A common refrain I see here, there, and everywhere. By the time the smoke clears it could be a year or longer down the road and the markets that much higher. After the 2009 bottom it was years before many ventured back into the markets if ever. The news is the gloomiest after major bottoms and prices have zoomed higher. So I guess the question is how many feel 2/11 was not just A bottom but THE bottom for oil, stocks, and junk bonds as well as a low in 10 year Treasury yields?

Even better marketing idea - shut it down one month before M* gives it a 1* rating. (It would have been three years old on April Fool's day.)

To return briefly to David's comments on FPACX, which I endorse. Thanks for showing me how to painlessly reduce my too-numerous fund holdings. However, (please note I did not say, "That being said…") I can't see LCORX as an alternative but I would put in a plug for the local (Indiana) talent at the Bruce Fund (BRUFX). It's a relatively large non-retirement position for me and one that's been a keeper for 8-9 years.

@willmatt72: FYI: U.S. News & World Report ranks FGMNX #1 in the (IGB) Fund Category. In 30 years the fund has had only two down years, 1994 and 2013. HSCSX is ranked #8 in the (SCB) Fund Category. Bob Young's fund ranking system is based soley on momentum.
Regards,
Ted
FGMNX:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/intermediate-government/fidelity®-gnma-fund/fgmnx
HSCSX:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/small-blend/homestead-small-company-stock-fund/hscsx

XLP and RHS have been "staples" of my portfolio for the past three years, RHS has done a bit better. They seem to work well together.

I enjoy Max Funds as a quick-take. May not be current and certainly not the full story. I don't know of any other sites that even attempt to evaluate hot money. That has a big effect if you're a long term investor. Killed MFLDX (along with a lot of other problems).
Added 3/4: (1) I've held mostly the same 8-10 core funds for anywhere from 10-25 years with a few good firms. (2) I'll also take an occasional long-shot (speculative play) on a very badly beaten up fund as I did with OPGSX in September '15 and PRLAX 6-8 weeks ago. These spec plays are not intended to be held more than a few months to a few years - time to bounce a lot higher if the educated guess works out. (Yes - they can also fall, so weighing potential upside and downside is crucial)
The point here: For neither of the above types of purchases is the opinion of Max Funds, *M or MarketWatch useful or given much consideration. For the first type (core holdings) I want low fees, stable competent management, good service and annual reports that are comprehensive and readable. For the second (speculative plays) I want a fund that's been hammered hard over several years (probably down 25% or more over the last year). And Nobody loves it anymore. Than it's a matter of trying to become educated on the the fund's investments, reasons for its poor performance lately, macroeconomic conditions that might help going forward - and than taking a plunge, usually with only 2-5% of total holdings.
Sorry so long winded. Guess I've strayed from Max's original point on Max funds. But my point is you need to take all these with a grain of salt. Don't expect them to always point you in the best direction. Use your own pointer.

For anything less than 5 years, don't bother as there's too much that could go wrong. Another question would be, how much experience do you have? This question is related to what would you do in the midst of a downturn. We all believe we can take the heat, but as Mike Tyson once said, 'Everyone has a plan til they get punched in the mouth'.
Of course, the amount you're proposing to invest would also factor in.

Better to Inquire about investment ideas @ M F O than some of these advisors !
There's a phrase no one wants to read in a sweeping report about the financial advisers who handle their savings: economy-wide misconduct.
By Bloomberg News | March 1, 2016 - 4:28 pm EST
A new working paper by business school professors at the University of Chicago and University of Minnesota found that 7% of financial advisers have been disciplined for misconduct that ranges from putting clients in unsuitable investments to trading on client accounts without permission. That's a troubling mark for an industry that relies on the trust of clients. And some large, well-regarded firms have misconduct records that far exceed the average.
Many fired advisers end up moving to firms that have higher rates of misconduct than their previous employer did, and they become repeat offenders. "Prior offenders are five times as likely to engage in new misconduct as the average financial adviser," the study found.
"This is eye-opening and suggests not only that some firms have a high tolerance for misconduct on the part of their employees, but that their very business model is to attract the broker who can generate high revenue at the cost of repetitive disciplinary violations," said John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School in New York. "FINRA needs to focus on this."
Many cases of misconduct arose around the issue of the "suitability" of investments. That would mean, for instance, that an adviser should not suggest that a 75-year-old client put most assets in a high-fee, aggressive-growth mutual fund. Often, the report found, investments involved in reported misconduct cases were insurance products.
The first-of-its-kind study names names, listing 10 advisory firms with the highest misconduct rates, as well as those with the lowest.

