Regarding cap gains on homes - interviewee (at 5:54) states correctly: "it's also important - always important - for individuals who own their homes to keep great records of the improvements they've put into their homes in order to try to eliminate or reduce part of the gain."
The proposed changes would not make the record keeping tasks any more onerous than they are now or have been in the past. Regardless of how home cap gains are taxed, you always want to show as little gain as possible. Just like stocks, where you keep track of your purchase prices, buying and selling commissions, net proceeds (after other taxes/fees are taken out), you should be keeping track of similar home costs. The purchase price, improvements, additions, special assessments, etc.
A proposed House change to the law would only affect high income people ($250K/$500K per year income). Those people likely own homes that already have big gains that are taxable (more than the $250K/$500K that homeowners can exclude). So this proposed change would have no effect on record keeping needs.
Both House and Senate are proposing requiring people to stay longer in their homes to qualify for the $250K/$500K exclusion. The main people this change would affect are those who are flipping houses to keep their gains under the exclusion amount. They don't get much sympathy for me, and they're probably already keeping detailed records to achieve their objective of avoiding taxation on their home gains.
Longer term, more and more people will need those records. The amount of gain you can exclude, $250K/$500K, was set in 1997. At the time, that sounded like a lot of money. Now, $250K won't buy you an entry level home in some neighborhoods, though it's still above the median price of a home in 80% of the states, including New York ($247K). In another 20 years, lots of people may have taxable gains in their homes.

Thanks, Ted and Bee and msf, for the link and the info.
It seems to me that having the step-up in basis at death is important for two reasons:
(1) the heirs don't owe tax on the the appreciated gain (duh)
(2) the heirs don't have the huge hassle and hopeless task of figuring out the true basis from Mom and Dad's incomplete records of purchases and reinvested dividends.
On the other hand, according to Consuelo's interviewee, such complications are being re-introduced for homeowners who sell their house at an appreciated value after living in it a long time: you'll owe capital gains now.
So trying to go back and find the original price and figure how much capital improvements you made through the years ....... Ugh.
Best to will the house to the kids so they get the step up basis.
Like many other things Congress does, these bills make me want to scream. I don't believe it's fair to pay taxes on taxes, so property taxes and state and local income taxes should all be deductible from Federal tax consideration. I don't care whether it's blue state or red state -- it's just not fair.
The issue that bothers me the most is the elimination of the estate tax. Our ancestors fought for freedom from a system in which an aristocracy based on blood lines ruled over everybody. If huge -- multi-billions of dollars -- can be passed on from generation to generation, we run a huge risk of living under a new aristocracy based on overwhelming wealth.
Maybe I went a little off-topic there.
David

