MJG may be like the permabears he describes. If one hits all the bears and many bulls as well, one will cut one's losses during market slides as he described. That doesn't mean one can time the market.
Taken to the extreme, just keep most of your portfolio out of the market. You'll "suffer a loss in a Bear, but typically not as much as the market itself experiences."
Unless you get back into the market at the right time, your "round trip" (through the bear and the subsequent bull market) can underperform simple buy-and-hold. Though by cutting one's losses (and gains) one may sleep better.
Then there are the bull markets one may hit inadvertently. Lightening up through those create sure losses relative to buy-and-hold, no matter how fast one reenters the market. How many people have tried timing the bond market for years, going shorter and shorter on duration as long bonds have continued to do well?

Sorry VF. Just messing with your brain. :)
I don't think there's any legal definition of long, short or intermediate term bond. So, there isn't any "correct" answer to the question you raised earlier. Manager spells out his/her definition of what constitutes each category for purpose of defining the fund's investment practices. And, of course, there's common practice, on which something like Investopedia would probably offer up a definition.
Problems with bonds? Tell me about it. Rates s*** on investment grade stuff. So investors have for years been fleeing into riskier assets like equities and high yield. A bit like jumping from the teapot onto the fire. Your point about slicing, dicing and than re-stacking the bond deck isn't missed either (Which nicely obscures the underlying risk for most of mere mortals.) I see that in spades in some hybrid income funds.
FWIW (totally unrelated) Commentators on Bloomberg are now speculating that the daily multi-billion dollar flow into large cap index funds is what''s keeping equity markets afloat. Just a thought.

FYI: One of my friends is from Thailand. She earned a King’s Scholarship to study finance at a prestigious U.S. college. She currently lives in Bangkok where she works for McKinsey & Company, a global business consulting firm.
She’s smart…really smart. A few years ago, she told me that index fund investing doesn’t work well in emerging markets like Thailand. She says it’s more of a stock picker’s market. Many people agree. They say it’s easy to beat an emerging market index with carefully selected stocks.
Regards,
Ted
https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/is-there-such-a-thing-as-a-stock-pickers-market

Word play on The Ghost and The Darkness I believe. I really liked this movie...20 years back I think.

Hi Josh!
Good to see you posting. Just my 2c or your port in the tax sheltered account. Use the S&P 500. You're young.....use that to your advantage. In the taxable area, it gets tougher. You need to put a percentage in and divulge how long you have had your holdings. It's a tax thing....
You say you will buy a house in a few years. Are you sure? FPACX I would cut; MANKX also. You want to make money, they don't. They're for when you're old. If you look at the port, POGRX and OAKIX is where I would put money for the future. As far as small and mid caps, I think this way trouble is coming. But long term looks good. I would say indexes, but with taxes and house coming soon, stay the course. As far as bonds, you're too young. Just my 2c.......
God bless
the Pudd

Hi @bee. Don't know about it being a tedduplicate since the sources and experts cited are different. But yes, the theme seems to be the same. Unfortunately, I hadn't followed the thread you referenced. We're still getting all our horse & buggy internet (rural area) over 4G and pay by the GBs consumed. Sometimes, especially late in the billing cycle, I skip the videos to conserve data.
Regarding the article itself ... Since I don't subscribe to the S-I-M or other systematic timing strategies, linked the article more to show there are contrasting points of view on this - rather than as a serious macroeconomic viewpoint. However, as an aside, I do continue to think valuations are rich among many (possibly all) risk assets, so have been holding an elevated amount of cash and short duration bonds for a number of months (not related to its being May). Just one fella's humble opinion. And, I'm well aware that periods of overvaluation can persist for many years.

FWIW, the number three holding according to Bloomberg is Sberbank.
The fund began just three years ago, Jan 1, 2014. The inception date reported by Bloomberg appears to be the "strategy" inception date of Jan 1, 1990 (also reported on the fact sheets).
https://www.orbisaccess.co.uk/our-funds/global-equity-fund/
I've been reading through the prospectus, and while the 50,000 foot level description by Bloomberg is okay, the details seem significantly different from what's in the article. For example, the performance fee (or refund) is assessed daily, not semimonthly as Bloomberg writes. The amount is 50% of the excess (shortfall), not 33%. And so on.
I suspect that the fund would have problems registering in the US because the performance fee structure is not perfectly symmetric. Given that the fund's base fee is zero, I think it would be required to return fees in case of underperformance. The fund does not return performance fees if the reserve set aside is depleted, i.e. the management company does not make up this shortfall. Unlike Bridgeway, which actually paid into one of its funds for underpeformance at one point.

