Umm ... Maybe that should read: "The title of this thread is misleading like most."
@John, I don't remember anyone ringing a bell and announcing in advance when past recessions were about to start. (But a lot of charlatans claimed credit after the fact). Usually it's the reverse case, with at least two quarters of negative growth rate in the rear-view mirror before economists make that call.
We've had pretty much a rocket ride upward since March 9, 2009 - 8 years. That's a long time. The Dow more than tripled during those years (albeit from very depressed levels). The one thing that is likely to trigger a slowdown is rising interest rates. And we'll have a clearer idea (I hope) of where the Fed intends to go with rates by week's end.

OSTIX is one of the best moves we made 14 years ago. Consistent, conservative, cautious management. M* still does not understand this fund, and that is fine by me.

Vanguard founder John BogleVanguard founder John Bogle.Vanguard:
"These active managers have a real business problem. They are losing money. Vanguard accounts for over 100% of the cash flow in the industry (since 2014). One firm. All the other firms in the industry together are losing money, losing cash flow. Of course they don't like it. I understand that. But it was never my design to build a colossus.
I'm a small-company guy, but I happen to have two great ideas. One is a mutual company, which is focused not on the management company shareholder but on the fund shareholder. That's the structural thing we bring to the table. And the strategic thing we brought to the table was the index fund. We created the first index fund, and it took 20 years before it started to catch on in, the mid-1990s, and now it’s dominating everything we say in this financial field, and it's changing it forever."
Business Insider Link to Interview:
businessinsider.com/vanguard-jack-bogle-401k-active-management-index-investing-2017-1

I continue to hold EM bonds, a pretty good slug. Served me well, even after I took a needed radical step some years ago in order to make-over my portf. Also hold a global bond fund. No more domestic "core" fund, though. I also get domestic bonds via my two balanced funds: PRWCX and MAPOX. Others referred to above are: PREMX and PRSNX. These two, combined, are 25.51% of portf. Reinvesting everything continues, still.

One problem I have with the data is its starting point (2000 market top). Index fund often get crushed in downturns in the market since these types of fund remain totally invested. Managed funds have the opportunity to make risk on/ risk off decisions. Moving the data backwards or forward three or four years would have improved the index funds long term performance compared to these managed funds.
Also, not considered by the author are low cost managed allocation funds. Vanguard has two fine choices, VWINX and VWELX.
Below are two charts that compare VWINX, VWELX and VTSMX over the 2000 - 20017 time frame and then a little further back. It illustrates that picking investment timeframes can make a huge difference in results. Timing plays a significant role with index funds since they don't manage market valuation risks, they are always fully invested.
This charts shows that buying at the top of the market is a real killer:

Compared to:

Tough time for active managers. Story on Bloomberg yesterday about TRP getting hit recently with large outflows.
Will the trend reverse? Dunno. I've read quite a bit recently (assorted interviews) that the investment tide is turning and indexes will enter a period of underperformance. Might draw money back to some successful active managers. The claim rests on the assumption that value (represented by some active managers) has lagged for years - and become undervalued - and that even indexes are subject to periods of euphoria - and hence overvaluation. Possibly this is simply active managers talking their shop. Who knows?
It's impossible to document the claim. And, no desire to get into a shouting match with the index disciples here of which there are several that I respect. Janus? I've never been enamoured by them. The arrival of BIll Gross certainly hasn't altered my perception. If they can afford to pay his "celebrity" rate, they're probably charging too much for their funds. :)
* Read "End of an Era" by Ed Studzinski in David's January Commentary. He addresses the fund flow (err ... outflow) issue. Among other brilliant observations is this one: "Often, as support staff and analysts are cut, it is the investment performance that continues to suffer as the investment research process becomes gutted. The other thing that happens is the quality of the personnel hired is ratcheted down (good enough) rather than the best available talent."

Presently feeling like a deer caught in headlights. Not doing much. Also elder princess not making her mind where she wants to go for College so trying to raise some cash for 4 years (yeah I'm going to keep all of it aside). Maybe she'll just go to the local school where she has full scholarship, maybe she won't.
So buying some more FPNIX and RPHYX with some of the money as lower risk play instead of keeping it all in cash. And now, just received proxy for voting to allow fund to purchase securities held by board and manager for FPNIX.
Hmm....thinking...