Hello,
I do my monthly close on the last Friday of each month with the exception being in December where I use the 31st. My report follows.
For November Old_Skeet's barometer closed the month with a reading of 145 indicating that the S&P 500 Index is overvalued. The barometer consist of three feeds. A breadth feed, an earnings feed along with a technical score feed. At times other technical indicators are used along with a short interest reading. Currently, short interest for SPY is reported at 2.5 days to cover and currently is not a detractor to the reading.
The barometer from a technical basis reflects there are no major sectors within the 500 Index being scored undervalued or oversold. For the month the three best performing sectors were technology (XLK), consumer discretionary (XLY) and real estate (XLRE).
Within my own portfolio I have noticed that my bond duration has fallen from 3.4 years to 3.0 years over the past month. Many may remember my reporting that I have begun to move towards using a good number of hybrid type funds along with some multi sector income funds within my portfolio to make it more dynamic and adaptive to ever changing market conditions. So far, the addition of hybrid funds has now grown to the point where their use has enough influence on the portfolio to make it more dynamic. In addition, based upon a seasonal investment strategy I am overweight equities, at this time by 4%, over what my equity weighting matrix is calling for.
With the overvalued stock market, as measured by Old_Skeet's barometer, for now, I remain in a cash build mode while I await the next stock market pullback. However, with many of my mutual funds making some sizeable capital gain distributions come December I may reinvest some of this money towards the first of the year. One area I plan to look at is hybrid type funds both (convertibles and multialternative).
Listed below are what my five year average investment returns have been by sleeve and for two bogeys. The first percent number is the average yearly return and the second number is the sleeve's current yield. Notice, the higher yielding sleeves generally have lower yearly returns.
Income Area, Income sleeve ... 5.2% ... 3.26%
Income Area, Hybrid Income sleeve ... 7.5% ... 4.15%
G&I Area, Global Hybrid sleeve ... 8.4% ... 3.66%
G&I Area, Domestic Hybrid sleeve ... 9.7% ... 2.95%
G&I Area, Global Equity sleeve ... 11.4% ... 2.31%
G&I Area, Domestic Equity sleeve ... 12.7% ... 2.78%
Growth Area, Global Growth sleeve ... 14.7% ... 0.47%
Growth Area, Large/Mid Cap sleeve ... 17.0% ... 0.21%
Growth Area, Small/Mid Cap sleeve ... 13.8% ... 1.71%
Growth Area, Specialty sleeve ... 11.7% ... 1.18%
Master Portfolio (as a whole including cash sleeves, equity adjustment range +/-5%) ... 9.6% ... 2.5%
Investment Portfolio (without cash sleeves, equity adjustment range +/-5%) ... 11.2% ... 3.0%
Bogey Static 50/50 Index Mix (portfolio with no cash position, rebalance annually) ... 9.0% ... 1.8%
Bogey Active 50/50 Index Mix (portfolio with no cash position, equity adjustment range +/- 20%) ... 9.8% ... 1.6%
A recent Morningstar Instant Xray analysis listed my asset allocation as Cash 17%, U S Srocks 31%, Foreign Stocks 20%, Bonds 25% and Other 7% along with the yield being 2.51%. Five years ago the porfolio's yield was in the 3.25% range with the distribution yield being north of 5%. This year I'm thinking the distribution yield will be around 4% which includes interest, dividends and capital gain distributions.
For those looking for a way to consolidate multiple accounts into a consolidated report I have found Morningstar's Portfolio Mananger a good and accurate way to track investment performance along with other investment and portfolio metrics. Year-to-date both Portfolio Manager and a manual tabulation of account statements are producing the same total return number of 9.6% through Friday November 24th.
Thanks for stopping by and reading.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet
Note: Edited with current yield percent on 11/26/2017 and consolidated statement summary on 11/29/2017.

@Ted ... You do a great job of finding interesting articles!
... As for judging mutual funds, YTD is a bit arbitrary and too short IMO ...

I agree on both points. YTD Is fun to watch. I suppose we all do it. But unless you’re trying to grab a fast profit on a hot fund it’s quite meaningless.
I generally won’t buy a fund without looking at ‘08 in its prospectus. Such a telling bit of information. Too bad it will not show up in prospectuses after another year or two. I wish the SEC would require they go back at least 15 years in reporting a fund’s yearly performance.

There were 35 mutual funds and ETFs that turned 3 years old thru October.
Like it or not, the first 3 year performance mark can be crucial to a fund's commercial success and continued viability, since that's when Morningstar assigns its star rating.
Below please find leaders by AUM and leaders by MFO ratings (risk adjusted return based on Martin).
Three overlap: AQR Equity Market Neutral Fund R6 (QMNRX), SEI Emerging Markets Equity Fund A (SMQFX), and Ivy Mid Cap Income Opportunities Fund N (IVOSX).
Four get MFO Great Owl designations, which also first get determined at the 3 year mark: Leland Thomson Reuters Venture Capital Index Fund I (LDVIX), AQR Equity Market Neutral Fund R6 (QMNRX), First Trust Eurozone AlphaDEX ETF (FEUZ), and Schwab Fundamental Global Real Estate Index Fund (SFREX).

I have owned OSMAX for over four years and more than once it has been my strongest performer of the year. This category can be very volatile, but i consider this category a nice diversifier in portfolio.