I have a question.
...
So my problem is this. Maturity, and more specifically how does it matter if I'm purchasing a 30-year bond, but it was issued 29 years back. What is difference between buying this bond which has 1 year left to mature vs buying a brand new 1-year bond? ...

There isn't any difference. They are both 1-year bonds in today's market. The loss or gain on the old 30-year bond doesn't have anything to do with the next 12 months. The previous owner made or lost money, but its current value is determined by the current 1 yr rate.

@VinetageFreak,

Supply and demand should work for bonds just like it is for stocks. So simply saying the inverse relationship exists is IMO not good enough. There needs to be substantial availability of higher yielding bonds of same maturity out there to meaningfully depress the prices of the lower yielding bonds.

Great point!
Some additional 'gurgitation.
An Individual 30-yr bonds doesn't act any differently in year 29 than they did in year 1. You still get your coupon...and, you eventually get your principal back (in year 30). A bond fund is a mix of 30-yr bonds which were bought at different times with a variety of yields and are blended together to provide a coupon at a relative share price. Its the movement of this bond fund share price comparison that is made with other blended bond fund that has some concerned. If rates drop, yesterdays 30-yr bond fund is more valuable in price (if you were to sell). If rates rise, yesterdays 30-yr bond fund is less valuable (again, if you sell).
If you don't sell and just live off the dividends (yesterday it was 4%...tomorrow it may move to 5%), irregardless to the bond fund's share price you have less concern about the direction of interest rates. I believe the typical fix income investor is spending down shares of their bond fund as well as spending the coupon. This may be what AJC is concerned about. If you never sell your bond shares the individual securities will eventually mature out of the 4% yields and it will be replaced with new, potentially higher yielding contracts. Selling shares is what 'fixes the price" and obviously you don't have control over other investor's selling. This could be at a loss compared to what the shares were first bought at.
This is the price of admission to get at the bond coupon in a bond fund. Price appreciation and coupon yield are what we have enjoyed for the last thirty years with bond funds. A Bond fund share price can rise and fall significantly even when interest rate move just a small amount.
I wonder if it might be easier to think of a bond fund like an annuity. If you invest in an immediate annuity you give up principal for a stream of income. Think of a 30 year bond fund or any other bond fund the same way. If you discipline yourself to only collect the coupon from the bond fund you have "an annuity" that will always have a cash value. The 'cash value" (share price) changes as a result of its comparative value to other bond funds (and their underlying coupon).
Also, if you reinvest your dividends you are nudging your cost basis lower (buying additional shares at lower share price) if that share price did indeed dropped.

