@Derf MSCI has been changing their indexes around quite a bit the past couple of years, and if they continue the trend then their indexes won't be very useful as benchmarks for anything, IMO. Nevertheless, JoJo26 is getting warmer and is probably as close to the mark as you're gonna get.
Some recent thoughts from Ben Carlson on some pitfalls he is seeing re. benchmarking in today's markets:
http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2016/03/what-constitutes-a-valid-benchmark/

I sold it last year and moved to PTIAX. A multisector bond fund that has been around at least 5 years with high returns and below average risk. Happy with this one.
And that's what I was hoping for with RSIVX. RSIVX is a pretty good example of a group-think fund, I believe. Why gamble with a fund with little to no tract record? Because the manager did well with another new fund, RPHYX? And that manager gets rave reviews here. But as it turns out, that doesn't mean very much.
By the time I'm dead, I plan to make every investment mistake possible, but hopefully fewer in-between as I learn along the way. This was mistake number 128 if we're keeping tract :)

@MikeW: For years when I was actively trading, I just kept cash in Morgan Stanley's sweeps account. Now that I have scaled back I use LDLAX and recently put some in FRUSX

The Osterweis Fund (OSTFX), a concentrated stock fund, had close to a 5% position in Valeant last Fall, a position they'd held for over 7 years. When the story no longer passed the smell test, they didn't hang around, dumping everything in late October.

I voted against the reorganization (though now I remember why I didn't turn in the proxy initially - if they don't get a quorum, it fails).
All the reasons given amounted to "because nothing will change":
(1) The management companies support it (why?)
(2) The investment objectives won't change
(3) The day to day management won't change
(4) Fees won't go up, at least for two years (oh, goody)
(5) You won't have to pay for this reorg
(6) No tax impact
That's the complete, numbered list under the heading REASONS FOR THE REORGANIZATIONS
They could have said something like: we feel the acquiring organization can provide better service, or the current management company would rather focus strictly on investment management and not how to run the business, or ....
As nothing more was said, one has to think the reason is money, pure and simple. Which makes the threat of shutting down the funds if this isn't approved ring hollow.
I must be getting more cynical as the years go by.

I would say my biggest investment mistake over the years--which keeps me from being included in the ranks of the greatest investors--has been my selling stocks/funds/real estate at the wrong times. Fear does that. If I had just kept everything I had ever owned, and sold nothing, ever, I would be a very rich fellow.

I recently switched part of my portfolio (ira) back to Fidelity from ML. All of my funds can transfer except for one, and I can keep the "I" or "A" shares I own, just cannot add to them Will have to buy the load waived A shares if I want to add. I have OSMYX, and if I want to add, I just have to buy the load waived A shares OSMAX. Not bad. Keeping the original shares keeps my expense ratio down with no 12b1 fees. All of the funds that I had the A shares or I shares of are load waived and ntf. I did not pay loads at ML, but choices were more limited in funds. I switched mainly because I have access to more funds and better research on stocks. Still have a good chunk at ML, but will see how this works out.
One thing that Fido has that I like very much is fairly extensive research and analyst opinions on etfs, as I have ventured more into etfs in recent years. Nice bonus.

I agree that TDA is not the best for MF investors, but it doesn't seemall that bad, and has gotten much better in recent years. Further, different types of accounts have different rules.
I have a TDA account for my HSA. Note that different banks/CUs have different account agreements with TDA, so YMMV, but here's mine:
http://www.tdameritraderetirement.com/forms/ACS1009.pdf
For my TDA account:
1. 90 days to avoid brokerage short term redemption fee - not quite as short as the 60 days some others offer, but close enough.
2. $25/trade on TF (thus $50 round trip or exchange) - in line with other brokerages
3. Since the information on most sites comes from M*, I'm not sure how the info varies from one broker to another. Finding that information (attributes/quality of screener) may be something else. Any specific deficiency?
4. Not sure what the problem is. For example, I look up OSMAX, and right on its summary page it says NTF (for normally front end loaded A shares):
https://research.tdameritrade.com/grid/public/mutualfunds/profile/profile.asp?symbol=OSMAX
In contrast, American Funds EuroPacific Growth A shows a load
https://research.tdameritrade.com/grid/public/mutualfunds/profile/feesandmanagementBuffer.asp?symbol=AEPGX
5. I agree that portfolio analysis is a nice feature; I just use M*. Fidelity's does not seem to allow you to enter any holdings outside of the brokerage (unless you use their Yodlee software; but even giving it external passwords it cannot access all accounts). Don't know about TDA's portfolio analyzer.
6. Here's Schwab's page summarizing some competitors:
http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/accounts_products/investment/etfs/schwab_etf_onesource
The number of NTF ETFs at TDA is in the same ballpark as E*Trade and Fidelity (right in the middle), and TDA offers more families than either. Notably, Vanguard. A gotcha w/TDA that I fortunately found out about before trading is that you have to register for the NTF ETF feature.

