the time for his style of value investing.

FYI: Wasatch Advisors, Inc. announces the planned departure of Founder and Chairman Sam Stewart, who will leave to join Seven Canyons Advisors, LLC—an SEC-registered investment advisor recently established by members of his family. “When I started Wasatch Advisors, I intentionally named it Wasatch instead of Stewart Advisors, hoping we could build a business that would thrive well past my tenure. I’m happy to say that’s happened,” said Sam Stewart. “I’m grateful for Wasatch’s support as I start this new venture with my family.” Josh Stewart, son of Sam Stewart, will also depart Wasatch to join the new family-owned firm.
JB Taylor, CEO of Wasatch, commented, “We’re excited for Sam and the next chapter of his career. It’s inspiring that he has the same entrepreneurial spirit as he had 43 years ago when he started Wasatch Advisors. We’re grateful to Sam for his decades of contributions and for founding our firm with an enduring investment philosophy and a strong company culture.”
Regards,
Ted
https://secure.wasatchfunds.com/News/Article.aspx?a=2018 Sam Stewart Announcement

@Crash
Check item 9, in this list.
The returns sure are not money market rates for the years indicated; ALSO I do believe the return data is misplaced in the form.......the 2011 return is not likely correct and could be the 1.67% amount show in the adjacent year. 2011, from my recall; was about 1.7% (the year of the downgrade for U.S. credit worthiness). The negative amount for 2009 is likely a 2008 number, also misplaced in the list.
Oh, well; just a few trinkets of stuff.
I assume your notation is that a priest can not invest in the market place or do you mean a Catholic pension fund.
http://www.aod.org/our-archdiocese/archbishop-allen-vigneron/sharing-the-light-communications/priests-pension-plan/faq-about-priests-pension-plan/

Hey, Catch. Any priest as an individual could invest in the market. My note was about any official entity--- like all the priests in a particular diocese, planning as a group. Such an entity cannot by Canon Law put their retirement money at risk.... Oops, but WAIT! There's more:
It appears that my priest-friend is incorrect (!!!) Yet he distinctly and explicitly told me what I had just shared above, in this thread. Of course, Canon Law applies worldwide. There is a big chunk of it which must be interpreted in order to be applied in a way that doesn't screw people, for it to be applied meaningfully. As a seminarian and a former Catholic myself, my bishop once asked me if I'd be willing to study Canon Law. He needed a canon lawyer. The guy they had was retiring. I told the bishop I'd rather stick needles in my eyes.
But clearly, the Detroit Archdiocese is invested in the market on behalf of their priests. My classmate is in Canada. And the entire diocese (Nelson) has just 27 priests, and only 3 are from either Canada or the USA! I'm intimately familiar with the geography up there.
"... Investments of Plan funds grow in years when the markets perform well. The Plan fund is reduced when the market declines..."

@Crash
Check item 9, in this list.
The returns sure are not money market rates for the years indicated; ALSO I do believe the return data is misplaced in the form.......the 2011 return is not likely correct and could be the 1.67% amount show in the adjacent year. 2011, from my recall; was about 1.7% (the year of the downgrade for U.S. credit worthiness). The negative amount for 2009 is likely a 2008 number, also misplaced in the list. Correction of my statement: The fiscal year periods being June of each year would likely indicate proper returns status percentages.....my bad.
Oh, well; just a few trinkets of stuff.
I assume your notation is that a priest can not invest in the market place or do you mean a Catholic pension fund.
http://www.aod.org/our-archdiocese/archbishop-allen-vigneron/sharing-the-light-communications/priests-pension-plan/faq-about-priests-pension-plan/

Shit. HOW is this legal in the first place??? They got the moola, so they get to make the rules. No ethics. No standards. No conscience. More arcane jargon: "... rebates they pay to market makers for passive orders that add liquidity..." Years ago, I asked a pro trader in his office what it meant, printed right on the sheet we were both looking at: "We make a market in this security." I found out much later, YEARS later--- that it means company X owns 5% of the total number of stock shares in company N.

