FYI: At least one large fund manager is not buying into Argentina's turnaround story and believes the country's first international bond in over 15 years may not offer as much value as local debt in Mexico and Brazil.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/latam-bonds-franklin-rsc-idUSL2N16W04W
M* Snapshot TPINX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/TPINX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot TPINX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/TPINX
TPINX Is Ranked #17 In The (WB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/world-bond/templeton-global-bond-fund/tpinx

Hi, guys.
In a slightly-grumbly post last week, in which I described the current market as "senseless" and allowed that I was reluctant to judge sensible managers for their failure to thrive in its midst, I made the observation that the February bear low was still higher than most bull market highs. Setting aside the question of whether it's reasonable to disregard what might be several years of underperformance (it works for me as long as the full cycle performance is what I signed up for, but I recognize that other folks have shorter time horizons and more intricate sell disciplines), there was also a question about whether the "higher than bear lows" claim was correct.
Several fund managers I'd spoken to last week made that observation in passing. Here's the Leuthold description of current valuations, from their March 2016 Perception for the Professional:

While the past several month's reversion in [valuation] measures has certainly wrung some of the risk out of the market ... the potential downside risks remain substantial. We compared current readings on all four valuation measures [p/e on TTM earnings, p/e on 5-yr normalized earnings, p/cash flow, median price-to-book, all for S&P 500 stocks] to the average recorded at the last four bull market highs, and found that - despite the setback of the last nine months - the median stock still trades at a valuation about 1% above the levels seen at the typical cyclical bull market high. If the bear market reasserts itself ... potential downside is estimated at -29%.

The Total Stock Market is up about 2% since then.
To be clear: I'm not apocalyptic, I'm just wired to be cautious. More importantly, I detest making factual claims (as I did in my original post) without being able to point to the specific evidence behind the claim.
For what that's worth,
David

I use a timing model found within my portfolio itself that keys me when to load value over growth and when to switch and to load growth. I only do this with a small amount of the portfolio due to the many strategies that I may have engaged from time-to-time. I have found through the years this to be one of the better strategies and a most effective one. Just this past month, most of the large cap value funds which I own and are found in my domestic equity sleeve located in the growth and income area of the portfolio out performed it's growth counter part (large/mid cap sleeve) which is found in the growth area of the portfolio by about 10%.
During the recent selling stampede which took place during the first couple months of 2016 I bought in the value area of the portfolio and once equities recovered I then rebalanced and reduced my equity weighting in the growth area by selling two positions that were held in the ballast/spiff sleeve thus keeping my overall equity allocation at it's target weighting of about 50%.
Again, for those that have had their doubts about my sleeve system, I have found my portfolio fund management sleeve system to be beneficial in making investment and strategy adjustments within my portfolio. However, I respect your right to continue to voice your doubts as I feel my system is geered for the more accomplished investor and might not be right for everyone. In addition, to use the system effectively one needs to be somewhat a student of the capital markets and follow their movement as well as that of the portfolio itself. Please note I am not a professional investor, or trader, but simply a retail investor that sought out ways to improve my returns over both the near term as well as the long term that would come through better positioning with a moving asset allocation of sorts.
For those that might not be familiar with my system I have provided a blurb about it below along with the portfolio's current configuration as of March 22, 2016.
Old_Skeet's Fund Sleeve Management System (03/22/2016)
Here is a brief description of my sleeve system which I organized to help better manage the investments that were held in five accounts along with my current positioning. The accounts consist of a taxable account, a self directed ira account, a 401k account, a profit sharing account and a health savings account plus two bank accounts. With this I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves … an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consists of two sleeves. … a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves … a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. An finally there is the growth area, where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five sleeves … a global sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, a specialty & theme sleeve and a ballast & spiff investment sleeve. Each sleeve consists of three to six funds (in most cases) with the size and the weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds and amounts held. By using the sleeve system one can get a better picture of their overall investment picture and weightings by sleeve and area. In addition, I have found it beneficial to xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly. Again, weightings can be adjusted form time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets and wish to weight accordingly. All funds pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio with the exception being those in my 401k, profit sharing, and health savings accounts where reinvestment occurs. With the other accounts paying to the cash area builds the cash area of the portfolio to meet the portfolio’s monthly cash disbursement amount with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. In addition, most all buy/sell trades settle from or to the cash area with some nav exchanges between funds taking place.
Here is how I have my asset allocation broken out in percent ranges, by area. My current target allocations are cash 20%, income 30%, growth & income 35%, and growth 15%. I do an Instant Xray analysis on the portfolio quarterly (sometimes monthly) and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assessment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc. Presently, I am about 20% in the cash area, 30% in the income area, 35% in the growth & income area and 15% in the growth area.
Cash Area (Weighting Range 15% to 25% with target being 20%)
Demand Cash Sleeve… (Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual)
Investment Cash Sleeve … (Savings & Time Deposits)
Income Area (Weighting Range 25% to 35% with target being 30%)
Fixed Income Sleeve: GIFAX, LALDX, THIFX, LBNDX, NEFZX & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: CAPAX, CTFAX, FKINX, ISFAX, JNBAX & PGBAX
Growth & Income Area (Weighting Range 30% to 40% with target being 35%)
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX & EADIX
Global Hybrid Sleeve: BAICX, CAIBX & TIBAX
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX, INUTX, NBHAX, SPQAX & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, DDIAX, FRINX, HWIAX & LABFX
Growth Area (Weighting Range 10% to 20% with target being 15%)
Global Sleeve: ANWPX, PGROX & THOAX
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, IACLX & SPECX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: AJVAX, PCVAX & PMDAX
Specialty & Theme Sleeve: LPEFX, PGUAX, TOLLX, NEWFX & THDAX
Ballast & Spiffs: FISCX
Total Number of Mutual Fund Positions = 45