http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160301/FREE/160309989?template=printart
@Shostakovich
I own this fund in the Global Bond space you mention.DHGAX
Assets for the Fund
$2,133,975,285
Holdings
206
Dividend Frequency
Quarterly
Morningstar Category
World Bond
Lipper Category
Global Income
Average Maturity
8.30 Years
Duration
6.83 Years
30-Day Yield (as of
1/31/16)
Class A 1.27%
Class I 1.62%
TOP TEN SECURITIES1
Australian Govt 3.25% 10/21/2018 10.04%
Australian Government 3.25% 04/21/
2025 4.43%
Canadian Government, 2.25% 06/01/
2025 3.79%
Japan (30 Yr Issue) 1.7% 09/20/2044 3.47%
Buoni Poliennali Del Tes 2.36142% 09/15/
2024 2.66%
France (Govt Of) 1% 11/25/2025 2.57%
Canadian Government, 2.5% 06/01/2024 2.45%
Canadian Government 1% 08/01/2016 2.11%
U.S. Treasury Note 1.75% 12/31/2020 2.04%
Buoni Poliennali Del Tes 1.05% 12/01/
2019 2.03%
https://public.dreyfus.com/documents/compliancedocs/factsheets/monthly/6940.pdf

What charts? Growth of $10k, M*, looking at curve smoothness over time.
Do it yourself.
Takes into account splits, of course.
I set start point as inception of SHW, hence the year.
Log scale does its own smoothing as a function of increase, sort of, as I note.
Did not say anyone was better than SHW. It was you who used the characterization stabler.
I love hindsight with individual stocks, cocktail party talk about CVS, Costco, Nike, Apple, Altria, B-H, the ones I already mentioned (nobody on earth knows who Barnes Group is).
You may well have a winner, and you have the courage of your convictions, yay. But do they have a moat? Is there barrier to entry overseas? Why not Chinese paint?
Anyway, check this out:
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/01/29/the-best-stock-over-the-last-30-years-youve-never-heard-of-it/

Ain't hindsight something.
As for stabler, B is smoother since 1972, sort of, as are PG and JNJ. With a log scale (M*) it's less easy to detect smoothness and the opposite, of course.
SHW has had this remarkable rise the last six years, so there is that. Do you think in a greener world going forward that this will continue? Is that how you yourself are betting?

What charts are you looking at? It's not a close call or a fair fight with the issues you mentioned...I guess a case MIGHT be made for JNJ in terms of the ride, but its avg return for the past 15 years is 6.8%. SHW is 18%. I'm really not sure what you're looking at. You mention 1972, that's a long time ago. I assume you realize that SHW split 4 times since 1981; 1 share bought then for $35 now equals 32 shares at $281. You'll look a long time for something better than that coupled with a max draw down for the past 15 years of under 8%. As to the future, gun to head to pick one place to put my money for the next 15, SHW may be it. They're going to sell a lot of paint in China and the ROW. And I say all of this having nothing currently invested in the stock, regrettably. That will change at the next opportunity.

Ain't hindsight something.
As for stabler, B is smoother since 1972, sort of, as are PG and JNJ. With a log scale (M*) it's less easy to detect smoothness and the opposite, of course.
SHW has had this remarkable rise the last six years, so there is that. Do you think in a greener world going forward that this will continue? Is that how you yourself are betting?

