Thanks Rono, I was wondering if you'd chime in or not!
Ramble away, I'm soaking it all in. I remember your pounding the table for pm's 5 or 6 years ago, which led to my buying GLD, CEF and GDX back then. I owe you a beer or 4, thanks!
Momentum seems to have switched in favor of GDX for the moment. Thanks also for your comments on momentum investing. Don't think I'll do so, but the temptation is there. I don't have the time during the day to watch the ticker, plus I have a wife and 2 kids to think about. I've enjoyed everyone's input though!

Howdy PopTart,
I too have been watching the space very closely and actually added to my VERY small positions with junior silver miners just yesterday.
First of all I am still of the mind that everyone should have a wee bit of precious metals in their portfolio. By wee, I'm talking 3-10%. I consider this to be a security blanket type of investment (something for that EOTWAWKI moment). My grandkids have their bed buddies and my pm holding is my bed buddy.
More pm than this core holding is speculation. Speculation is fine and fun so long as you realize the risks. Is now a good time to speculate? What do I know? When I play with investments, speculate, if you will, I lean towards momentum investing. In this I look for trends and when they appear, gradually scale in to my target amount - as long as the trend (momentum) is with me. Let's say you think this nascent trend in the pm's is going to last, and you figure you have $10K to play. Invest $2500 and see if you make money. If you do, add another $2500 and again, see if you make money. If you do, go with the remaining $5K. If at any time it doesn't make money - do not add any more. If it loses, or starts to, have a mental stop loss of say 5-10% at which point, you start scaling out of the play. If it drops some more - exit. This momentum style investing and my penchant for this particular arena, is why I added to my junior silver miners yesterday.
Now as for investing in pms. Funds and ETFs are of two types - bullion and mining stocks. Bullion ETFs will tax your gains at the Collectible rate of 28%. My favorite fund is still TGLDX which does have a little bullion but is taxed at normal cap gain rates. Or, you can go with CEF, a closed end bullion fund that is about 55/45 gold to silver. Or you can go with mining stock funds, ETFs or individual stocks. Lastly, and this is important to many people. For you core holding in pm's, the 'hard corps' recommend holding the physical metal. Although some peeps like safe deposit boxes and such, cripes, a roll of American Gold Eagles comes in a tube 2" tall and the size of a quarter. You can hide it in the oatmeal box and it's worth ~$25,000.
All this said, at this point in time, based upon the metrics of the gold/XAU and gold/silver ratios, miners are undervalued vs. bullion and silver is undervalued vs. gold. Note that this is on the margin. The great leverage is with the junior miners but this is also nose bleed territory. My only homerun in about 40 years of investing was with Silver Wheaton that I bought around 2002-3 for under 3 that I sold in the 40's. Cha-ching!
Right now there are several geopolitical factors at play. China's economy has slowed and they have been fairly steady gold buyers both by the CB and by individuals. The threat of terrorist attacks has really spooked the traveling public and this fear translates in to bullion demand. We also have the zika virus shutting down travel to central and south American and I am far from convinced that Rio is going to be able to even have the Olympics. Oh, and did I forget the Saud family's gas war to end all gas wars? And with Iran coming online, I don't see oil much higher than today for quite a while.
Now all this stuff is what Fear and Loathing are made of (where's Hunter?).
BUT when all is said and done, the POG is dependent upon the price of the U.S. Dollar. Because gold is priced in terms of the dollar and the dollar is the world's reserve currency, they normally are indirectly proportional and this has greatly contributed in the pull back in bullion prices from it's high of ~$1900 in 2011. Recall that the great bull market ran from 2002-3 until this time and commodity bull markets normally last in the 12-15 range. This is due to the complexity of bringing additional supply online in response to higher demand and prices (e.g. you have to find it).
As for the dollar, I've said it was trash since they started QE-nth but compared to any alternative currency, it is still the cleanest pair of dirty socks in the hamper. Lately, it's been showing some weakness but due to ???? Although, I'm starting to sense a negative impact on the dollar caused by the anger of the general public directed at Washington is the support for Trump and Sanders.
Sorry to ramble on,
and so it goes,
peace,
rono