@davidmoran: I retired three years ago and I have to agree that foreign, EM, and SC have done nothing for me for several years now. I was on the verge of getting out of my Grandeur Peak and Matthews, long-term but reduced holdings, when all of a sudden EM recovered. Can one have exquisite timing when one only sits around and holds?

Years ago, I worked for a large company with major locations on the east coast and in Illinois. It considered Lincoln's birthday a regional holiday, so it only gave the day off in some locations - the ones outside the Land of Lincoln.
While federally chartered banks are open, some state charted banks may be closed, as Good Friday is a state holiday in Conn., Del., Guam, Hawaii, Ind., Ky. (half day), La., N.J., N.C., N.D., P.R., Tenn.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0002069.html
Don't ask for rhyme or reason here. It just makes a great workday to run errands with so many people off the road.

Does anyone own Jensen Quality Growth fund, JENSX?
Fund Mojo describe this A+ fund (Mojo ranking system) this way:
"Jensen Quality Growth J Fund seeks long-term capital appreciation. Jensen Quality Growth J Fund primarily invests in equity securities of approximately 20 to 30 companies. Generally, each company in which the Fund invests must have consistently achieved strong earnings and have a trend of increasing free cash flow over the prior ten years; be in excellent financial condition and be capable of sustaining outstanding business performance. The Fund may invest in securities when they are priced below their intrinsic values as determined by the adviser."
Others receiving notable scores from Mojo:
PARWX - A+
FUNYX (I like the ticker) - Master
SBLYX - Master
fundmojo.com/mutualfund/bestmanager.php?category=Large+Growth

Over the last 10 years T. Rowe Price's Global Technology fund, PRGTX, seems to have edged out NASDX:

Charted Over the last 15 years:

I appear the only person incapable of posting an image to the discussion board. I keep trying and keep getting the broken-image icon. The best I can do is a link to a composite valuation graph. Grantham argues that the two standard deviation line is the threshold for major reversals. Market values exceeded that only once (and housing values once) in 100 years.