I have a question.
I do get the inverse relationship between bond prices and prevailing interest rates. This relationship should apply to every bond "category" as well. If long term interest rates are rising, long term bonds will fall. If short term interest rates are falling short term bonds will rise. So bonds of different durations may not move in the same direction, and it is not just about what is "best". If both short and long term bonds are falling in the face of both short and long term interest rates rising, saying short term bonds are better investment because they are falling less to me is a little ridiculous, because CASH is actually the best performer.
So my problem is this. Maturity, and more specifically how does it matter if I'm purchasing a 30-year bond, but it was issued 29 years back. What is difference between buying this bond which has 1 year left to mature vs buying a brand new 1-year bond? If the market is going to adjust the price of the 30-year bond for me discounted to the present, and if the 30 year bond yielded (say) 4%, vs the 1-year bond which yields (say) 1%, could I still not buy the 30 year long term bond and come out ahead? Only in this case I might be doing that through a Long-Term bond fund, but I'm told I'm not supposed to not do that right now because interest rates can only go up from here.
That's why I can never bring myself to invest in bond funds and rely on balanced funds for my bond exposure. Even bond index funds have to turn over their portfolios. So really effective maturity and effective duration of the portfolio I think should matter and hence M* provides that information (some times). However, I've always had trouble co-relating that information with actual performance of the fund. Because those two numbers can keep changing even for index funds.
For the stock index fund which is market weighted I can visualize in my head when it goes up and when it goes down. For bond funds I can't.
Finally, revisiting the inverse relationship between price and interest rate. If we issue $100M worth of bonds of given duration in the market yielding (say) 4%, and very soon later (just to diminish effect to outstanding maturity) issue just $1M worth of bonds of same duration but yielding 10%, because of lack of availability of quantity of higher yielding bond, I don't see how prices of the $100M bonds can fall meaningfully. Supply and demand should work for bonds just like it is for stocks. So simply saying the inverse relationship exists is IMO not good enough. There needs to be substantial availability of higher yielding bonds of same maturity out there to meaningfully depress the prices of the lower yielding bonds.
I often mention I use ANALysis for my investing. THIS is the reason. If I use Analysis, then I buy MCI WorldCom instead of Verizon in the late 90s. If I used ANALysis I would have bought Verizon.
Thanks for reading (if you did).

Lets look at the one comment she made on fixed income investments:

A Goldman analysis of 10-year government bonds around the world shows there’s not one bond where the firm thinks yields are as high as they should be, Cohen said. “This is problematic. We think that yields can and should go higher. They are already so low it’s not going to impact the economy per se, but we do worry about the portfolio impacts. When yields go up, prices go down.”

A 10-yr government bond is a 10 year contract that is an agreement to pay a coupon (interest...however high of low) for the duration of the contract (in this case 10 years). If you hold the bond to maturity in your portfolio you get your full investment back plus interest. Price only goes down relative to newly contracted bonds if you sell when terms are better (rates have risen). Price goes up if newly contracted bonds are written when there is downward pressure on rates (which has happened many times recently). Bond price can also be impacted by "flight to safety" when there is a shock in the equity market. these bond funds spike in price due to a lack of availability of these bond shares (everyone wants them...no one is selling).
What to do? She doesn't offer any strategies, but there a few.
In a rising rate environment ladder individual bonds (just as you would ladder CDs). Another strategy in a rising rate environment would be to shorten your duration. Also keep in mind that with rising rate often comes Inflation...remember TIPS...they may play a bigger role as rates rise and trigger higher inflation.
Aren't Bond manager's capable of navigating these changes?
I can understand that an un-managed Bond Index fund will have periods of adjustment (price loss), if investors are selling these investments into rising rates, but even these funds will evolve their holdings into the prevailing rates over longer time frames. Cash or a ST Bond fund may serve as an additional strategy for those who need income in 1-3 year time frames. Holding IT Bond funds for longer periods will help the IT bond fund adjust over 3-7 years to these higher rates. Investors have to think more about how to divide up the bond funds: ST, IT and LT. This would be similar to laddering cash in CDs.
Couple of Articles:
Evaluate the risk of owning bond mutual funds versus individual bonds in a rising interest rate environment:
money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-smarter-mutual-fund-investor/2014/07/31/the-perils-of-bond-funds-in-a-rising-interest-rate-environment
Best Bond Funds For Rising Interest Rates:
https://thebalance.com/best-bond-funds-for-rising-interest-rates-2466827

The only thing that remains to be seen is who is going to wait the longest before sounding the alarm on fixed income so they can say *they* famously made the call before fixed income actually starts underperforming in a meaningful. Basically, who is going to be alter-ego of Hussman for fixed income, who will get the timing just perfect.
Many people have claimed the end of the bull market for bonds over the past several years. In fact Muhlenkamp did in the 80s or 90s I think. Good I realized what a joke his economic theories were. Selling out of bonds when interest rates are dropping and calling it end of bull market. Now at least people are calling it correctly because of rise in interest rates impending. Only it is not yet quite happening. Maybe GS has heavily shorted fixed income and can bring about its collapse.
Regarding Abby being perma bull. Guys and Gals, I will always peddle what I am selling. Why will I do anything else? I will bash the other side and get you to come over to mine.