@NumbersGal, hi!
Thanks for the question. By happenstance, Eric C dropped me a note shortly after we published (in reality, while I was in the produce section of my local Hy-Vee grocery, foraging). We profiled ARIVX shortly after launch and again a couple years later. My general take has been that Eric has more discipline and more steady resolve than just about anyone. We'll catch up in the next week or so.
Eric's performance has been remarkable given that he's now at 80% cash. That's been a brilliant positioning in the past year since it's given him great relative performance in the face of a small cap bear. My hesitation is that, even with a bear, the cash level keeps rising which seems counter-intuitive.
The comparison with ICMAX is close but, over the past five years (Eric's been gone five years and five months), it's not entirely one-sided. Intrepid comes out ahead on a bunch of risk measures (recovery period from maximum drawdown, downside deviation, Martin ratio, Sortino ratio, Ulcer Index) while River Road pulls ahead on others (maximum drawdown, standard deviation, Sharpe). Annual returns are within 0.1% of each other.
In any case, I wouldn't rule ARIVX out and we are going to find time to talk before my new term gets crazy.
As ever,
David

@Shostakovich, I had a good conversation with Steve Lipper, whose family launched Lipper Analytics then sold it to Thomson Reuters. I've never had any great affection for Royce for all the predictable reasons: a swarm of undistinguished and virtually undistinguishable funds, most apparently run by Mr. Royce. I do like the approach in RYFSX. It's not as strong as Hennessy Small Cap Financials (HSFNX) but I like the global focus.
As I listened to Mr. Lipper, there was a lot that he didn't say but that I think he would have liked to. I poked, for example, on the role of Mr. Flynn as "assistant portfolio manager" still after 10 years. In general, I got the sense that there's a very clear sense of the need to reform (almost literally: re-form) the company. And I had the sense that one reason Mr. Lipper was hired was to manage that process.
Will it work? I don't. But I am more hopeful after talking with him than I was before. My general advice would be to wait out 2016 and watch, since he suggested stuff was in the pipeline that would emerge this year.
This is, I know, pretty impressionistic but sometimes how things are said carries as much meaning as what is said, and it's really hard to give you that nuance.
On FPA, I'm trying to be as fair and detached as I can be. Lots of talented people there, it's just that they seem more and more aligned with an absolute value orientation. That's a fine approach but it does feel like they're narrowing.
For what that's worth,
David

Why would Mr. Snowball consider ICMAX instead of ARIVX (as a replacemnt for ARTVX)? Eric Cinnamond built ICMAX until he left in 2010 and started ARIVX. Yes, the team he has left behind has followed his approach, but in the last 5 years and last year, ARIVX has had less volatility, a lower beta, and a higher alpha.

FYI: Pimco co-founder claims firm ousted him so he'd lose bonus
He now co-manages a $1.26 billion Janus global bond fund
Bill Gross said Pacific Investment Management Co. isn’t playing by the rules in its effort to kill the lawsuit he filed last year over his departure.
Gross told a California state judge Tuesday that the company he started more than 40 years ago improperly misconstrued his allegations in order to have them thrown out before he gets a chance to present his evidence.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/bill-gross-says-pimco-tries-to-lure-court-into-tossing-case

From hank: "If you need this money in 2-3 years, there aren't many really safe alternatives to cash, CDs, or short-term bonds. If, on the other hand, it's long term money but you are just hesitant to invest at this time, consider a conservative allocation fund with up to 60% fixed income as a conservative "sleep well" investment."
I'm there, and I would agree--- although I will mention PRSNX, which I own. Morningstar calls it a "World Bond" fund. I like the dividends. Just about .03 cents/share per month, these days. I ended up in there because I just wanted to keep it simple. I already own a big slug with TRP. It's not exactly a category that's on fire, to say the least. But the fund has been dependable.
Keep in mind, although you might get paid to hold such a bond fund with monthly or quarterly dividends, there is the share-price risk. 2-3 years doesn't give you much of a recovery-window, if your selected fund sags. Take the currency risk away by using a solid domestic core fund, instead, eh? My own is DLFNX. Uncle Jeffrey seems to know his way around the bond market. ;)