municipalbonds.com
Can You Be Too Safe With Muni Bonds?
Most investors are aware that they can risk too much, but few realize that playing it too safe also has its own set of risks. By taking on less risk, an investor may compromise their ability to achieve their target performance goal, such as a retirement goal, for their portfolio.
Municipal bonds are widely regarded as a safe-haven asset class since government backing provides better credit ratings than most corporate bonds. Exemptions from federal, state, and local income taxes further create a higher after-tax yield than comparable private-sector bonds. These attributes have helped muni bonds perform extremely well over the past couple of years as investors sought out safe-haven asset classes amid the drop in equity prices.
Muni Bonds vs. S&P 500 Figure 1 – Muni Bond v. S&P 500 Returns in 2015 – Source: StockCharts.com
Below, MunicipalBonds.com takes a look at a few common ways investors may be playing it too safe with muni bonds and some key changes they may want to consider.
Overallocating Muni Bonds
The first mistake that investors often make is overallocating their portfolio to municipal bonds during troubled times in order to reduce their risk.
A number of research studies have shown that investors sacrifice between 1.2% and 4.3% of their returns due to attempts at market timing – also known as the behavior gap. According to Betterment’s analysis, investors trying to time the market over 20 years risk losing out on $117,700 in aggregate value for every $100,000 invested over the time period. This calculation was made using one of the more conservative estimates of 1.56%.
Betterment Estimated Growth Figure 2 – Estimated Cost of Timing the Market – Source: Betterment
Investors may be tempted to overallocate their portfolio to muni bonds during an economic downturn, but doing so could cost them money over the long run. Often times, it’s a much better idea to keep a steady allocation that is set up to meet a target goal over time rather than trying to time the market and avoid losses. Research suggests that few people are able to do the latter successfully over the long term.
Short-Duration Mistakes
The second mistake that investors often make is focusing on short-duration municipal bonds during troubled times in order to reduce their risk.
Duration is an important measure of risk when it comes to all types of bonds, including muni bonds. It’s a measures of how long, in years, it takes for the price of a bond to be repaid by internal cash flows. Bonds with longer durations carry greater risk and experience more price volatility than bonds with shorter durations. After all, longer durations mean that bondholders are tied to the bond’s interest rate over a longer period of time.
Interest Rate Effect on Bonds Figure 3 – Impact of Interest Rate Changes Based on Duration – Source: Blackrock
The problem with moving into short-duration as a safer investment than longer-duration muni bonds is that there’s an increased reinvestment risk. In other words, an investor may not be able to reinvest the proceeds of a short-term bond into a comparable bond when it matures. Longer-duration muni bonds have lower reinvestment risk because there’s a longer period of time before the bond matures and the interest rate differential may be minimal.
The Bottom Line
Most investors are aware that their portfolio can be too risky, but playing it safe has its own costs. Often times, investors purchase short-duration municipal bonds as a safe-haven asset. Market timing has a long-term cost known as the behavior gap, while short-duration bonds may pose a reinvestment risk. Investors should carefully consider these risks when evaluating muni bonds – especially during an economic downturn.