@vkt
With what you noted, and the words just before and after in that paragraph:
"CEO goes to his executive team and says this year's bonus plan will be tied to the share price at the end of the period"
Ya......reminder of one of a company(s) mantra......"increase shareholder" value.
So many established companies lose their vision of what got them to where they may have arrived, and it wasn't through share buybacks.
A sadly sad state of affairs for too many organizations and their worker bees.
I could scream and rant and tell stories of things gone wrong for companies, but it is too early on a Saturday morning; as I would have to strap a blood pressure device onto my arm.
Wishing that I had the desire and/or skills to do a complete review of changes in the accepted and apparently legal changes in accounting standards from 20 years ago and currently used by corporations.
The best that may be obtained for this house is to "play" around the edges with being an "investor" attempting to continue to dodge the bullets arriving from any direction. Too many days find we small folk are way out of our league against the large, fast, the machines and other, eh?
Take care,
Catch

Yes, I remember drinking the cool-aid after this fund was so highly praised on this board 3 or 4 years ago. Luckily I didn't stay in long. I still remember Ted saying no one needs this fund or funds like it - they're losers. Good old Ted is right more times then not. I think it is still true about most of these 'alternative/market neutral/long short' funds out there today. They aren't going to beat a good balanced fund over time.

Notes on grading for US Large Cap Value funds
While noting that the funds being selected for this grading are what would be considered highly rated funds and so they should all have done reasonably well, I found many more funds to have realized consistently high alpha in the LCV category than in the blend/core.
There was also a problem in that the funds follow similar but different indexes to benchmark.
I chose the ETF IWD and the mutual fund VIVAX following two different indices for benchmarking alpha against. The tracking difference between these two is the margin for error.
There are very few great owls in this category and even fewer with the required 8 years of history. So most of the selected funds come from the top 30 at US News & World Report Money guide.
This list has a number of DFA funds at the top but since they were all managed by the same team with very similar portfolio, I just picked one of them.
The only stinker was the Fidelity Blue Chip Value in this analysis.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. It's fun grinding someone's face in the dirt isn't it.
So really, folks waited a half hour after the news to start selling a stock that just dumped on them. Really!?
I agree. Entry and exit plans should be laid out ahead of time for any investment. There was, and still is, plenty of handwriting on the wall with respect toward deterioration in the energy sector. However news events work in both directions. Not everyone can be glued to their electronic devices throughout the day in order to react to every wire snippet. We also have no idea other than digital fog clouds about an investor or their portfolio or their positions in same or any of the reasons why they invest in what they do. For all any of us know those recently bought shares could be add-ons to legacy shares handed down from great, great grandma who lived out her golden years on the capital gains and dividends they produced. Who knows!?
Yeah, I love I told you so's.
Edited to correct some typo's, increase clarity and also to add the following. Conoco' executives made a point of coming out nationally and making repeated statements about how safe the dividend would be. Either they were lying or incredibly incompetent plus too stupid to have a grip on reality. For cripes sake the company RAISED the dividend last year. Since they didn't foresee this being a problem one might postulate that managing a company of this nature and in this environment is not their strong suit.

I left his fund about two years ago, thankfully.

MikeM - I don't know about COP but in the case of another energy company, KMI, shareholder reports were for maintenance of the dividend at it's then current level with growth of that dividend increasing at a 10-16% clip for the next 1-2 years. A month later the dividend was cut by 75% with muted at best growth of that dividend projected. Lie. Lie. lie.