Global bond funds are highly dependent on the strength of the U.S. Dollar (tend to move in opposite direction). Most haven't been a good place to be over the past several years as the Dollar has strengthened. A lot has to do with Fed policy and our political leadership (fiscal policy) - and so that could change.
Most (but not all) of these funds hedge to some extent against currency risk and are a safer bet than unhedged or local currency funds if this is short term money. Since interest rates are low almost everywhere, a global bond fund would still be exposed to interest rate risk as are domestic income funds.
If you need this money in 2-3 years, there aren't many really safe alternatives to cash, CDs, or short-term bonds. If, on the other hand, it's long term money but you are just hesitant to invest at this time, consider a conservative allocation fund with up to 60% fixed income as a conservative "sleep well" investment.
I'll add that I don't share the predominantly bearish sentiment here and in the media. But guess I'm just an eternal optimist. :)

The demand for safe assets dominated asset flows in February. The main beneficiary of the risk-off trade last month: foreign government bonds in developed markets. Citigroup’s World Gov’t Bond Index ex-US surged 4.0% in February (unhedged US dollar total return). The gain also pushed this slice of the fixed-income market into first place for the trailing one-year period with a 1.7% increase.
Bonds generally were in high demand last month. The only corner of fixed income that didn’t deliver a gain in February: foreign junk.
As for equities, all the broad categories lost ground last month.

http://www.capitalspectator.com/major-asset-classes-february-2016-performance-review/
Also. Returns from M*
SPDR® Nuveen S&P High Yield Municipal Bond Etf HYMB
1 mo +0.62 Ytd +0.76 1 Yr +3.54 3 Yr +3.76
Alerian M L P Etf AMLP
1 mo +0.77 Ytd -13.03 1Yr -34.75 3 Yr - 9.60
U.S. Gasoline & Crude Oil Prices Move Higher
BY TOM MOELLER MARCH 1, 2016 @haver.com
Petroleum prices stabilized last week following steady declines since the June highs. Regular gasoline averaged $1.78 per gallon last week (-27.9% y/y)
Prices for natural gas continued to decline last week to $1.78 per mmbtu (-42.2% y/y), and were $1.62 yesterday.
More Weekly Energy Prices as of 02/29/16 @ below link

http://www.haver.com/comment/comment.html?c=160301A.html
Related.New markets for American Nat Gas

The Asia Vision LNG carrier ship sits docked at the Cheniere Energy Inc. terminal in this aerial photograph taken over Sabine Pass, Texas, U.S., on Wednesday, Feb. 24, 2016. Cheniere said in a statement last month. Cheniere Energy Inc. expects to ship the first cargo of liquefied natural gas on Wednesday to Brazil with another tanker to be loaded a few days later, marking the historic start of U.S. shale exports Photographer: Lindsey Janies/Bloomberg via Getty Images
The United States is shipping gas overseas for the first time in decades, but private companies sell to the highest bidder — and not just to the countries Washington might want for geopolitical reasons.
BY KEITH JOHNSONFEBRUARY 29, 2016
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/29/americas-natural-gas-exports-wont-be-enough-to-blunt-putins-energy-weapon/
Oil News
ExxonMobil’s record bond sale. ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) made a big move with a $12 billion bond sale, its largest on record. The world’s largest publically-traded oil company could use the cash to buy up assets on the cheap. Exxon held its cards close to the vest, saying that the proceeds would be used for “funding for working capital, acquisitions, capital expenditures, refinancing a portion of our existing commercial paper borrowings and other business opportunities.” ExxonMobil still has a AAA credit rating, one of the few companies in existence to have the highest rating possible, but S&P issued a “negative” rating in early February.
Saudi cash reserves fall. Saudi foreign reserves continue to dwindle as the OPEC nation tries to shore up its finances and maintain its currency peg. In January, Saudi Arabia’s foreign exchange dipped below $600 billion for the first time in four years, according to the latest estimates. The government is burning through cash reserves at a rate of about $14.3 billion per month.
http://oilprice.com/newsletters/free/opintel01032016

Class B shares seem like one of the most misunderstood, maligned vehicles around. (I'm not defending load funds here, just looking at reputation vs. numbers.)