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search) "Fidelity’s Tillinghast: How He Beats the Market"
Joel Tillinghast, who runs the $38 billion Fidelity Low-Priced Stock fund, owns one of today’s best investment records. The fund (ticker: FLPSX) has beaten not only its Russell 2000 benchmark, but also the Standard & Poor’s 500 over the short and long haul since Tillinghast began managing it 26 years ago. Under him, it has returned 13.7% a year, on average, versus 9.3% for the S&P 500 and 8.9% for the Russell
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=Fidelity’s+Tillinghast:+How+He+Beats+the+Market+Barron's
M* Snapshot FLPSX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/FLPSX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot FLPSX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/flpsx
FLPSX Is Ranked #2 In The (MCV) Fund Category By U.S. Nesw & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/mid-cap-value/fidelity®-low-priced-stock-fund/flpsx

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Managed by four autonomous groups, Guggenheim Total Return Bond has outpaced peers over past three years.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=Guggenheim+Total+Return+Bond+Fund+Crushes+Peers+Barron's
M* Snapshot GIBAX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/gibax/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot GIBAX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/gibax
GIBAX Is Unranked In The (IB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/intermediate-term-bond/guggenheim-total-return-bond-fund/gibax

Yet more changes at Calamos. What's the plan, what's the business model? That "vision thing"--- can anyone make sense of what is happening at this shop?
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160315/NEWS01/160319909/calamos-investments-patriarch-gives-up-ceo-title

net income fell every year for the past five years, dropping to $21.4 million last year, or about a third of the $70.8 million it earned in 2014, and down from $137.9 million in 2011. Revenue fell 8 percent last year to $230.9 million, also declining for the fifth year in a row. [...] Calamos has suffered alongside public shareholders because a family affiliate owns 78 percent of the company, with just 22 percent of the economic interest traded publicly on the Nasdaq Stock Market.
Efforts to revamp the management team have made little difference. In 2013, Co-Chief Investment Officer Nick Calamos, a nephew of the founder, exited and was replaced by former Janus Capital CEO Gary Black, but he didn't last long. Black left the firm last fall.

Geez Louise!

Koudounis will earn an annual salary of $800,000, plus an annual bonus of $2.6 million, or more, depending on a determination by the board’s compensation committee, the company said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission today. In addition, he will get annual “long term incentive awards” of $1.6 million. A one-time sign-on payment of $1.25 million will be payable next year

@slick: You've learned the lesson that I was taught some 40 years ago, that is, dividends are the mother's milk of investing !
Regards,
Ted
P.S. I dumped FBTCX yesterday, but still holding PRHSX.

I happen to be looking at my holdings in my roth today at ML, and I saw something that seemed to make no sense to me at all until I broke it down. My utility fund FRUAX had a higher return than my biotech fund FBTIX , both bought in February 2013. I thought to myself, there is got to be something wrong here. I know biotechs have been in the dumper the last year, and especially the last 6 months, but how could a utility fund beat it? I went back and added up the dividends and cap gains over the three year period and Voila it was plain and simple. Quarterly dividends and regular cap gains reinvested turned a 20% three year gain on original shares bought into a 43% total return over three years. Then I remembered that over time 40% of the S + P gains are due to reinvested dividends and cap gains. Duuuhhhhhh. It may have been wise to sell my biotech fund when it peaked in July 2015, but who knew it would drop like a ton of bricks in less than one year? Its long term money, so just hope it finds its way back after the geo political issues become clearer. After all, we are all getting older and doubt if demand for new drugs will go down over time.

