It's 55% of my entire investment net.
To some degree I understand on paper what it does. What I am still trying to get my mind around are worst-case scenarios and how it would compare with some combo of conventional LV and broad bonds. The leverage explanations are interesting but the msf conclusion
>> think this as a 2x leveraged fund.
and the downside capture ratios that M* lists are confusing to me in terms of its actual performance.
I have begun analysis of every 2-week or longer dip since inception as compared w/ CAPE and w/ SP500. I am through 2014 and into the beginning of 2015, with the more recent years tk.
Thus far all that I see, from a sample of seven such dips, is as follows:
- no delta to speak of, though leveler (smoother) performance than SP500
- smooth outperformance, small, marginal
- smooth underperformance, small, marginal (only one of these valleys thus far)
- first one and then the other, smooth underperformance followed by smooth outperformance, with the result, at the end of the recovery point, higher than CAPE, which is higher than SP500.
Now, since its inception, 4.5y ago, it is true that we have not had long or deep dips ("drawdowns"), so this investigation of mine may not speak to what one can comparatively anticipate in a plummet of length. But thus far I see no increase in volatility, and depth or speed of drop (insofar as one can tell from M* data).
Maybe it would be the case that during a bad set of months and years it would be better to hold TWEIX [or insert your favored broad index here] with some mysterious bond portion.
But I ain't seein' it, and thus far I ain't finding it either.
Will report further results later, for dips the last two years.

Thanks @Ted,
Some additional notes I have been accumulating regarding Roth IRA's mostly from Ed Slott"s Discussion Forum here:
Discussion Forum:
Understanding Roth IRA Inheritance:
Q: If my spouse passed away and I transfer his ROTH IRA into my own new ROTH. Does a new 5 year window start. If I then pass away 1 year later how are my Beneficiaries treated and what options do they have?

This is a confusing topic because you can either continue as beneficiary, or assume ownership and roll into your own Roth IRA. The best decision depends on your age, the age of the Roth, and how much money you need from it before you reach 59.5.
If you assume ownership of the inherited Roth, you are treated as if you were the owner from Day 1. The 5 year holding period starts in the year your spouse first contributed, but then you must also be 59.5 before your distributions are qualified. If you already had your own Roth IRA, you could combine the Roths and the 5 year holding period is treated as starting with the first contribution either one of you made.
If you then pass, your beneficiaries continue to treat the holding period as starting the same time your holding period started. But they do not have to wait until 59.5 as that non spouse inherited Roth would be fully qualified after 5 years starting with your holding period. However, your non spouse beneficiaries will have annual RMDs and if they create separate inherited Roth IRA accounts before the end of the year following the year of your death, they can each use their own age to calculate the RMDs.

also, the order of Roth IRA withdrawals:

Your balance in regular Roth contributions can be withdrawn tax and penalty free any time. After all your regular contributions have been withdrawn, additional distributions must come from your conversions, oldest conversions first. If you get to conversions less than 5 years old, you owe the 10% recapture tax on the taxable portion of those conversions. Earnings come out last. To properly report any of these distributions on Form 8606, you must have kept track of your regular and conversion balances.

finally, a good strategy for Roth Conversions:

Having a separate account for each conversion makes the recharacterization process simpler, but if you is going to invest the accounts in the same investments, it is probably not worth the trouble. The number of accounts is not a factor for taxation of withdrawals since for those purposes all Roths are treated as one combined account regardless. All Roths are fully qualified and tax free after 5 years from the first contribution and age 59.5. But before the Roths are qualified, there is a 5 year holding requirement for each conversion that will end when one reaches 59.5, if 59.5 comes sooner. If one withdraws conversion money before 5 years or 59.5, he/she will owe a 10% penalty on the conversions withdrawn. Roth IRA ordering rules apply with respect to which portion of the Roth comes out first. If one is already 59.5, the conversion 5 year holding period does not apply, but 5 years must still pass before any earnings will be tax free.