FYI: Class B Shares:: (Source Investopedia)
[...]
Cons
Long Time Horizon Required - If you withdraw funds within a certain period of time (typically five to eight years) you are a charged a back-end or deferred sales charge.
No Breakpoints - Class B shares do not provide breakpoints on the deferred sales charge, so regardless of how much you invest, there is no discount on these charges.
Higher Expense Ratios - Class B shares charge higher expense ratios than both Class A and C shares, until shares are eligible to be converted to Class A.

One of those cons is accurate, and IMHO the only objective negative to B shares (relative to A shares) - they don't give you a break in your commissions (loads) for larger portfolios.
There is one other downside but that has to do with psychology (marketing), not numbers. B shares are/were sold as "putting 100% of your money to work", implying that they were superior to A shares where you pay a load up front. Because of the higher 12b-1 fee (embedded load), B shares put some of that money to work for your broker, not for you. The structure made for an easier sale, but no clear advantage (or disadvantage) relative to A shares.
That gets us to the first dubious con: long time horizon required because of the deferred sales charge. A shares charge the full load up front. B shares amortize that load over several years, by charging an extra 0.75% (typical) in 12b-1 fees annually. Once the load has been amortized, they convert to A shares. If you sell early, then you have to pay that part of the load that hasn't yet been amortized - that's the deferred sales charge. The bottom line is that you wind up taking the same hit on return (due to the load) as with A shares whether you hold B shares for a long time (in which case you've paid the whole load over time), or whether you sell them quickly (in which case you've paid most of the load in a lump sum - just like A shares).
The other con listed - that B shares tend to have higher expenses than C shares - is just wrong. B and C shares typically have the same ERs, give or take a few basis points. That's because they both generally add a 1.00% 12b-1 fee and have the same management fees. The rest ("other expenses") is noise.
A good example is Fidelity Advisor Freedom® 2005 Fund. Here's M*'s purchase page, that shows the ERs for each share class. It is 1.00% for B shares and for C shares. This fund is great for showing the pure difference between share class expenses. As a Fidelity fund of funds it charges 0.00% for the fund; any extra fee is due strictly to the share class sales structure (i.e. load - front, back, level or combo).
The summary prospectus shows the ERs as 1.56%, because that includes the cost of the underlying funds (0.56%).
To reiterate, I am not defending load funds. I am saying that B shares are usually misrepresented (both on the positive side as I noted above, and on the negative side as by Investopedia).

Depends on your age. One of the best moves that an investor in the "young" demographic of the investment "lifecycle" ( age 20 - 50 ) can make for the long term, is to build a core position in small cap value universe. Academic and empirical evidence has shown that SCV has outperformed all other stock universes over 90 years https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kToqLWLISRk4n4YnSzv1hT5kBN54l5CvhwGgDwJKPJI/edit?usp=sharing. Prior to the 21st century, it was difiicult to invest in specific "stock universes" , but the evolution of exchange traded investment products/funds over the past 10 years has provided many options for investing in small cap value ( one being Vanguard small cap value ( VBR )).
The use of a low transaction, quantitative tactical allocation process has produced further risk mitigated alpha vs. buy and hold. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1pQuBfbPd18ca0G-KiZc5FIWNMx0pNa87INgsLjEwuzY/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1C37CJypoxHWHB09e3g25ewOGjP83wDZhj5j6tlrLJoA/edit?usp=sharing. Current model allocation would suggest to hold off on purchases for now.