Seems to me some were sitting 100% in cash a month ago. Lousy start to the year startled many.
Umm ... Don't know about bull markets. I can't see the future. But, there have been many positive trends over the past month or so. Oil bottomed near $26 in January/February and is around $41 today. Gold started the year around $1100 and is above $1250. The Dow (if memory serves) dipped to around 15,000 in January and is now at 17,500, close to year-ago levels. The wild daily swings have softened.
European, and now U.S., central bankers have softened their stance or even added stimulus. Dollar has been softening for a while (judging by the performance of international bonds this year). But this week's Fed statement added impetus to that softening. EM bonds have been strong this year. Home prices are rising and REITS have been good investments since September. The U.S. oil patch is still a mess. Time and higher prices should help. This should in turn help the junk bond sector - though my exposure there is very limited (only through broader allocation funds).
As I've noted before, Brazil - which comprises most of PRLAX - has been on a tear since mid January. This is a dicey one however, as Brazil is undergoing political trauma reminiscent of our Nixon years and their market is liable to go in any direction day to day as that drama unfolds. However, overall, those EMs with nice reserves of oil or metals should do relatively well as long as prices stay up.
Bull markets? I dunno. But they say the trend is your friend. I think both Junkster and I would agree on that point.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
March 17, 2016
Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
“Caution is appropriate.” So said Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen in a press conference Wednesday after the Fed decided to halve the number of rate hikes planned this year, from four to two. With the Fed Funds’ target remaining between 0.25% and 0.50% another two increases would leave the benchmark rate below 1% by year-end.
There were other significant developments this week. Donald Trump won four of the five Super Tuesday Republican primary races, including Senator Marco Rubio’s home state of Florida, causing Rubio to drop out. Despite a loss in Ohio’s primary to its Governor John Kasich, Trump has a comfortable delegate lead over his major challenger, Senator Ted Cruz. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton pulled well ahead of Senator Bernie Sanders.
Also this week, U.S. crude-oil futures closed above $40 a barrel, the highest since December of last year and the Dow Industrials turned positive for the year in Thursday’s trading, after being down more than 10% in early February.
New this week on our website, we’ll have a link to a report on how much workplace diversity affects the bottom line. It will be available to PREMIUM members tonight and to everyone else over the weekend. According to research published by McKinsey & Company, companies in the top quartile of racial and ethnic diversity are 35 percent more likely to have financial returns above their respective national industry medians. And companies in the top quartile for gender diversity are 15 percent more likely. Food for thought for management and investors!
I have always been a big believer in meritocracy. I like to think that in America, people of equal skills, talent and education will be judged on their merits, not by who they are or where they come from, which is why I couldn’t figure out why more women were not advancing in the financial services industry. Women are certainly well represented on air, online and in print in financial journalism. But why are there still so few women in executive and management roles on Wall Street?
Last week I got some surprising answers while emceeing a fascinating and enlightening conference on increasing gender diversity in the financial services industry. “Beyond Talk: Taking Action to Achieve Gender Balance in the Financial World” was co-sponsored by The California State Teachers’ Retirement System, known as CalSTRS and State Street Global Advisors.
Leaders at both organizations have gone “beyond talk” and initiated practices to recruit, promote and mentor women in the industry. They are putting substantial resources into the effort.
SSGA just launched the SSGA Gender Diversity Index ETF, symbol SHE, comprised of more than 140 U.S. companies which have greater numbers of women in leadership positions than other companies in their sectors. CalSTRS invested $250 million in SHE at its launch.
On the television show this week, are you better off with a robot? That is the topic we are revisiting during this final weekend of winter fund-raising on public television. We are interviewing an under the radar value investor who created a robot portfolio to test the theory that statistically cheap stocks will outperform the market over time – and lo and behold they have.
As a long-time financial journalist I have seen investment theories and strategies come and go. Wall Street firms have devoted billions in their quest to find proprietary magic formulas for outperformance.
Michael Lewis’ best-selling book, now a movie, “The Big Short” did a masterful job of describing various mathematical and computer science algorithms that contributed to the financial crisis. They were so complex and arcane that even their creators and certainly their customers had little idea of what was in them and how they would really work in the real world.
This week’s guest has a much simpler approach, which much to his surprise when he first tried it 17 years ago does work, but it comes with a large caveat: it is not appropriate in the vast majority of portfolios. He only applies some of it himself.
He is John Dorfman, Chairman of Dorfman Value Investments, an investment management firm he founded in 1999 that manages money in separate accounts for high net worth individuals, family offices and a few institutions.
He is a deep value investor who runs concentrated stock portfolios that have outperformed the S&P 500 by a wide margin over the years. Dorfman is also a journalist. I knew him at The Wall Street Journal and even though he switched to money management full time in 1997 he still writes financial columns.
One of his most popular, which has been his first column of the year for the last 17 years, is devoted to his 10 stock robot portfolio.
Dorfman starts with all U.S. stocks with a market value of $500 million or more. Then he eliminates those with debt greater than equity. He then picks the ten stocks selling for the lowest price earnings multiples of the past year’s earnings.
The result is the “Robot Portfolio” has had a compound average annual return, with dividends included, of nearly 16%, compared to just over 4% for the S&P 500.
Given the spectacular performance of his robot portfolio why doesn’t Dorfman just use that method for all of his accounts? He will tell us.
If WEALTHTRACK isn’t showing on your local station this week due to local station fund-raising campaigns, you can always watch it on our website. You will also find a link to Dorfman’s 2016’s Robot Portfolio there.
Thank you for watching. Have a great weekend and make the week ahead a profitable and productive one.
Best Regards,
Consuelo
John Dorfman Website:
http://dorfmanvalue.com/

