Not really "changing" anything. Just sticking with what has worked for decades.
Allocation into QQQ 12/31/2015 as per variable #1 from model https://stockmarketmap.wordpress.com/2015/12/31/market-map-model-allocates-to-equity-etf/ ( 2015 return = "underperforming" year ( cash allocation ) after 2013, 2014 were "overperforming years )
Model may instruct back to cash allocation on Feb 1 as determined by variable #2 risk profile
https://stockmarketmap.wordpress.com/2015/11/14/market-map-model-tactical-asset-allocation-using-low-expense-index-etfs-2015/
Looking for entry into Biotech and then switch for Energy in Feb
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zlgOYdATSzC7YrUE9yE_uY03sHBRTcLUVyKusqqv2tI/edit#gid=113856734
Still allocated to Small Cap value as of Nov 2015.
Model may indicate cash position May 1 2016, as again determined by variable #2
https://stockmarketmap.wordpress.com/2015/11/03/model-with-sell-in-may-component-allocated-to-small-cap-value/
One may only need to have exposure in 3 - 4 different domestic market stock universes / sectors and strategies.
1) Small cap value universe has been academically proven to produce the highest alpha premium over 90 years marketwatch.com/story/8-lessons-from-80-years-of-market-history-2014-11-19.
2) The Nasdaq100 has been a superior growth index managed to constitute some of the the best growth companies in the world for 30 + years, and the QQQ is one of the lowest expense ETFs with exposure to it. No need to "pick" and manage individual stocks. They do it for me.
3) The biotech and energy spaces have 30 years of solid performance history. Using utilities as a risk ballast during the "rocky part of the year" fills out this portion.
As for "diversifying" with international, emerging, commodities, REITs, MLPs, etc. I think it is a ploy by the fund company industry to spread out assets to as many fund company managers as possible.

Being a trader can't offer investment advice. But I commend you for making it to 86! You may just be the eldest on this site. May you have many more good years ahead of you.

Hi Alex!
One question: well really more than one.....more like four.....have you ever done investing before? Why would you not want any bonds (individual)? Not funds.....they're steady. And, why do you need so much return? And, at 86, why do you want the volatility? You come to market at a bad time JMO. What time frame will you be putting this money into the market (weeks, months, years)? Do you have other money to live on (Social Security, pension)? Have you talked to another advisor or Fidelity? They can help. For me, I need to know more to give an opinion.
God bless
the Pudd

If I understand you correctly you would like to achieve a return of 7.1% for this year, and increasing in subsequent years. That's based on Table III in IRS Pub 590B, which says an 86 year old's RMD is 1/14.1 years.
That's a bit ambitious, according to market expectations over the next few years.
You've suggesting fine, broad based ETFs, but they'll be as volatile as the stock market (e.g. see today), which can create difficulties in taking RMDs. Specifically, the RMD is based on your Dec 31st balance. A down or volatile year can have you withdrawing a higher percentage (since your portfolio may be below that mark when you decide to take your RMD). You can mitigate that by keeping some assets (at least a year's worth of RMD) in something less volatile - cash or short duration bonds.

I have been sitting on $500K in a money market fund for a year after firing my ineffectual financial advisor. I am 86 years old and unmarried with financially independant heirs. I would like to at least gain an amount equivalent to my RMD.
The following is my tentative selection of ETF funds that I am considering investing 25% each: VOO,VIG,PFF,VEA.
I am inviting any carefully considered suggestions or comments. Thank you and a Happy and prosperous New Year to all.

To willmatt's original question, which seems like a good discussion topic, here's ~ 2.03 inflation-adjusted cents' worth from this house.
For now, sticking with moderately significant changes made in mid-2015, which consisted of (1) reducing equity by quite a bit, concentrating it mainly in lower volatility funds with a strong tilt toward hedging foreign currency; (2) building up to about a quarter of the port in FI cef's, in munis, preferreds, and non-agency mortgages; (3) weeding out as much in hy corporates and commodity energy equity as possible; and (4) building up BBB/BB-ish muni oef's.
What are others doing?
Cheers, AJ

One area that seems duplicative is my accumulation of balanced funds. Currently, I own VWENX, JABAX and VTMFX. Two out of the three seems adequate to me. I really like VTMFX and its muni bond holdings, which I hold in a taxable account. So, its come down to a decision between VWENX and JABAX. I bought VWENX in a taxable account many years ago and its ballooned to my largest holding. I have a rather large capital gain with it, so its tough to sell without incurring the big cap gain. JABAX is held in a Roth IRA, so no tax issues with it.