Hi @MJG,
Thanks for posting your thoughts on the January effect on the markets (S&P 500 Index) along with explaining your reasoning.
If investors have invested based upon their risk tolerance, goals, time horizon, etc. then this past January is a good opportunity for them to review how they are invested and make adjustments if this volatility brings them pause and makes them uneasy. Things have indeed changed over the past ten years. Thinking back my portfolio now generates about half the income of what it did ten years ago. After all, back then, I was getting about 4% to 5% interest on my cash area investments alone. Today, zilch.
Perhaps some have taken on more risk than they realize, in an attempt, to maintain income levels.
Old_Skeet

Fidelity used to offer Active Trader Pro as a courtesy to Private Client customers (though not level 2 quotes). They stopped doing that years ago, though.

@vkt This is interesting. Thanks for sharing. Could looking at the correlations between your RARE ratings and current 3 and 5 year measures for common statistics such as the Martin and Sortino ratios help to clarify what new information the RARE rating is providing? I took a quick look in MultiSearch using 3 and 5 years for a sample of the funds you ranked. Just quickly eyeballing things there appeared to be somewhat positive correlations except perhaps with YAFFX. Anyway, an evaluation tool like RARE seems like it could provide a useful additional metric to consider when evaluating a fund.......

Howdy @msf and @vkt
Overview of Fidelity's Active Trader Pro in link below.
At least 36 trades per 12 month rolling period, and more tools available for 120 trades and above. I do agree with @vkt regarding what is available with this program has value with helping to establish a better buy/sell.
I queried Fidelity about this a few years ago and attempted to download the program to a laptop. I/we didn't qualify for the program due to low trading volume. It didn't matter whether one could present a fact of having enough money within Fidelity account(s) to more than satisfy any other conditions and circumstances, including longevity as a customer. We still do not perform more than 36 trades/12 months.
I do understand their position.
I/we are very pleased with Fidelity over a 35+ year period.
Lastly, a few years ago I mistakenly purchased and then sold (to remove the mistake) a mutual fund within a two day period. This fund did have a short term trading period monetary fee ($fine). I called Fidelity and explained the "boo-boo" and the fee was never debited against the account.
https://www.fidelity.com/trading/advanced-trading-tools/active-trader-pro/overview
Regards,
Catch

@llljb, you have it exactly right. BTW, I had to correct the numbers in my previous post from a bug in my earlier script that didn't calculate the percentages correctly, so YAFFX comes out second best below SMVLX in the average but your conclusion is correct.
As I mentioned in the first post, an average is just half the story. It is easily affected by outlier values, hence the distribution is important. I didn't put all the numbers in this post so people's eyes wouldn't glaze over.
The only difference between an A grade and an E is the rarity of that outperformance while both have good average expected values. Most investment periods in YAFFX history over last 8 years wouldn't benefit from the small period in which it outperformed.
To give some concrete numbers, while YAFFX had an expected average outperformance of 12%+ over 5yr periods, the median was actually -12%+. So half the periods not only saw negative alpha but also by a significant amount.
In terms of percentile, 0 or getting the same returns as an index happened at 57 percentile so if investors had invested spread uniformly across those 8 years, 57% of those investors would have seen negative alpha after 5 years in the fund. Hence the term lottery ticket for this grade and lower than a B which would have a lower alpha expected average but majority of people would at least see a positive alpha if not the maximum. Mainly because YAFFX outperformance was in such a narrow period. This is what gets hidden in cumulative calendar year returns listed everywhere.
In contrast, SMVLX had a long enough outperformance periods that any 5 yr period in its history would have enough overlap with an outperformance period to enjoy positive alpha. 0 is at 0 percentile for 5yr returns. So, investing on ANY day in the last 8 years would have given you a positive alpha between zero and the best, so even with worst luck in timing, you would not have suffered relative to the index and may have enjoyed respectable positive alpha. Hence the highest grade.
What is surprising to me is how poorly highly rated T Rowe Price funds in this category have done in this metric. Haven't looked at them closely yet to see what the explanation might be.

