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.

Ralphie's family, after having been somewhat burned with investments during the market melt of 2008; and having watched the market returns over the years and especially the run up after the November 2016 elections had finally decided they needed to go all in again into the continued equity run. Large cap growth remained a long term winner, so all in with FSUPX; a typical large cap growth index fund offered within their investment firm at a reasonable e.r.
They're frustrated at the moment, as their purchase date of January 26, 2018 may have been a near term high point, and their equity portfolio is down -8% at this point (April 6, 2018).
The family's primary wish for today is that the "twitter" rhetoric for singular policy and processes emanating from the office of the president will not be the final word of their country. They have recently learned one important fact of their government. How did congress give away the power of tariff to a single person? They might as well given the singular power to launch codes and the red button control, too. The family comments among themselves, "pretty scary stuff".
I offer a metaphor view for the POTUS effect and Ralphie's family reborn investment desires and their current monetary uneasiness.
---The hub cap is the holder of their investments; a supposed, assumed safe representation of their country's stability.
---The lug nuts are the hard earned investment dollars.
---The "word" is the personal release of the frustration with policy and process of a POTUS, the family awaits the verdict.

Oh, well; just one person's metaphoric view of circumstances. Modus operandi is often difficult to measure outcomes into the future. My "A.I." machine is unable to provide a future view, and the magic 8-Ball fell to the floor and leaked away the fluid.
Have a good remainder.
Catch

I'm in the same place as expatsp. Just a quick look at yearly returns, it appears this fund held up well in 'down' markets like '15 and this year to date and under performs in good years '16 and '17. I believe a well managed balanced fund will return more over a market cycle than (most) any alternative fund. Bottom line for me, 'timing the market funds' are tough to sustain, both in total return and investors sticking with it long term.
a year by year comparison; this fund versus the Vanguard 60:40 balanced fund versus Pimco Income fund.
year '15 '16 '17 '18
IQDAX 7.7 0.2 7.0 7.6
VBIAX 0.5 8.8 13.9 -0.9
PONAX 2.2 8.3 8.2 -0.4

@MikeM, No catalyst on whatsoever to buy now. I rebalanced out of equity in December and again in January as market moved up without convincing reasons. Aa a consequence I am at the highest % of cash & bonds for the last 20 years - because I have don't confidence of the market and the politics. I have stated several times here on the tariff on our trading partners and its global consequences. During last two months of wild swings I basically sat tight. Only last Friday I started to put $ with managers whom I have the highest conviction. This includes Andrew Foster, Teresa Kong, Alex English (FMI team), and Warren Buffet.
Wish I am more upbeat on the market. Frankly I am very concerned.

@MFO Members: For the past three years IQDAX has been the top dog in the multialternatve fund category world. Now if we can figure out how to get around the $100,000 minimum, its a winner winner chicken dinner.
Regards,
Ted
Average Multialternative Fund:
YTD: -(1.45)%
1yr. 2.19%
3yr. 0.39%
IQDAX:
YTD: 7.03%
1yr. 9.31%
3yr. 6.82%

Hello,
I've been traveling in Central America the past couple of weeks spending a lot of time in Panama. There is a lot of new construction taking place in Panama with a good bit of the old infrastcture (ferry crossings) being replace with modern suspension bridges. In addition, they are developing a modern day mass transit system which is underground in most of Panama City but will be above ground in other parts. Still, the main economic driver for Panama is the canal. With this, there are those that have (a few) and those that have not (a good number). An example of this is a senior pilot on the canal can make upwards toward (and above) $250,000.00 leaving the average worker and citizen earning much less. Naturally, those working on the canal earn much more than those working elsewhere.
Life can be good for some as our host were of good means. But, for the Panama Indians still living in the interior (where no roads go) life is as it much was many, many years ago. Visited two tribes on our visit and while life is simple for them it is something I'll leave to them to enjoy.
Moving on ... This week Old_Skeet's market barometer finished the week with a reading of 161 indicating that the S&P 500 Index is oversold. With this, I did a little buying in a couple of my hybrid funds (PMAIX & AZNAX) and opened a position in a money market mutal fund (AMAXX) putting a good bit of my demand cash held in one of my accounts into it as its current seven day yield is about 1.5%.
Next week earnings season begins. I'm not sure if stellar earnings will be enough to overshadow the threat of a trade war. However, I am looking for earnings to surprise to the upside. Might give us some temporary relief but until the tariff on imported goods mess is concluded I not looking for much advance in the stock market. Perhaps, by fall this "turd" will have passed.
This past week my three weekly mutual fund leaders came from the growth & income area of my portfolio and were PMAIX, HWIAX & SVAAX (all held in different sleeves).
Closed out my spiffs this past week (consumer discretionary) and moved the other spiff position (emerging markets) sell proceeds into my emerging market fund found in my specialty sleeve. This increases my on going exposure in emerging markets (NEWFX) within my portfolio.
It's good to be back home ... and, thanks for stopping by and reading.
I wish all "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

