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.

Hi Guys,
The tidal wave of mutual fund money storming away from actively managed funds and towards passively managed products certainly is a cause for concern among the actively management contingent.
So is the fact that fund fees are being reduced, that investors are becoming better informed, that the managers themselves are better prepared limiting any potential advantages, that the competition is more uniformly challenging, and that the community is numerically shrinking. Wow, that's formidable headwind!
All these are combining to make active managers perspective's significantly dimmer. But the referenced article is not written in a nasty, non-reversible trend sense. It inspires some hope. It highlights the investment strategies of a few attractive individual investors who use both active and passive components when assembling a portfolio.
I say attractive because the mixed management investment styles of those profiled are very similar to my own investment rules of engagement. It is a battle. And everyone likes to be a part of a group and not an outlier when doing battle or when making investment decisions. There is comfort in not being alone.
Although the active management community is struggling through a tough,abandon ship period, it will not totally disappear. It's needed for price discovery purposes, and because there will always be some folks who will never be satisfied with only earning average market returns. These folks covet superior returns as their guiding goal.
Tom Petruno is an excellent financial writer. I like his work. I have read his measured articles for countless years. He rarely disappoints and always includes data that is easily understood. Good for him; good for us.
Best Wishes

FYI: Today’s infants may gasp in wonder 20 years from now at tales of how humans once were trusted to drive cars. They may also be shocked that humans once were trusted to pick stocks for investment portfolios.
The soaring popularity of “index” or “passive” mutual funds in the last few years has dealt another blow to the ranks of traditional “actively managed” funds — the ones with human portfolio managers who are supposed to ferret out the best stocks and beat the market average return.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-investing-quarterly-active-funds-20170409-story.html

Morn'in @VintageFreak
From a post or two I linked over the years, from Nov. 2009, per Mr. Lloyd Blankfein.
http://www.businessinsider.com/lloyd-blankfein-says-he-is-doing-gods-work-2009-11

SPECX is Old_Skeets largest holding in the growth area of my portfolio and has been for a good number of years. Indeed, it has been a good fund through the years. However, there are other good large cap growth funds as well. Some that I follow are SBLGX, LGRRX and NEFSX (which I have owned in the past as a spiff).

FYI: To beat the stock market and mutual fund peers, having the right stocks isn't enough. It's having them at the right time that counts. And Alger Spectra Fund (SPECX) has done that in spades in the past 10 years and is doing so again this year.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/mutual-funds/blue-chip-tech-names-help-fuel-this-red-hot-fund/
M* Snapshot SPECX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/specx/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot SPECX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/specx
SPECX Ranks #139 In The (LCG) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-growth/alger-spectra-fund/specx

Matt, PYMDX/PHMIX and MMHAX are the two I normally have money in, going in and out, partially, in steps, based on T rate trajectory and trading ranges. They're both up 4%+ ytd.
Fyi, MMD is a top-performing muni cef run by the same managers as MMHAX. Bob DiMella, one of the management team (and I think the lead, though he's not id'd as such by M*), has been on WealthTrack in the past, the last time maybe a year or two ago - you could get the flavor from that interview if you want to search for it.
Found my way to HY munis about two years ago, and until the markets change, I'm done with ~ all investment-grade muni oef's. Cef's (which the article emphasizes) are a different animal; I usually own one or two, but opting for the oef's right now.
Like the article says, HY muni funds aren't nearly as junky or default-risky as corporate HY; the default rates on the former are much lower, and the muni funds typically have higher average quality than corporates. For example, Pimco and Mainstay are about 60% and 50% investment grade, respectively.
Best -- AJ

I don't worry about "go anywhere" but I have owned WHGIX for many years and it has served me fairly well; of course, you must keep this fund in perspective. As wm72 stated it does not hit home runs, but it is fairly steady, good safety and tax-efficient for its category.
If it fits into your overall portfolio objective, then it is a solid choice (IMHO).
Good luck and profitable investing going forward to both of us wm72 and any others invested!!
Matt

"I'm looking at the 5-year tax adjusted returns for RPHYX and it's 1.40%. Three years is 0.90%. "
Okay, but what are you saying? That this is better than cash, or that it's worse than more volatile funds?

I wasn't saying anything other than what was stated - the numbers provided by *M. People can make their own conclusions based on the numbers. Taxes may play a part in returns so I think it's important to keep that in mind, especially for those holding these types of funds in taxable accounts.

I checked with my favorite site for total return ...
I also checked performance at M*, with their closest return indicator at 5 years and the total return numbers since inception are a match within .02%.
I fired up my handy-dandy HP-12C and did rough numbers.
RPHYX is 6.38 years old and has a total return of 17.75% in this time frame. The math indicates an annualized return of 2.78 (M* reads 2.76% at the 5 year return), before any taxes if held in such an account.

M* has all the data, you just have to know how to coax it out. If you go to the chart page, you'll get a chart for the lifetime of the fund. $10K grew to $12,137.31, for a total return of 21.3731%. (You can also see this on the summary page chart.)
http://quotes.morningstar.com/chart/fund/chart?t=RPHYX&region=usa&culture=en-US
The Stockchart link you gave appears to go back only to March 24, 2011 (just over 6.0 years). The fund started Sept. 30, 2010 (just over 6.5 years). Not sure where 6 3/8 years came from.
The M* chart can be adjusted for any dates. If I adjust it to begin on March 24, 2011, I get a total return of 19.17%. I don't yet have an explanation for the discrepancy.