Hi @jerry and others,
I don't track a 60/40 but the 50/50 Index mix that I do track has had the following returns. They follow: 2012/9.96% ... 2013/17.31% ... 2014/5.60% ... 2015/0.54% ... 2016/7.04% ... 2017(ytd)/10.87%. The cumulative return for this period is 53.85% with the average being 8.98%.
The reason I use the 50/50 mix is that now in retirement I only move my equity allocation +/- 5% from its neutral position of 50% unless market conditions warrant otherwise. Years back I'd go +/-10% from the neutral position thus a 60/40 mix might be a better allocation for this adjustment range.
My cumulative return on my own portfolio for the above period has been 57.47% with the average being 9.58%. Some will ask ... Has it been worth it to be active? For me, it has been as it has put a good bit of extra cash in my pocket vs. running with a static 50/50 mix. Plus being a student of the market has been rewarding in of that itself.
In addition, I use American Funds' Capital Income Builder (CAIBX), my third largest holding, as my global hybrid fund bogey because of its global allocation and yield. Its cumulative return is 49.55% for the period with the average being 8.26%. My return over the 50/50 mix is about 6% and over CAIBX about 16%. Generally, I have found, higher yielding hybrid funds offer lower returns. And, my portfolio does kick off a good yield and has a global orientation. I also, use the Lipper Balanced Index as another standard.
In looking at a sampling of some of the funds listed in the article the two I looked at GSOFX & USMYX did not have the history necessary for a compairson. However, I did do one against KCMTX listed by Morningstar as a multialternative fund. I found it's cumulative return for the period to be 67.01% with the average being 11.17%. KCMTX is co-run; and, one of its managers Parker Binion has started posting on our board. Parker's handle is @PBKCM in case you did not, and would like to, know. Interestingly, I was asked (in another thread) by another poster as to why I'd be a buyer of this fund? It is pretty simple ... in spite of its expense ratio ... it is putting up some good numbers for a multialternative fund plus it is currently carrying 5 stars by Morningstar. Folks, it cost money to actively engage the markets. It also reminds me of two other funds I invested in early on (but, no longer own) one being Ivy Asset Strategy and the other being Marketfield. They got to the size where they could no longer effectively position in a timely manner with the ever changing market conditions. So, I let them go as their performance waned.
Below is a link to the Morningstar report on Parker's fund.
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/KCMTX/quote.html
Notice it is ranked in the top 1% on the rolling 1 year return period ... top 2% on year-to-date returns ... top 2% on the 3 year period ... and, top 1% for the 5 year period.
For me, the big question is ... How did a good skilled seasoned writer such as John Waggoner miss by not including Parker's fund? Perhaps, Mr. Waggoner reads the board? And, will kindly make comment.
And, so it goes.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."

October marked 12th consecutive month with no annualized drawdown or downside in S&P 500 total return. Last time that happened was February 1959, nearly 60 years ago ... a time of Eisenhower, Alaska, Hawaii, and The Space Race.

FYI: Through the end of the day Monday, emerging market stocks (as proxied by VWO) are up 28% in 2017 compared to a 17% gain in U.S. stocks (SPY). While U.S. stocks have been up for 8 years in a row, emerging markets have fallen 4 of the past 8 years. All stock markets are cyclical but EM stocks may be even more so than most. This piece I wrote for Bloomberg provides some context on this cyclicality. EM is not a place everyone is comfortable investing but for those who are, you need to understand what you’re getting yourself into.
Regard,
Ted
http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2017/11/the-emerging-markets-cycle/

@pressmup: before you buy ROSOX, check out GSIHX if you want another option in an experienced manager of a brand new fund. It's run by the former manager of Virtus Emerging Markets which I owned for a few years until he left. He has resurfaced with his own boutique firm. Which subadvises this fund. It's sold in only a few places, Fidelity being one as load waved and ntf, same with TD Ameritrade. I also started a small position in his more pure emerging fund GQGPX until it becomes available at Fido. I prefer to have investments in one place. He ran up a great record at Virtus, Ravi Jain is his name.

FYI: There are reasons to be skeptical about high-yield bonds, but not for the ones investors have been worried about lately.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-11-21/your-worries-about-junk-bonds-are-probably-all-wrong

Conclusion: "Investors in high-yield bonds are likely to be poorly compensated for risk in the years ahead. For that to change, high-yield bond markets will have to become a lot scarier than they have been in recent weeks."