Obviously there has been a lot of discussion regarding this fund and rightfully so given its performance, albeit just 3 years.
I am a recent investor in DSEEX/DSENX and like the price action vs the S&P500. I have read on this and other forums that some feel this fund is NOT a "core" holding unlike an S&P500 idx fund.
Maybe this comparision is not exactly "apples-to-apples" but it does seem to be a fair correlation.
What are your thoughts on this fund as a "core" holding and what percentage-range of your stock holdings should a fund like DSEEX be?
Of course, I recognize everybody's risk tolerance and objectives are different. I am just looking for some guidance and opinions; I am still in the growth stage.
Thank you for any input and thoughts,
Matt

Hi @Old_Skeet
As to my write, I was curious about various bond related returns during the May-Nov period over the past 9 years, which looked back to the major market melt period. In retrospect, I could have included 2007; as this was the beginning of the erratic equity markets in the late fall of this year.
Realizing there is data that somewhat supports the sell in May theory over a long time frame, I have never used this method to sell or buy either equity or bond positions.
Lastly, as I noted; sell and buy trigger methods used by an investor will likely be modified, at least in part, as to whether the investments are within a tax deferred portfolio. All of our portfolio is tax deferred accounts, so current taxation does not become a consideration with sells or buys.
Hi @Maurice
You noted: "But rotating bond and stock funds every 6 months wouldn't work for me."
>>> I agree. A May equity sell and buy again in November would only function and have value for our house if other factors were present: two being political and/or technical aspects related to particular sectors we may have in our portfolio. One might have a particular investment that has been held for "x" time and has produced a decent profit margin; but is now discovered to move sideways in price for a period of time that gets one's attention. For indicators as these, I/we at this house need to ask "why" questions. Has this sector run its course and is nothing more than the victim of profit taking as monies move elsewhere? Are there real reasons for this pricing change that are related to problems in this sector; or related to real time or potential political actions. I have not checked, but will assume that an example could be the real estate sector and related problem areas. One may own a REIT 1 fund that has held onto investments in the "mall" sector too long; while another REIT 2 fund may have moved away from that sector and had invested more, say; into the apartment sector or spaces leased by the healthcare sector. If the "mall" real estate sector falls on its face and there is continued demand for apartment space and leased healthcare facility related, one might assume better performance from fund 2, eh?
These are some of the factors that may take place to cause us to sell a particular investment area and move to another; but not necessarily linked to either the month of May or November.
The above could as well be directed towards the overall equity or bond market and their particular sectors, too.
We do pay attention on a weekly basis, at this time, to watch the price travel of sectors here and international.
Hi @hank
Bonds of various flavors may find interesting roads to travel depending upon French election results in May and any other funny business in this country.
Regards,
Catch

There are a lot of thoughts when it comes to investing and if one should as some say market time using some common known and often written about investment strategies. From my perspective, if they did not work folks would not write about some of the more commonly known and the more easily used strategies.
From my own experience, I've been successful with my special investment positions because my account through the years has often commented to me ... You owe taxes on your stock market profits. Sometimes he ask ... Did you have losses that could have been sold to offset some of these gains? And, my answer is usually ... No.
With this ... I plan to continue opening and closing special investment positions from time-to-time as I feel warranted.
Skeet

Hi @Art,
My bad.
Retirement is going well and I have been at the coast over Easter with family and friends. Golf ... Teeing it up this afternoon with my golf league group of 25 years or so. At 69, I am still hitting from the white tees while some have moved up to the senior tees that are my junior. We shoot at points so once you have qualified from either the senior tees or white tees you've got to score plus to win, place or show. I'd rather shoot at less points and be on the white tees than more points and be on the senior tees.
Since, you named it (MSFBX) first ... you are now the big dog.
Skeet

Hi @VintageFreak,
I took a look at WGRNX and from a quick review of its M* report I went no further as it seems ...
@JoJo26 pulled the hat trick selecting MSFAX and thus far it is the top dog from what I am finding in looking through a good number of world stock funds. MSFAX has a threshold to purchase at a cool five mil; however, I have found another share class MGGPX of this fund that I can purchase with a much lower threshold but with a sales load. For now, I plan to continue with THOAX as a member of my global growth sleeve and thus far over the past five plus years I have owned it, it has served me well. Besides, I'd have a sizeable capital gains tax bill (for me) if I sold it.
Thanks again JoJo26 for the tip on MSFAX ... I'm now thinking you've selected the winning fund. It would be nice to hear form @ep1 as to what he thinks ... since, he picked our brains so-to-speak.
Have a good day!