I think the Health and Fitness is flexible allocation (very flexible), rebalanced at least once a year as a New Years' Resolution kind of thing, and thereafter "as needed."

M* now gives RPHYX 4 stars, up from 1 star. Total return about the same as years past so I'm guessing hi yield was prolly not a good overall sector last year.

Getting back to the question as to "where" should retirement withdrawals come from this study researched a number of options and I liked this quote enough to pass it along:
In virtually all the scenarios, "it pays to eat your bonds first, equities later."
Withdrawal scenarios studied:
1. Withdraw money from either stocks or bonds and then rebalance the portfolio annually to the initial stock/bond proportion. This harvesting rule will be referred to as “Rebalance.”
2. Withdraw money from the asset that had the highest return during the year and do not rebalance. This will be referred to as “High First.”
3. Withdraw money from the asset that had the lowest return during the year and do not rebalance. This will be referred to as “Low First.” To the extent that historical rates of return on bonds tend to be lower than historical rates of return on stocks, the following two additional methods of harvesting withdrawals will be referred to as “Bonds First” and “Stocks First.”
4. Take withdrawals from bonds first and do not rebalance.
5. Take withdrawals from stocks first and do not rebalance.

Study:
time-diversification-vs-rebalancing-in-retirement-portfolios/

Yes, that was the Spitzer and Singh study cited ...

Interesting Read using a three fund portfolio (VFINX, VUSTX, VSGBX or VFITX) and a 200 mda filter.
From the link:
"The popular 60/40 Stocks/Bond portfolio performs well over the past 24 years, but adding a simple moving average to this portfolio has increased returns, reduced the duration of draw downs, and substantially reduced portfolio draw down. Adding in an intermediate term bond fund as the cash fund accomplished even more, it increased annual returns more than 10% over the buy and hold portfolio, while having close to 1/3 of the daily draw down numbers. Avoiding draw down and still being involved in market upswings was the goal of this strategy, and it worked well in this instance. There were a few concerns, namely being involved in the cash filter fund for too much duration, not being diverse enough to capitalize on gains across different markets, and the potential of missing out on some of the market upsides. However, these concerns did not prevent us from accomplishing the goals of reducing draw down and risk along with increasing return in this particular example."
iema-blog.com/2016/02/6040-stockbonds-portfolio-with-market.html

They could probably run a 10 period monthly moving average on the prices of the assets as to reduce daily generated "whipsaws" ( as many "needless" whipsaws occurring in the past have been contained "within" the monthly data ) and reduce the amount of "management" time, ie. looking at the calculations daily / subjecting oneself too frequently to market data - leading to possible cognitive investing biases ...
Also, using healthcare for the 60% allocation has produced alpha ( appreciably ) above VFINX ( 13% CAGR, Sharpe 1.0 -21% max DD with non MA strategy / rebalance annually 1986 - 2015 )

Thanks @David_Snowball. Disaster was probably too strong a term; "surprisingly poor" sounds about right. So: a bit of bad luck, a couple of honest mistakes, and a big dose of waiting for the market to catch up with his estimates of value. Sounds plausible enough, though we won't know for sure for a few years yet. I am holding.