Thanks!
The argument about ICMAX is interesting. If your time horizon is short and you can guarantee that the market will rise steadily (a feat that some technicians and timers believe is doable), then you should be fully exposed to the stock market. That's especially true if stocks are cheap. And that certainly eliminates from consideration absolute value funds, which only invest if they find suitable values. If your horizon is moderate and you have no idea of what lies ahead, there's an argument for varying your equity exposure based on what you can measure (valuations) rather than on what you can't (future returns). That's especially true if stocks are expensive.
The reason most investors do poorly is that they underestimate the risks they're taking and overestimate their abilities to navigate falling markets.
That said, I can read the numbers: 0.4% returns over 3 years, 4% over 5 years, 7.2% over 10 years (effectively the whole market cycle). But I knew what I was getting when I bought the fund: disciplined manager in a volatile asset class, long-term record of withdrawing from overpriced markets and buying into sharply correcting ones. Given that I didn't want to double down on my FPA Crescent (FPACX) position when Artisan SCV liquidated, this made sense for me.
But it might well make little or no sense for other investors.
As ever,
David

In response to an emailed question, here are the US equity funds with the highest Martin ratios over the full market cycle that began in October 2007:
Reynolds Blue Chip Growth (RBCGX), 1.75
Intrepid Endurance (ICMAX), 1.67 (which I own shares of, fyi)
Yacktman Focused (YAFFX), 1.31
Eaton Vance Atlanta Capital SMID-Cap (EISMX),1.25, also a Great Owl
Parnassus Endeavor (PARWX), 1.20, Great Owl
Madison Dividend Income (BHBFX), 1.15, Great Owl
AMG Yacktman (YACKX), 1.14
Monetta Young Investor (MYIFX), 1.12
Brown Capital Mgt Small Cap (BCSIX), 1.11, Great Owl
Prospector Opportunity (POPFX), 1.08, Great Owl
Charles's "Great Owl" designation tracks the consistency with which a fund posts outstanding risk-adjusted returns. Technically, they are "top qunitile funds in their categories based on Martin for periods of 20, 10, 5 and 3 years, as applicable." All of the funds above have records of 10 or more years.
For what interest that holds,
David

We thought we’d continue catching up with the 130 U.S. equity funds which have passed their second anniversary but have not yet reached their third, which is when conventional trackers such as Morningstar and Lipper pick them up. (Technically, they're in the 1.9 year to 2.9 year age bracket.) As Charles has repeatedly demonstrated, the screener at MFO Premium allows you to answer odd and interesting questions. Our screeners are unusually risk-sensitive. That’s because the easiest way to make money, in the long term, is not to lose money in the short-term. The default risk measure in our ratings is the Martin Ratio, which is exceedingly sensitive to downside risk. (Charles can share the details, if you'd like.)
Here's the most disturbing finding of our search for the most risk-sensitive two-year-old funds: they're ETFs. At the very least, all of the ten best funds, measured by Martin Ratio, are ETFs. Here they are, from the safest young equity fund to the 10th safest:
State Street SPDR S&P 500 High Dividend ETF SPYD (Equity Income)
JPMorgan Diversified Return US Equity ETF JPUS (Multi-Cap Core)
ProShares S&P 500 Ex-Financials ETF SPXN (Large-Cap Core)
ProShares S&P 500 Ex-Energy ETF SPXE (Large-Cap Core)
ProShares S&P 500 Ex-Health Care ETF SPXV (Large-Cap Core)
ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF SMDV (Small-Cap Core)
Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta US Large Cap Equity ETF GSLC (Multi-Cap Core)
VictoryShares US Large Cap High Div Volatility Wtd Index ETF CDL (Large-Cap Growth)
Invesco PowerShares S&P 500 Momentum Portfolio SPMO (Large-Cap Core)
Xtrackers Russell 1000 Comprehensive Factor ETF DEUS (Multi-Cap Core)
Likewise, 9 of the best 10 funds measured by Sharpe ratio are ETFs.
Why's that disturbing? Because market-tracking products should have market-like risk, not vastly lower-than-market risk. So, what gives? As Charles pointed out in his September essay, there simply is no downside volatility being manifested in the market now which means that our screener has hundreds of US equity funds (rather more than 300) with incalculably high Martin ratios. In a normal market, a Martin Ratio of "3" is virtually unattainable; no U.S. equity fund has a 10- or 20-year Martin ratio that high. The best record for a fund that's been around at least 5 years is AQR Large Cap Defensive Style (AUEIX) with a lifetime Sharpe ratio of 11. To recap: in the long term, no US equity fund is capable of a Martin ratio of 3 (or even 2) and, in the medium term, 11 is incredibly high.
What about today? The highest calculable one-year Martin ratio we currently have is Calamos Dividend Growth (CIDVX) at 202,363. The fund's long term Martin ratio is 3.06.
As Charles noted in a recent tweet, the deception gets worse this month as the worst drawdowns from the 2007-09 crash disappear from funds' 10-year records.
Bottom line: common risk metrics, which focus on three year periods, are probably unreliable guides just now. You need to understand a potential investment's risk by (a) looking at the manager's risk-management discussions (if he doesn't have one, run away!) and (b) taking most seriously the risk characteristics in the two recent down markets (2000-02 and 2007-09) or across the whole market cycle, rather than getting lured in by shiny short-term numbers. We'll continue to try to do both for you; that is, we'll take the qualitative and long term quantitative together as we try to make sense of what's on offer.

