FYI: Providing historical context is one of the roles we play on behalf of our clients.
And that’s a good thing, because for an investor who just began paying attention to markets in the last ten years, the extent of their context is that the S&P 500 is the only game in town worth playing, it always goes up, and dollars invested in anything else are wasted.
Looking out past this period, however, and you see that this is plainly not the truth. It’s our job to not only make sure that clients understand this, empirically, but that they’re invested in such a way so as to take advantage of the myopia of others.
Regards,
Ted
http://thereformedbroker.com/2017/05/24/what-were-telling-clients-about-european-stocks/

VF - it's been my experience that lawyers always get paid their "usual and customary" fees before whats left gets divided up amongst those who actually suffered losses. It's been going on here in MN in the Tom Petters ponzi scheme for over 8 years now. Claimants piss and moan but generally in the end resign themselves to getting something at least. Judges can rule that the fees are excessive but rarely do. Besides, that often involves hiring and paying more lawyers to fight that business.

The cef PDI has been at a nice premium for some time now, uniquely so, almost, and certainly the first time in years. I have sold some. Significant rise and decline just today's trading.
This guy thinks its future will probably not be as bright as its past:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelfoster/2017/04/29/avoid-this-stealth-dividend-cut-now/#6ad284647a5c
What say you?
And alternatives? PCM? RCS? PCI? All different, of course. And different risk ratings, not simple to understand given their performance.

Here's another regret they might have--not having lived while they're young. The idea that all meals out with friends and family--moments you may treasure for the rest of your life--are "mindless" or that buying coffee to say study for a test or just for the sheer pleasure of being alive and enjoying a coffee is always a waste sounds like the typical view you hear from these financial planning types. They're busy wagging their fingers at kids when in fact young people are making less money today in low-end jobs on an inflation-adjusted basis than they did thirty or forty years ago in many states. It also makes the assumption that every young person will live to retirement age when in fact they won't. It's a matter of achieving balance--enjoying some daily pleasures--and saving. It's also a matter of paying young people appropriately.

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
A firm hired by the U.S. to distribute $4 billion to victims of Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme has racked up $38.8 million in billings over four years. The investors are still waiting for their first checks, though.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=Millions+go+to+Madoff+fund+lawyer,+nothing+for+investors

I think market knows there are enough crazy people, so yeah. I'm going to stay underinvested if this bull market continues for next 5 years, except for my retirement accounts where I tend to be fully invested.

I tend to pay attention to the theory of the Dow Transports being a leading indicator as to the strength of the economy. As it turns out, this warning sign has been flashing for 2 years.

FYI: In 2006, Anne Hathaway made People magazine’s 50 Most Beautiful People list. That year, the actress had starred in the film, The Devil Wears Prada. Nine years later, the now 34 year-old beauty reported that she’s already starting to lose roles to younger actresses. It’s a sad Hollywood truth. Time Entertainment reports that older male actors often get leading roles into their 40s, 50s, even 60s. Far fewer women do.
Once they hit a certain age, they become blasé, like a bond market index fund. Today, bonds rarely get respect. Stocks have won their Oscars for seven straight years. Bond yields, in contrast, are lower than a drug-addicted actor in rehab. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t own bonds.
Regards,
Ted
https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/-what-do-hollywood-actresses-have-in-common-with-a-bond-market-index-fund

PVFIX has been taking a bit of a hit lately because of "value" bets on "energy". I am waiting patiently to add to my position with money from the distributions over last several years that I never re-invest.

GLRBX down 1.06% yesterday. Eh, not impressed for a 50/50 equity/bond split fund.
Kind of makes sense. I believe small and mid caps were down about 2x that amount.

Unfortunately, the fund managers' decision to stress small and mid cap value equities has not served it well over the past three to five years. In addition, It's upside/downside capture ratio has been pretty poor during that time period as well.

@Davidmoran. I recently left ML where I had a managed account and went back to Fidelity after 4 years with ML. Oddly, the way Merrill did it is much more accurate. If you go into history of purchases, they show cap gains and dividends as having a zero cost so the return is accurate. When my accounts were transferred last week, Fido showed reinvested cost on some of my holdings total return cut in half in some cases. I will be working with the account manager at Fido to do the corrections since I have all the data. Like you, I use total return to see if I should shave profits or how much profit I have from my original investment. One of the reasons I left ML is when I had my advisor try and sell specific lots that had the most profit, ML used FIFO regardless of instructions. They did this numerous times. Fidelity let's you choose the lots and they execute as instructed.