FYI: Sam Eisenstadt says investors can expect mediocre six-month returns.
Investors should give up any hope that the stock market will hit a new high within the next six months.
That at least is the latest forecast from Sam Eisenstadt, the former research director at Value Line Inc. Though he retired in 2009 after 63 years at that firm, he continues to update and refine a complex econometric model that generates six-month forecasts for the broader U.S. market. That model’s latest projection is that the S&P 500 SPX, -2.19% will be trading at 2,775 on Sep. 30 of this year — more than 3% below its January all-time high.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-guru-who-called-sp-500-gains-sees-no-new-market-high-before-october-2018-04-06/print

What makes Fidelity Total Bond unique to has beaten the Bloomberg Barclays US Aggregate Bond Index by one percentage point annually over the past 10 years?

Talk about lock up of one's money.........my recall is that the investors in the private hedge fund, by contract; can not remove more than 1/8 of their own money each 3 month period. So, one's last monies could not be fully removed until the end of 2 years.
Such a deal, eh???

FYI:(Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
If you’re a fan of active management, there’s ample reason to like the Fidelity Total Bond mutual fund. It’s Gold-rated by Morningstar and has beaten the Bloomberg Barclays US Aggregate Bond Index by one percentage point annually over the past 10 years.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=tDrHWpzTLtHr5gLSyr8w&q=The+Best+Actively+Managed+ETFs&oq=The+Best+Actively+Managed+ETFs&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30k1l2.3128.3128.0.4466.3.2.0.0.0.0.96.96.1.2.0....0...1c.2.64.psy-ab..1.2.200.6..35i39k1.104.Ih422H7_eR4

As I read the comments, I thought did you read David's commentary this month. If you did you have your answer. This month and his commentary for several months going back. It seems obvious that the prospects for 10 years to get back to even is a very good argument for why you leave a chunk money in Money markets and Short term Bonds.
Of course market timing is difficult but losing 50% is also very difficult. Many people who thought they would never sell after the 2009 sold out never got back in or have just recently got back in the market.

For all the preaching about staying 100% invested in stocks, we learned in 2008-2009 that taking a -40% haircut is not for the faint of heart. If only we had "hedged" a bit.
Now its almost 10 years later, and the market has gone on a wicked tear. Pullbacks have been rare. Complacency has set in for many investors. This cycle has already gone on longer than the typical Bull run.
If we were to enter a recession (these things are cyclical), a -30% drawdown would be reasonable. There is an urge to try to time the market....especially after a big, long, Fed fueled melt-up starts sputtering. Volatility has returned. And maybe this is healthy.
The other side of the coin is that "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent". Hey, to all you who can ride the big-boy rollercoaster all day long, hats off to you! Equities do yield the best returns over time. But it can get rough, and we haven't had "rough" in over 9 years. Cycles play out, and this time will not be different.

@Davidmoran,
HA. I don’t want to make it personal. Sorry if I got carried away. Defensive? Maybe.
Please know that I claim no expertise in financial affairs and don’t recommend my approach to others. I simply love following and discussing financial matters, along with science & astronomy, because in those disciplines a given input equals a given outcome. In other words, both disciplines rely on logic and provable facts. Compounding works. Buying low and selling high is demonstrably more profitable than the reverse. Management fees make a difference in the long-run, etc. etc. Contrast that type of intelligent commentary with most of the garbage that gets consumed daily in our media driven society. Thus reason to read the board and share ideas.
Dick Strong and some of his cohorts gave market timing a bad name back in the late 90s. (I dunno how he escaped prison.) And the fund companies than were more or less forced to tighten their regulations to prevent timing. Without going into detail, the practice (timing) can be profitable for a few smart (or shrewd) investors, but “dings” the fund returns for most so invested (a practice sometimes called skimming).
Anyway, my plan - scatterbrained though it is - was designed to keep me from shooting myself in the foot by trading frequently. Just about everybody here, including myself, seems to agree that frequent trading is detrimental to long term returns. That’s why 75% is essentially “locked away” in a diversified core portfolio. Except for annual distributions and rare rebalancing it’s hands off with that portion.
The 25% “Flexible” portion is a concession to my perceived need to be “hands on.” I can’t tell you whether the incremental adjustments to cash/equity holdings based on perceived market risk over the years have worked or not. My guess is it’s probably been a “draw.” I can say that in ‘98 when the tech-bubble burst, bringing down the whole market, and again in late ‘08 / early ‘09 when the last bear market ended I did have a sizable cash stash to put to work. It felt good anyway to be buying low. But maybe I’d been better off if I hadn’t carried the cash/equity equation over the preceding years.
I know your OP was “Why cash?” ... It’s highly liquid for one thing. It doesn’t pose the same downside risk as short selling does. It doesn’t carry the high expenses / fees that using various derivatives would. And most fund companies don’t put restrictions on your ability to move in and out of their cash / cash equivalency accounts - as they do with their other funds. As I said earlier, bonds pose some special risks in this low rate environment that might not ordinarily exist.