I'm not fond of Fidelity's latest website, but then again, I've found each iteration worse than the one before. Anyone remember their old color scheme (years ago)? To me it had a more attractive shade of green.
Some of the changes they've made over time have been gratuitous, others designed to organize more and more types of information and transactions, while the most recent changes have been in part to offer a common mobile/desktop presentation. In doing so, IMHO they dumbed down (er, "simplified") the pages.
This is an instance of a design quandary that's been around for decades - do you design an application to look uniform across platforms, or do you design an application to follow conventions on each platform (and thus look different on each)? As you might infer from the paragraph above, I think Fidelity made the wrong choice in this case.
All that said, their current website is (again IMHO) much better than it was when they first deployed it for feedback. I stopped even looking at the first cut, I found it that unusable. This final iteration of their current design is much more usable than that initial pass.
Regarding clicks - the IBD metric for site performance (just one of 12 different factors going into the overall scoring) is described as considering three subfactors - speed, reliability, and clicks. So already we're down to a weighting of about 3% for number of clicks needed. The text talks about clicks for trading stocks. For that, Fidelity seems about as efficient as possible. Ckick on trade, get a dialog box (no moving off current page), input the trade info (you'll get a quote in the dialog box, no clicks needed), and away you go.
On the other hand, activities I care about, like bill pay, have gotten harder to accomplish. You used to be able to indicate that you wanted bill pay for a particular account and get there in one click. Now you have to go to a bill pay page, indicate which account you want to use, and finally land on the right page. Getting quotes (without using the trade dialog box) seems impossible. If you enter a ticker in the search box (which says "search or get a quote"), it brings up the research page. No current price to be found anywhere.
The bottom line is that some perceived problems have to do with lack of familiarity, some with a less than ideal design, and some with the particular tasks one cares about (which is why any particular review, like IBD, may think more highly or less highly of a site than you do).

Updated Feb 9 with SCG grading
A follow up from my earlier preliminary study that I have named Rolling Alpha Returns Exposé (tm) RARE analysis of mutual funds to identify if mutual fund returns are sensitive to when an investor holds them (more sensitive they are, less likely most investors would have realized the fund's best returns even if they held it for a long time).
Having finished the remaining programming to find the distribution of returns, I am presenting a grading system for mutual funds using the following grades. Selected funds with at least 8 years of history from The Great Owls and the top 20-30 ranked funds at US News Fund ratings. They show significant differences in the sensitivity to time periods.
The grading scale:
A - Over-achievers : Significant alpha over index returns (1% or more per year) and for most investment periods regardless of which 3 or 5 yr period you pick in the last 8 years. So most investors would have seen that performance.
B - Steady achievers : Respectable alpha over index returns (0.5 to 1% per year) for most investment periods
C - Closet indexers : No statististically significant difference from index returns for most investment periods.
D - Pretenders : While some cherry picked returns look good, less than index returns for most investment periods
E - Lottery tickets : Significant alpha for specific periods but underperformance for most investment periods
F - Failures : Statistically significant under performance for most investment periods
X - Toxic : Very poor returns relative to index for most investment periods except for an insignificant percentage of intervals so unless investors caught that interval would have suffered significantly relative to the index
Selected funds can be index funds themselves but using a different index or a narrower index than the sector index but measuring themselves againt it.
Grades for selected funds:
(*) indicates Great Owl Funds
Large Cap Core/Blend US Domestic Funds
A+
SMVLX
A
JENHX(*), VSBPX
A-
VSLPX
B+
VITPX
B
POSKX(*), AWEIX(*), VTCIX, NMIAX
B-
JPDEX
C+
NOPRX(*), DTMEX
C
FLCEX, VQNPX, VPMIX
C-
PRBLX
E
YAFFX
F+
GLDLX(*)
F
PRDGX(*), TRISX(*), PRCOX
F-
WMLIX
X
CAPEX, SLCAX, SCPAX
Large Cap Value US Domestic Funds
A+
FDSAX(*), DFLVX, DPDEX, BRLVX
A
NOLCX, BPAIX, DDVIX(*), TRVLX, VWNDX, LSVEX
A-
VUVLX
B+
VEIPX, DODGX
B
MPISX, EVSAX
B-
TILCX, HOVLX
C+
FLVEX
C
TFFYX(*), DIVIX
D
EQTIX
F+
LCEAX, ILVAX
F
MEIAX
X
FBCVX
Comments on LCV funds in the post below.
Large Cap Growth US Domestic funds
A+
FDGRX, NICSX, GTLLX
A
TRBCX, TPLGX, TRLGX, FBGRX
A-
PLGIX, FNCMX, JIBCX
B+
PRGFX, PARNX
B
POGRX, VHCOX, RDLIX(*)
C+
TILGX, FDSVX, TLIIX,TILIX
C
VPMCX, FLGEX
C-
EGFIX(*)
D
JICPX, HACAX
D-
BRLGX, VWUSX
F+
MMDEX(*)
X
FCNTX, PRGIX
Comments on the LCG fund grading in my comment below
Small Cap Growth US equity funds
A+
PRNHX, DCGTX
A
PRDSX, HSPGX, BCSIX, RSEGX, TRSSX, JGMAX, WFSAX, JANIX
A-
PPCAX
B+
OTCFX
B-
WGROX, LSSIX
C+
TSCIX
C
PLWAX
C-
HASGX, GWETX
D+
WAMVX
D
DTSGX, FCAGX
F
CCASX, QASGX
F-
TISEX, GSXAX, SGPIX, TSGUX
X
BRSGX, MPSSX, TCMSX
PS: I do realize it is egg on my face for criticizing SMVLX and starting this analysis to prove my hunch while it came out on top of all the other funds. Sometimes intuitions can be wrong and hence the need for analysis. This is why startups pivot when intuitions about their markets aren't supported in numbers later on. Shows I didn't design the analysis to prove my hunch as can be easily done with statistics!
It appears that this analysis could be applied between any two similar funds to decide which one is less likely to disappoint if you weren't lucky enough to be in it for its best periods. This can be ONE fund selection criterion say for example if you wanted to choose between POSKX and VTCIX. This would help even more when there is no good index to compare a fund to like allocation funds or multi sector funds. More of such results later.