If this is a 1995 style market which "experts" are predicting, then growth should outperform value. So IMO tech outperforms financials.
I do think below from Bill Maher is a genuine problem for "tech". Something I have been saying for years as I refuse to create a Facebook/Twitter account. Then again, I'm known to be anti-social...and proud of it.

The author seems to simply be reaching for a reason to not like the fund.
They say it's hard to compare the fund because "The nearly 70-year-old Franklin Income fund hasn’t had a clear benchmark for all those years because most of its investments are in five different asset classes—domestic and foreign dividend-paying stocks, investment-grade bonds, high-yield (or junk) bonds and convertible bonds—to generate current income."
And this is bad..why?
"The picture is even muddier because the asset mix can shift dramatically over time, and some of the convertibles can be “synthetic”—swaps that give the fund an enhanced yield on a common stock in exchange for forgoing some potential price appreciation but accepting all potential depreciation."
I would say that shifting assets to enhance performance is why you might choose active management in the first place. FKINX is the largest individual holding in my taxable account, acquired though inheritance. Thanks Dad.

I heard James management speak to a group of RIAs in late 2007. The person told us they (James) were fairly confident a massive selloff was in the offing. Interesting that he said they were doing nothing to the portfolio despite their strong conviction of a 50-60% drawdown in the S&P 500. The fund held up reasonably well despite the lack of conviction in their own conviction. It always stuck with me. Their allocation has barely changed over the years, remaining about 50% in stocks and 50% in bonds and cash. Also interesting is the fund's mostly mid-cap value tilt. I compare it to WHGIX, VBINX. We use WHGIX as an actively-managed, low-risk hold in conservative accounts.

Not a subscriber of the WSJ ... So, I could not read the linked article. But, it seems more and more funds that Old_Skeet owns are becoming the making of articles. I have owned Franking Income fund since my teenage years which dates back to the 60's. Regardless of the article's content I feel it has served me well through the years.
I'm also thinking that if you own something through the years ... and it has served you well ... and, folks are writting about it ... Well, it must be a keeper.
Think I'll keep it a while longer.

Thanks for the input. It's definitely struggled over the past few years during an up market. It seems to focus on more mid caps and small caps when compared to the average moderate balanced fund.

Yeah, another reason IMHO to own it. Also I think it is more "conservative" than your moderate balanced fund. One reason it has held back relatively to others.

TCMPX is a great fund, IMO. I've been invested for the last 2+ years. It's my largest active manager allocation.

Just over 2 years ago Dr. Snowball opined that "There are three, and only three, great international small cap funds" mutualfundobserver.com/?s=qusox
Two have been mentioned here: GPIOX, which is hard closed but I'd concur that GISOX is about as close as you can get in an open fund, and QUSIX, which I also own and think highly of.
The third was Wasatch International Opportunities, WAIOX, which hasn't been mentioned yet but probably deserves to be.
It would be interesting to know if David would stick by his picks, add any or delete any, but it seems you have quite a few good options in the comments so far.

Thanks for the input. It's definitely struggled over the past few years during an up market. It seems to focus on more mid caps and small caps when compared to the average moderate balanced fund.

I agree with Crash (and Bee) that PRIDX seems like a solid, stable fund for long term investing.
I hadn't taken a close look at VINEX in a few years (it had a pretty long poor stretch prior to 2013), but seems to have regained its luster - despite what M* thinks (Neutral rating). As I recall, it was much more value leaning many years ago.
If you're looking for boutique funds, QUSIX (Pear Tree Polaris Foreign Small Cap) has a fine long term record with managers that have been there for nearly a decade. Really low turnover, a healthy dollop of EM (18%), neither concentrated nor spread thin (74 holdings, 13% in top 5). Smaller cap than many of the other funds mentioned. Also value-oriented, which is a bit different than most.
A boutique fund on the growth side that pops out on a screen (don't know much about it) is TCMPX (AMG TimeSquare Int'l Small Cap). Been around four years, low AUM, great returns (and high Sharpe ratio, along with PRIDX and ISMIX).
(M* shows only 161 funds with mid or small cap portfolios that are international; only 158 if one excludes global funds. Rule out the obvious duds and regional funds you may not want, and the pool becomes small enough that one could almost research each one in detail.)