FYI: Nasdaq and S&P 500 eye worst start to the year since 2001.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dow-industrials-hasnt-started-the-year-this-horribly-in-84-years-2016-01-04/print
Worst Start To The Year:
https://www.bespokepremium.com/think-big-blog/worst-starts-to-the-year/

FYI: Investing is becoming more of a grind. Expect it to stay that way.
Analysts, mutual-fund managers and other forecasters are telling investors to expect lower returns from stocks and bonds in 2016 than in past years. They're also predicting more severe swings in prices. Remember that 10 percent drop for stocks that freaked investors out in August? It likely won't take another four years for the next one.
Regards,
Ted
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/52194e6899d24c6db2484be02aaea2e1/expect-less-and-buy-antacid-2016-investment-forecasts

I'd never taken a close look at those bar charts to see what they actually represent. My current working hypothesis is that they are simply the 10 year risk and reward ratings on the ratings & risk tab. If my theory is correct, funds that have not been around at least 10 years will not have these bar charts on their quote pages.
The three year performance/risk buckets are above average/average. Since the manager has been around for just two years, that would seem to be the better set of ratings to look at in any case.
The next question is how FPBFX could be rated as average performance vs. category over 10 years when it landed in the 7th percentile, with 60% better performance than the category average (6.31% vs. 3.88%).
This suggests either the performance rating is wrong, or "category" is defined differently for "category performance" in the quote page table and for "return vs. category" on the ratings&risk tab. That is, the category comparisons might not be the same for the percentile figure and for the "average" bucket.

Hi Catch22,
Thank you for reading and responding to my post.
I really do believe that forecasting (especially the future according to Yogi Berra) is a terribly uphill slough. But if some error rate is acceptable, it is not an impossible assignment. As Yogi famously said: “When you come to a fork in the road, take it”. And when investing, there are countless uncertain forks in the road.
Study after study have demonstrated the high error rates when making forecasts. The long running CXO Advisory Group study that scored the forecasts of 68 financial professionals just reinforced the high hurdle that most experts stumble against. The CXO guru grades registered only about a 48% accuracy record.
Random successes are often followed by painful failures as the regression-to-the-mean iron law exercises its ultimate influence.
On a much larger scale, Phil Tetlock has organized and measures the accuracy of a large body of carefully selected, screened, and challenged political wiz-kids. These scholarly studies have been conducted over many years and across many iterations. Expert teams have been assembled based on earlier prediction prowess. Forecasting accuracy at the margins has been improved with team effort, but it remains a tough uphill battle. Here is a Link to a relatively recent Tetlock lecture:
https://www.aei.org/events/predicting-the-future-a-lecture-by-philip-tetlock/
Experts can be assembled that tilt the forecasting odds just a little. An informed team of bright folks can make a difference, especially if the team is dedicated and is composed of members with a wide ranging set of experiences and knowledge. The MFO contributors satisfy those criteria.
So, while I surely do not agree with all that is said on this wonderful site, I do learn and profit from the MFO exchanges. After 6 decades of moderately successful investing, I’m not prepared to “leave this game”.
An important lesson that I learned during those many participating years is that setting a satisficing goal is better than shooting for a maximizing goal in terms of anticipated rewards. If you are not familiar with the concept, here is a dictionary definition of 'Satisficing': “A decision-making strategy that aims for a satisfactory or adequate result, rather than the optimal solution”. An optimal portfolio return is a mythical target.
Additionally, I preach and practice portfolio diversification and patience as strong investment tools to embrace. Investing need not be complex.
Stay strong and healthy for 2016. The market challenges are forever present.
Best Wishes.

Yes, Gendelman was formerly at the House of Marsico. He managed the Multicap Growth fund for a number of years, quite successfully, until "something happened" one day and it was simply announced he was no longer managing the fund and was no longer at the firm. The end. It will be interesting to see what he does with the new charge at American Century. [U. of Iowa alumnus, FWIW]

It is good to read about a fund that I hold in the large/mid cap sleeve found in the growth area of my portfolio and one that I have owned for a good number of years. In fact, it has been one of the top producers found not only within its sleeve which currently holds four funds but the whole growth area of the portfolio which consist of sixteen funds

It is good to read about one of the funds that I have owned for a good number of years and hold in my global growth sleeve along with five other funds. In fact, THOAX has been one of the better producers found in the whole growth area of the portfolio which currently consist of sixteen funds.