@MikeM, I hear you about the alt categories' shortcomings, but I also think 4+ years is more than a brief moment. They're both closed to new investors now, so aren't that plugged up with assets.
(As usual, I reserve the right to change my mind and sell at any time. Which I tend to do not all that infrequently.)
Cheers - AJ
P.S. @davidmoran, QM's neutral and QL is the same neutral strategy + up to 50% long as an addon. QM usually runs at sort of a bond-ish level of volatility (M* compares the up-down capture to the AGG), and it tends to pick up the slack when both stx and most bonds take a hit.

If ever a board of directors deserved to be sued for allowing such nonsense to continue for so many years it was this one.

I cannot remember the last time anyone here seriously discussed what used to be the common investment risk parameters. Those are considerations like age, years to retirement (or years in retirement), risk tolerance, additional assets or sources of income, and one’s overall situation. It’s not something you turn “on” or “off” depending on whether you believe in Trump, like the economy, or think equities are going higher or lower. Those basic parameters (actually constraints) have always existed and been important. I can’t tell you we’ll enter a prolonged bear market this year or next. I can, however, assure you there will be another one someday. Acceptance of that reality is the only reason I can think of why risk exposure / asset allocation should be a consideration for most.

Hi @Crash, with rising rates, in general, prices fall and yields increase.
As far as HY goes, an old rule of thumb is buy HY at a spread to Treasuries of around 8 and sell around 4 **. If you look at the last ten years on this FRED chart, 8 was way too soon during the financial crisis, but about right at the peak spreads of 2011 and 2016. The spread dipped below 4 about the beginning of Q2 this year and continued slowly down till toward the end of October, and is mainly up since.
** That 'rule' refers to HY in general, on average, as that FRED chart tracks. Differently rated HY credits typically run at different spreads, so there's more nuance to get into for real junk aficionados.

Thanks @Ted.
From the article:
"No doubt about it, stocks today are expensive."
I see this narrative a bunch. Yes - forward PE ratios are high. But not when considered against inflation. And earnings yields are more than twice treasury yields.
Context is everything.
The market climbs a wall of worry built on a bedrock of statements like "stocks are too expensive." As Clements wrote: "I’ve been writing about the stock market for 32 years, and in every one of those years folks have complained that stocks were expensive."

One commentator for this article; although perhaps borrowing the thought from another source, presents the most likely scenario result from passage of the "tax legislation" relative to corporate taxation, IMHO. One of their investment choices may be worth observation, going forward, if the legislation passes.
"With the tax plan progressing in congress and the good possibility of profits being repatriated, I'm wondering if this bull market hasn't another 2 or 3 years left to run. I'm looking at PKW (PowerShares Buyback Achievers Fund) because I believe rather than plowing cash into salaries, R&D or new plant and equipment, corporations are going to simply buyback shares which will effectively lower the P/E ratios of their stocks, thus benefiting stockholders, albeit not the US economy as a whole."