People lament the disappearance of traditional pensions, but when they're offered the opportunity for their retirement plan to give them those pension payments for life, they'd rather take the money and run.
Traditional pensions have value. Annuitize and you've got a traditional pension. The problems are not with the idea of annuities, the problems are with some (most) of the annuity products.
The IN column is an editorial. That said, it does make some fair observations:

We are all familiar with the horror stories tied to annuity products. Over the years, annuities, which come in multiple stripes and flavors, have been derided for high fees and commissions, questionable returns and mind-numbing complexity.
...let's be clear that not all annuities are overly complex and expensive; some are more closely aligned to straight insurance for old-age income.

In other words, some look like straight pensions.
What Crash is describing is all too common. That's a problem with the plan, not the concept. Government 403(b) plans are exempt from ERISA fiduciary requirements (though they may still be subject to state level trust laws). That's a good part of why many 403(b) plans are so confusing. It wasn't until just a decade ago that 403(b)s were even required to provide plan documents. The new legislation targets 401(k) plans, that are already better regulated.
The column, being an editorial, has its fair share of biased information. "[The proposal] has bipartisan support, and proponents range from the Insured Retirement Institute to AARP."
Well sure. The Insured Retirement Institute is a trade organization representing insurers, brokers, advisors, "solution providers", ... AARP started as a promoter of insurance for retirees and still makes money branding insurance products. The fact that legislation opening 401(k)s to annuities is supported by organizations standing to benefit from it is not exactly a reason to celebrate. (Though since the support is to be expected, it's not a big negative, either.)

One fund that is a fascinating example of the disparity between the two previous bear markets is the deep value fund AVALX. It did great in the first 2000-02 bear market and terrible in the 2008 one. What is really interesting to me right now is it is doing really well in this year's slide so far. When the market tanks it seems to go down much less. I'm wondering if that isn't some kind of indicator as to what types of stocks might suffer and thrive the most if we continue down the same path, or is it just a head fake? It is by no means what one would call a risk averse fund. That is part of the fascination. I also wonder if conventional value stocks that smart beta products have been chasing for years now might not do as well as deep value ones which are more unusual and often not found in most benchmarks. I wonder for instance if benchmarks themselves and the passion for indexing and ETFs itself might have something to do with the nature of the next crash. All of this is just theory right now on my part. Unfortunately, most bear markets aren't often fully understood till you're in the middle of them, and sometimes not even then.

@LewisBraham, you brought back challenging times. Certainly learned my lessons in both bear markets. Most important thing was not to sell in those period and remind myself that investment is for the long term. Several years later everything recovered and more. High quality bonds held up well and periodic rebalancing really helped.
Not sure what the triggering points for the next bear market will be. But I will stick to my plan.
@davismoran, I did not research CAPE on bodgeheads site. Many of the posters are Vanguard and DFA diehards.

The structural aspect he describes is interesting too. I would say you are better off with the Doubleline mf for the CAPE exposure than an ETN with a single issuer's--in this case Barclays'--credit risk. Or, and I know I've mentioned this before, do it yourself. It doesn't seem a particularly hard strategy to mimic on your own with three or four ETFs.
Regarding the UI, I would say on a rules-based strategy not designed to specifically have a low downside risk profile that the UI in recent years would be highly misleading. Even in the case of SPLV which is designed to be low vol there are hidden risks, a concentration now in utilities that doesn't do so well in certain environments such as rising rate ones.
But the CAPE ETN really isn't designed in any way to be defensive as far as I can tell, especially with high sector concentrations as it has. I would say the low UI in this case would be more accidental than real. I would trust an active manager in this case who specifically says he/she is striving for low downside risk and proves it over time over a rules-based ETN with no specific downside risk feature built into the rules. You could say price momentum has some downside risk feature I guess in the rules here--for what its worth. But being in just three or four low value sectors at a time isn't really risk averse. The value premium isn't known to come necessarily with low volatility. It does tend to work over time, but you have to accept some ulcers in that UI often to get the excess returns.