Biotech Related
Biotech Selloff, EVENTIDE FUNDS Semi-Annual Report 31 December 2015
The Gilead Fund and Healthcare & Life Sciences Fund are both exposed to the biotech sector,
which normally is not correlated to the broader economy. The futures of companies in the
biotech industry are dependent on company-specific pipelines of new drugs.
Despite the worst selloff in biotech history, the fundamentals of the industry remain positive. The
decline may be due in part to the 2015 drug-pricing scare in which rising drug prices became a
political issue. In addition, biotech normally experiences one large selloff every year. But, most
likely, the decline is due to a broad flight from risk among investors, and biotech is risky.
As a result, we believe investors are pricing companies far below a rational consideration of value.
While price-to-earnings (“PE”) ratios aren’t normally a useful metric in the biotech sector, given
many companies are pre-earnings, the PE of the four largest companies show them trading
below the PE of the S&P 500. Normally they trade much higher, as earnings growth rates in the
sector typically outperform estimates. Small-cap biotech companies have plenty of cash —
enough to last them for an average of 6.6 years before needing additional investment. That’s
plenty of time to produce new drugs, and the industry has many exciting new drugs in the
pipeline. Finally, the regulatory environment is positive, with officials approving more new drugs
every year. In other words, the fundamentals in the sector are positive.
EVENTIDE FUNDS Semi-Annual Report 31 December 2015
https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/MC5611/20160129/SAR_275117.PDF
1 Day Y T D
FBIOX -4.08 -31.06
IBB -3.30 ( nav) -22.26
ETNHX -4.64 -27.50
PRHSX -1.39 -13.40
M* Health: Total Returns Y T D Ave -14.81
http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/health/$FOCA$SH.aspx

IBB: Political Posturing Sell-Off Presents Buying Opportunity
Mar. 8, 2016 4:49 PM ET
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3956759-ibb-political-posturing-sell-presents-buying-opportunity

Vice President Joe Biden dropped in to Tutta Bella’s Westlake Avenue location during a visit to Seattle on Monday and ordered four Neapolitan pies to go.
Biden was in Seattle to tour a research facility to promote a $1 billion proposal to cure cancer, announced in President Obama’s January State of the Union address.
http://www.pmq.com/March-2016/Vice-President-Orders-4-Pies-to-Go-from-Seattle-Pizzeria/

But David, your last paragraph is again saying your happy with RPHYX, insinuating that RSIVX having the same manager must mean RSIVX will be good too. It hasn't been. Your also saying that the sound strategy is being negatively influenced by the un-sound market. Heck, Hussman has been saying that for years (not to insinuate this manager is as bad as Hussman in allocating money). I just think good managers can come up with good investment theories, but it doesn't mean they'll work in real life. This fund may turn out to have great 5 year risk adjusted returns. But why not wait until proven? So far not so good.
P.S. if I could get into RPHYX I would. Proof is in the pudding.

Hey, 3yards.
Sorry, not trying to snub anybody.
Here's my fundamental problem: I'm concerned that the market is currently forked up. Really. Zero and negative interest rate policies fundamentally distort investors' allocations. Why are interest rates at or below zero? Because, despite falling unemployment, global growth is at or below zero. We're about to register a fourth consecutive quarter of falling year-over-year earnings (Factset, March 2016). And still the stock market is rising at above average rates over the past three years; VTSMX is up 11% annually in that period. At the base of the market trough in February 2016, valuations were higher (at least in small caps, maybe broadly) than they were at the peak preceding the 2007 crash. The liquidity available to fixed income market makers is down by 90% since the end of the crisis. In theory, those guys provide the circuit breaker in a falling market: if you want to sell a share of Google, they'll buy it immediately then sell it as quickly as they can find an ultimate buyer for it which pocketing a few bps for their trouble. In the absence of that sort of liquidity, selloffs accelerate.
That's relevant here because I'm reluctant to make too strong an argument against what appears to be a sensible strategy that's performing poorly in a senseless market, especially when the manager has reasonable arguments about the malformations in the market. Similarly, I'm about to buy a small cap fund that's 50-80% cash and that most of you folks think of as appropriate for the Thanksgiving table.
In short, I own RSIVX personally and in an account for MFO. The positions aren't huge, but then none of mine are. I'm not happy that the strategy has been losing money over the past several quarters but I'm also not selling based on that experience nor am I willing to say that the strategy is a bad one. I am pretty happy with RPHYX (up 1% YTD) which continues to be a low-vol alternative to cash for me.
As ever,
David

@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.