If I want to buy a $10K interest the Vanguard 500 portfolio, I could pay exactly $10K for VFIAX. Or I could pay a bit more for VOO shares representing the same $10K interest in the portfolio because of the added cost of the spread. I'd prefer not to pay more than $10K for $10K worth of securities.
Regardless of how large or small that added cost is, it is a drawback inherent in the ETF design. Though perhaps it is one that you may not personally care about.
Regarding the size of that spread, Ted's 1 basis point spread is more the exception than the rule. For example, CAPE has a typical spread of 15 basis points. Here's Vanguard's table of spreads on its ETF share class.
With SPY and VFINX Ted is comparing oranges and tangerines (close but still different). The question was what downsides there were to ETFs, not whether ETF 1 was better or worse than OEF 2.
The only way I know to do an apples to apples comparison using concrete funds rather than discussing different attributes of ETFs and OEF is to compare ETF and OEF shares of the same underlying portfolio. Say VFIAX vs. VOO. Since these are shares of the same portfolio, and since they have the same ER, the only factors affecting performance should be due to the nature of the shares and not of the particular fund.
Here's the M* comparison over the past ten years.
As of April 18, 2017, VFIAX'sVOO's cumulative return was 97.23%, while VOO's was 96.59%. That doesn't include dinging VOO for the cost of the spread.
If you add SPY to the M* comparison chart, you'll find its performance was even worse, at 95.66%. But that's because of the design of the fund (cash drag due to UIT structure plus higher ER). Those additional variables confound the data.
A tip for the linkster - to link to a M* page comparing funds, one needs to link to the chart page (there's a "share this chart" link there). The only fund that shows up when one links to a M* performance page is the original fund; the compared funds don't get passed through the link.

An interesting article for the "Sell in May" crowd like myself that use the strategy as part of my investment plan and have for a good number of years. I have bookmarked it for future reference.
One of the primary reassons that I have been a big fan of the strategy is that one can use it during low interest rate periods (like we have been in) and make good money with part of your cash being placed into the strategy between the end of October throuh the end of April. Then move back to cash during the off period. Most times you will make more than just what interest alone would have paid. At least, it has for me through the years.
Some that use this strategy like to aveage in and out of their special investment positions as I do. And, yes sometimes I move to bonds and/or cash ... but, this year I decided to expand my hybrid income sleeve and open a few new positions as hybrid income funds usually hold bonds plus good dividend paying stocks along with some other asset classes. I felt my hybrid income sleeve could better weather the anticipated coming FMOC rate increases over my bond funds. So, this year I have started to venture into the hybrid income space along with starting the restoring of my CD ladder. I felt this was a good move since I already have ample cash that can be put to work should a sizeable stock market pullback develop.
My new target asset allocation (as defined by Xray) is cash 20%, income 30% (up 5%), stocks 45% (down 5%) and other assets 5%. Currently, I am stock heavy and income light by a few percent each ... but, come sometime in May I plan to be closer to my target allocation.
Please note, I use the "Sell in May" strategy as part of a well diversified investment plan and not as a complete investment strategy in and by itself. This is because, most times it works but sometimes it doesn't work; and, I have learned through my many years in investing there is no sure thing.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

Another useless political move. The formal exit from the EU is two years away. The trade negotiation with the rest of the continent is more important.

Hello @ep1,
THOAX ... Thornburg Global Opportunities Fund is a focus fund that I have owned for better than five years and seeks investment opportunity worldwide holding somewhere between 30 to 40 stocks. It is split about evenly between domestic and foreign and although it has owned small caps form time-to-time it is now more of a large/mid cap fund when it comes to style orientation. It is currently a five star bronze rate fund by Morningstar and has a top of class performance for 1, 3, 5 & 10 year periods (top 20% and better).
I have provided a link to both its fact sheet and Morningstar report below.
https://www.thornburg.com/products-performance/mutual-funds/overview.aspx?id=FGO
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/THOAX/quote.html
The other two funds that are members of my global growth sleeve where THOAX is found are ANWPX and SMCWX.

Hi @Junkster,
S&P 500:
Jan 1, 1984 166.40
Jan 1, 1983 144.30
Jan 1, 1982 117.30
Jan 1, 1981 133.00
Jan 1, 1980 110.90
I have not dug through old data, but recall the end of August in 1982 as the turn around and the beginning of the upward run in U.S. equity after the beating of the mid-1970's.
An aside note, not directly related and may not be of any value, but the mid range of the boomers in 1992 was about 36 years old finding decent average earning/wage power at the time for perhaps the next 20 years before the slow turn down in earning power. Boomers, of course, have entered into the retirement phase and others entering at a 10,000/day rate, being 4 million/year. The reported birth numbers from 1946-1964 for the U.S. was about 76 million. A question as to whether there is enough money among this group to help support either equity or bond markets to the positive side. We here have read the reports of low savings rates for many boomers; and so there may not be enough power in this group to support any market area(s). The flip side being that the output/withdrawal period is in play, versus the prior period of input/investing. Whose/what money is going to support this withdrawal in order to support equity/bond returns to the positive side going forward???
Bond yield range: The current yields below have remained in this spread range for some time now; being about .6%; and traveling together. I do not recall any breakout in the 30 year to extend the yield above and beyond this .6% spread from the 10 year, for at least the past 6 months to 1 year period. For my non financial background and IMHO; I read this as continued low inflation as well as other twitches and wiggles, which may be related to high equity valuations and the big money (pension funds, foreign central banks, etc.) still maintaining "safe ground" and purchases while Euro area bond yields remain very low.
10 Year 2.25%
30 Year 2.90%
Note: most investment grade bonds lost a small piece of price ground today.
A few late in the day musings.
Take care,
Catch