RPMGX clipped the threshold for a haircut in the taxable account, so a third of the proceeds went to a T, VZ add on and the rest to dry powder. This completes my telecom allocation.
It was almost exactly 2 years ago for a similar haircut for TR Price Mid Cap Growth ...what a great fund, IMHO.

DODLX clobbered my own PRSNX over the past 1-year period. On May 01, 2014, DODLX significantly changed its posture and strategy--- so notes Morningstar. Maybe that's why M* does not display returns beyond 3 years. Longer-term results could be found without much difficulty, of course. I think I have domestic bonds pretty well covered via MAPOX and PRWCX. In my portfolio, those 2 funds represent 52% of my entire total. And of course, PRSNX is a "global" bond fund, though I haven't looked lately to see just how much of it is in the USA. .... DODLX yield is 1.69% and PRSNX is at 3.44%. (30-day SEC yield is 3.92%, and I don't see a 30-day SEC yield number reported for DODLX.) My other rather large bond position is in PREMX. Doing very nicely. Others here prefer FNMIX, and I can see why. :)

Actually I just met with someone from Osterweis yesterday. I have really not looked at the two new funds. As all of their others, these were created because of client requests and team talent. OSTGX manager Jim Callinan was at Robertson Stephens (RS) - now owned by Victory Funds - for about 10 years, managing small cap, science & technology. The new fund will be very concentrated. The new Total Return fund will more of a core bond fund, a contrast to the great OSTIX, which is totally flexible. It just opened on 12/30/16.
At this point, we are not looking to add either one to portfolios, but never say never.

I agreed w/his comments about not forcing equity buys at insane prices or "valuations" just to deploy money. Frankly he said what I've said for years, and seeing him with 35% cash doesn't make me feel too bad when I look at my cash positioning across my portfolios and ongoing reluctance to deploy it in large chunks.

I'd go with a closed end fund. Look at those offered by Tortoise .. I held TPZ for years, but they have several. You might not get *all* your criteria checked but still should do okay.

I did this same thing a few years back with a pension. I got the check in the mail and had a certain time period to get it into the rollover account. I had contacted my fund company earlier so they made notes on my account. It all went smoothly.

Hi MikeM!
Sounds a lot like us. We are a division of a worldwide company that's been downsizing for years also. The HR Dept. is all new.....less than 90 days....so this whole thing was poorly presented. Have gone to HR.....told them what you said. They called corporate to confirm. Yes, it can go to an IRA tax free because it came out of the retirement pension fund. Thank you very much, Mike!
God bless
the Pudd

What I've done when investing in vehicles with limited menus is pick the best they had to offer and then round out my portfolio elsewhere.
Since you say there are a number of good funds in the 401k even if it doesn't offer you a complete array of first rate choices, you can start with those funds. Then adjust your IRAs to give you your desired portfolio allocation.
That is unless there's a particular reason why you want to treat these as separate portfolios. For example, you might be planning to retire at age 55 and draw on the 401k for the first few years. You can do that without penalty with a 401k, but you generally have to wait until age 59.5 to get money out, penalty-free, from an IRA.

Inflated Optimism?
Economic Overview:
Week Ending January 20, 2017 © 2017 Payden & Rygel All rights reserved.
From 2011 to 2015, the world inflation rate fell year after year. By 2016, the world was abuzz with deflation mania, fearing a further decline in the rate of inflation. Instead, as commodity prices recovered and global growth found its footing, consumer prices perked up in 2016. For 2017, there is a reason to believe the deflation fear may be behind us, as updated forecasts released by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) this week show an expected annual pick-up in prices for the second time in the last five years.