@Crash
I don't think we are in for the 1930s right away. My way of thinking is what I have posted in the past we are in a sea change that people are not talking about - free trade, population growth, robotics, free movement of money and movement of mfg to lower cost areas causing deflation and hardship for worker.
So, I'm expecting a slow grind - years.
I don't the EU will change but they can show us what to expect a VAT to deal with the debt (for awhile) and social programs.

I have to assume he was just showing only funds that start with A - C because it looks like Vanguard Dividend Growth VDIGX beat those listed and also the S + P for 3, 5 and 10 years. Its been my choice as largest fund holding a while now, with additional money waiting on sidelines for a bit lower level.

Tradeking supposedly charges $9.95 to buy a no-load fund, and another $9.95 to sell one, regardless of the holding period. I contacted them a few years ago and was told that they charge no short-term redemption fees other than what an individual fund might charge for short-term trading. I've read that they offer 8000 funds. I've never bought or sold a fund through them, so can't vouch for their reliability. Their website seems to be down today, so maybe trying to trade funds through them would be a headache.

I think Scottrade is just coming more in line with its rivals. Tradeking is too obscure for my tastes. Just today and yesterday I paid out $160 more in fees to Scottrade than I would have prior to 2/1. In the good old days you could buy and sell funds with no fees whatsoever no matter how short your holding period. I had to adjust when they changed the rules to short term fees and will have to adjust again now that these fees have been raised.

Tradeking supposedly charges $9.95 to buy a no-load fund, and another $9.95 to sell one, regardless of the holding period. I contacted them a few years ago and was told that they charge no short-term redemption fees other than what an individual fund might charge for short-term trading. I've read that they offer 8000 funds. I've never bought or sold a fund through them, so can't vouch for their reliability. Their website seems to be down today, so maybe trying to trade funds through them would be a headache.

FYI: Dividend funds have underperformed the S&P 500 over the past 10 years after outperforming through the first seven years of the 10.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/mutual-funds/can-dividend-funds-get-their-mojo-back/