I have to admit I am impressed. Just like at the beginning of 2014 when 99.99% were saying bonds (10 yield Treasuries) were on their way to 4% (they were 3% at the time) Gundlach was the sole dissenter and predicting bonds were headed back to 2%. This time around when bonds recently hit 2.55% to 2.60% just about everyone was saying it would be a non stop rise to 3%. But Mr Gundlach again was a dissenter saying they would first trade below 2.25% before resuming their journey to 3%. They are 2.22% as we speak.
I guess the surprise here would be they never get close to 3% and fall below 2% or stay in the current range of 2.20 to 2.50%. I am not sure what has been the story of 2017 - the resilience of stocks or bonds. I am also wondering if there is some secular shift underway where bonds may trade in a low yield range for years to come. And that is from the baby boomers seeking safer and less volatile investments in retirement as they rotate out of equities. It sure has been a boom for the early boomers since 1982. It's liked they all woke up one day and began worrying about retirement shoveling money into stocks. Maybe now they are waking up again and shoveling money into bonds.

I am traveling for the weekend and only have my handheld so this will be short.
Years back in college one of my econ professors had our class doing some basic market anlysis and trend forecasting. With this, I plan to continue my forecasting excerise for enjoyment and investment benefit.
I am not asking anybody to follow my thinking just posting it for additional discussion and comment.
Now back to ... Johnny.

Weirdest interview ever:

Of (writer meant "If") you talk to advisors in the field or experts in technology, experts in the field, they're talking about the latest financial planning software, or the hot new rebalancing product. They're not talking about exponential technologies, which is an entirely different conversation.
So most people are unaware of the field of exponential technologies, and have no knowledge that this ETF exists, or why it’s different from all the others. I think for both of those reasons, it’s not on the radar of many in the industry.

My question as the reader, "What is Exponential Technology?"
Edelman can use the term, but nowhere in the article does he (or the interviewer) define it. Nor does he explain how he filters for ET when he buys companies that have it.
Some how 197 companies appear to have it according to his EFT XT's portfolio. The top ten holdings amount to a mere 6% of the EFT's AUM...not very concentrated.
He personally (I assume Edelmen Financial) holds 75% of the EFT (down from 100% when he created it the ETF). I will assume it has been pedaled quite heavily to his "sheeple" (who I'm sure have heard of it).
I've heard enough, I'll pass.
In XT's short history (2 years) it appears less impressive than "Unexponential Technology" ETF, QQQ:

@Mark- For years I've blamed various disastrous investment episodes on you when I've been explaining to my wife. Now you're making me feel like a scumball. OK, OK: in the future I'll blame MJG. :)

FYI: At $2.5 billion, the fund managed by Bruce Berkowitz since its 1999 launch is now a shadow of its former self.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/berkowitzs-fairholme-faces-16-billion-in-withdrawals-over-6-years-morningstar-says-2017-04-12/print
M* Snapshot FAIRX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/fairx/quote.html

FYI: (The Linkster never links anything from Seeking Alpha.Com.)
The Securities and Exchange Commission is trying to rid the nation of phony stock stories. It’s safe to say that the agency has a steep climb ahead of it.
On Monday, the SEC announced that it is cracking down on stock promotion schemes that played out on Seeking Alpha, Benzinga, Wall Street Cheat Sheet and other investment websites in recent years.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.barrons.com/articles/fake-investment-news-could-be-here-to-stay-1491951655

Umm, UAL doesn't have much blood on it. The stock is up 27% annualized over the last five years and is close to its five year high. It's no bargain anymore. You could make a better case for WFC, although it too is only about 11% below its five-year high. So regardless of anyone "beating their moral chests," these stocks ain't cheap.

LPEFX has been one of Old_Skeet's holdings for now better than five years with an average annual return, for me, of around 15%. I hold this fund in the specialty sleeve found in the growth area of my portfolio.