Also posted on M*.
I'm a long-time investor in MAPIX and have gotten in and out a couple of times; I am "in" right now. BUT, I'm not sure I'm getting the most bang-for-the-buck (pardon the cliche').
Absolute returns are good, not great, the downside has been okay, but not what I'd hoped, so I have been exploring other options in the Divers. Asia Pacific category.
I find myself looking closely at FIDO's Pac. Basin fund,FPBFX (my wife owns it in her 401K). It has a new manager since late 2013, so his track-record is very short and difficult to evaluate. When I compare it's returns and metrics to other funds (3 years and less), in particluar, MAPIX, FPBFX comes out mostly on top.
Returns favor FPBFX significantly; slight nod to MAPIX for M* "risk"/SD; Alpha, Treynor, upside/downside capture ratio favor FPBFX.
Furthermore, when I look at the "downside" Quarterly returns for 2013-2015, I find no real difference, if anything, it may favor FPBFX a bit.
Bottom line, what thoughts, suggestions and opinions do you have? Am i being too impatient and possibly "performace chasing"?
Thank you for any and all comments!!
Matt

I agree that it was a nice gesture, and could have been left at that.
My mention of M* was to point out that one has to be careful with processed data from different sources - if sources process raw data differently, the resulting numbers can't be compared. You mentioned trying to get processed data from M* and from the fund. That opened up this apples and oranges problem.
M* is as clear as anybody on its methodologies - how it processes raw data. It's good that you could get some processed numbers from the fund manager; perhaps you should take him up on his offer and call him back to inquire how the processing (averaging) was done.
Your intent may not have been to comment on M*, though it seems hard for you to resist: "Let's just say that I would never pay their membership fees for their services, or lack thereof."
Let's just say it was a nice gesture by a fund manager and leave it at that.

Yes, indeed, it was a nice gesture. Since you brought up *M's "pretty good coverage" of the credit analysis of conservative allocation funds, I'll just say color me unimpressed. 162 out of 192? How many were done in the past year? It's been four years since they did a credit analysis GLRBX? Three years for BERIX? These are two five-star balanced funds. There's a reason why I get all of my *M material free from the library. Let's just leave it at that.

FYI: There’s been something of a bull market in people who consider themselves a contrarian investor in recent years. People took notice of those who called the tech bubble in the late-1990s, the the real estate bubble in the mid-2000s or the bottom of the stock market in early 2009. Everyone would now like to think that they’re greedy when others are fearful and fearful when others are greedy.
Regards,
Ted
http://awealthofcommonsense.com/contrarian/

@Ted: My equal weight consumer staples RHS beat out market weighted XLP by about 6%. I own both. The seem to have a somewhat negative correlation, alternating who does better in a given year, thats why I ended up with both. These are my ballast funds which tend do ok in down years.

FYI: So just how tough has it been for diversified investors in 2015? Think about it, stocks and bonds are flat, cash makes you nothing and commodities tanked once again. Most years being diversified is the way to go, this year has been historically tough.
I took a look at various asset class returns over the past 30 years and made some hypothetical portfolios for each year. I put 50% into the S&P 500 (stocks), 25% into 10-yr bonds (bonds), 10% into commodities, and 15% into cash.
Happy New Year,
Ted
http://ryandetrick.tumblr.com/post/136226077810/how-bad-has-2015-been-for-diversified-investors

The breakout by Credit Quality has '-' for GLRBX; the columns that are filled in are the benchmark and category average figures. I suspect the reason why the figures given are dated 12/31/11 is that this appears to be the last time that M* did a credit analysis on GLRBX - the "style history" table immediately above shows a style box for 2011 and nothing more recent.
I would suggest being wary of the benchmark/category average in the all the credit tables. Various numbers don't come close to the figures shown on the page for FBALX. (The figures are supposedly separated by a month, Sept vs. Oct 2015, so they shouldn't match exactly, but they should be closer than they are.)
It seems that if the last time that M* did a credit analysis was five or more years ago, M* does show the current benchmark and category figures. See the tables for OAKBX, where the claimed date for the tables is 12/31/10. The benchmark/category figures seem to match the (current) figures found with FBALX.

I've owned glrbx for years and have never been disappointed.