I kind off used to like Uno's. It closed shop several years back in my neighborhood though. The key is the crust I think. Needs to stay crunchy, flaky.
PS - That video shows someone dipping a nacho in the pepperoni+cheese deep dish? I think that should be punishable offense.

I have almost 25% of my portfolio and two-thirds of my international exposure in Asia while I'm underweight Japan and the other developed markets, so I completely agree with Matthews on this one. I own the usual suspects as others have mentioned- GPIOX, GPEOX, GPMCX, MEASX, MAPIX and SFGIX all have big if not total allocations to Asia, but I also own KGGAX, OBIOX, QUSOX, EWX, TVRVX and WAFMX which each have 30% or more in Asia. That might be too many funds but I'm not uncomfortable at all with the large allocation because the stats on all these funds in terms of P/E, P/B, ROA, ROE and expected EPS growth seem very good pretty much across the board. Since I've built several of these positions over the last couple of years as emerging markets have suffered, I would also eventually reduce holdings if and when emerging markets/these funds have higher valuations. I'd expect that could ultimately reduce Asia to less than 20% of my portfolio with pretty much all of that coming out of emerging markets when it happens.

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of google Search)
For years, the dollar has been the only game in town. But emerging market currencies are rebounding, and it could be a good time to get in
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=Time+For+Emerging+Market+Currency+Funds

Ben...I do believe an out sized Asia stake would be worthwhile simply due to the potential consumer growth in the area.
My holdings are similar to yours, with GPMCX, ARTGX, GPGOX, SFGIX and FMIJX. I do have an Asian pure play, which happens to be the first fund in this space I bought many years ago, and that's MAPTX, my only current Matthews holding.
One thing I'm currently looking at is the weighting between China and India within all of these funds. I believe India will overtake China in performance very shortly. MINDX is on my pondering list.

Reminds me of "Trouble in River City" from a favorite musical. I think the warnings about trouble in fixed income have been running now for almost as long as The Music Man.
A kid born when these "warnings" first began must be about ready to enter college today. If the fixed income was invested in longer dated bonds or high yield bonds the parents probably did well in saving for college. Equities however likely out-performed fixed-income over the past 15 years (but turned many stomachs during the '07-'09 time-frame).
I like Abby Cohen a lot. A regular on Rukeyser's old show. But if you're not aware, Abby is a perma-bull. Can't ever recall her being negative on equities. FWIW

@expatsp , thank you for sharing your learnings. I also bought the fund at inception but had a much shorter leash. I don't remember the exact timing, but I believe I sold it after a couple years.
Berkowitz was heralded as a great fund manager being able to run a focused fund given his success early on with FAIRX. But as Charles points out, that fund was actually very well diversified by having the bulk (and if memory serves, close to 30-50%) of his money in BRK and LUK. When he relied on his own "value" stock picks, he chose nothing but value traps. So in retrospect, his only genius was riding the coattails of other well diversified, great stock picking masters.
My leanings from owning FAAFX:
- deep value managers are a huge gamble not worth taking.
- managers with huge egos who can't adjust or admit mistakes are a huge gamble (I would lump Berkowitz and Hussman in that same category for non-adjustment).
- If a fund has not kept up with peers or it's index over 3 years - find a better choice.
- Don't worry about the fund turning around the minute you sell. Remember you re-invested with another option. Be confident you made your best decision at the time.

I've said this before, and I'll say this again.
1) When you buy vs What you buy
2) do not reinvest dividends (especially in the Dweebners and the Dorkiwitzs)
I'm in both CGMFX and FAIRX playing with the houses money. I have the luxury to just wait and see if they turn around or go bankrupt.
No such luck with Hussman though. Because I didn't follow my 1-2 mantra when I bought it back first in 2001. I thought if anything this was the fund to DCA into, and so I did. Now I'm selling little every year. Might sell out completely this year. Funds managed by 1-2 people need 1-2 mantra.
PVFIX, I'm considering adding now after so many years of just holding.
COBYX, I did not time perfectly but not doing too badly. Not sending new money though.

@expatsp
Yeah... had about 6 GREAT years of tax loss carryover... followed by @5 years of not so great capital gains in my brokerage account!