Highlights of the Week:
Treasuries: Treasury markets absorbed stronger inflation and housing data this week. Yields ground higher every day in this holiday-shortened week. The icing on the cake was Yellen’s speech on Wednesday where no one anticipated any remarks with regards to monetary policy and received hawkish ones at that.
Securitized Products:
The ABS market is following along with Ford auto receivables bringing a fully compliant ABS deal both regarding the 5% risk retention requirement and full loan level disclosure. The queue for next week is also full of issuers ready to hit the marketplace.
High Yield:
In this environment, the market has room to compress further, particularly given low expected default rates. Prudent, valuation-conscious investors should be rewarded.
Emerging Markets: The latest activity data from China was a reminder of the country’s adjustment from investment-led to consumption-driven growth. December industrial production and xed asset investment growth eased modestly to 6.0% year-over-year (y/y) and 8.1% y/y, respectively, while retail sales came better than expected at 10.9% y/y.
Municipals Municipal bond funds experienced a second consecutive week of in ows, taking in an additional $511.74 million. Investor demand has been strong, with $10 billion in new issuance well received and broad follow-through in secondary trading.
https://www.payden.com/weekly/wir012017.pdf
Honey. I think the kids are (finally ) leaving ! + We Look Back At Obama Years From Hoya Capital
...demographics over the next ten years are highly favorable to apartment demand. Rent growth data will certainly be interesting over the next several years: it will be a battle between high levels of supply and high levels of demand.
Real Estate Weekly: Trump Takes Office, We Look Back At Obama Years
Hoya Capital Real Estate Jan. 20, 2017
With Donald Trump taking office this week, we think it's interesting to look back at the performance of REITs under the Obama Administration.
REITs returned an average of 13% per year (price) and roughly 17% including dividends. Interesting, this 175% holding period return is almost exactly inline with the broader S&P 500 index.

It's important to note the context, though. Obama took office at almost the exact bottom of an 80% decline in REIT values over the preceding 18 months as the REIT ETF bottomed just a month after inauguration.
Bottom Line So how will real estate perform under Trump? Well, we can pretty confidently say that commercial real estate won't perform as well under Trump as they did under Obama, but that should be rather obvious. Trump enters office at a time that commercial real estate values are near record highs and valuations appear healthy. Based on prevailing cap rate and economic growth expectations, REIT investors should continue to expect a 5-8% average annual total return with plenty of annual volatility.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4038310-real-estate-weekly-trump-takes-office-look-back-obama-years
Treasury yields are up since Election Day. The benchmark 10-year Treasury is currently trading at 2.47% (as of Jan. 19, based on daily data via Treasury.gov). That’s up from 1.90% on Election Day and close to the highest level in two years.

http://www.capitalspectator.com/moderate-us-growth-prevails-at-dawn-of-trump-era/

"President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. Lifting these restrictions will greatly help American workers, increasing wages by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy
(Embedded links to Climate Action Plan and WOTUS are mine, not in original.)
Assume for the sake of argument that the dollar figures are correct, and disregard any additional health care costs due to increased pollution. At 150M+ workers in the US, that comes out to $200/worker over seven years, $28/year, 50c/week. $30B to workers sounds like a lot until you do the arithmetic.
Start following the real money (read: oil, coal, agribusiness).

When looking at MEURX returns, keep in mind that it regularly hedges currency. This has made it look especially good over the past few years. I think it's a good low cost fund, but because of the hedging it behaves differently from most other funds.
As Vanguard points out, hedging involves additional costs. Although the increased operational costs are reflected in a fund's ER, the additional transaction costs (1-18 basis points) are not.
See text and Figure 2 on p. 4.
https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/ISGCMC.pdf
FWIW, I'm not a fan of hedging, but have invested in at least three different hedged funds I can recall, so it's not something I'm dogmatic about.

Most people don't pay any attention to what they invest in through their 401k or even a broker. I tried for years to get my Austinite ex hippy sister to pay attention to the multiple large cap funds in her 401k... couldn't be bothered. My son believes in Tesla but won't ask his employer to add TIAA's socially conscious fund to their 401k.
We can add to Vanguard's insensitivity or ignorance ( depending on your fervor of belief in climate change) their opaqueness about their management process.... there may not be a familial dynasty behind the scenes but have you ever tried to figure out how you (supposedly a shareholder) can influence policy at Vanguard, or how mush their mangers are paid or even how they are paid? They don't get stock but there is a special "investment account" that they own shares of. I have tried but have been unsuccessful in finding an annual report or even balance sheet of the Vanguard Management group, even though as a shareholder they "work for me".
The same supposedly "independent" Board of Trustees at Vanguard oversees 198 separate funds, in addition to their day jobs. Obviously they spend little time on proposals that Vanguard management does not support or wants them to see
Perhaps increased pressure on those who are public figures (Amy Gutman head of U Penn) might have an effect... But given the amount of time she spends on Vanguard ( her Wikopedia page lists about 10 other commissions etc she is involved in) and the paltry ($230,000 ) compensation she gets, I doubt it

Perhaps this is part of rebalancing as equity has out paced bond sector last year. Also there are more people retiring in combing years and they depend on bond for their income.