For the next 10 years, which of the 2 would you choose......QUAL or VLUE ?

My fear or lack of fear in spending varies with the conditions. If the markets are raging ahead and my IRA has been increasing at 7-10% annually, I'm inclined to splurge more (on vacations, home improvements, etc.). The past couple years the IRA's been stuck in a rut. That's partially due to some longer-term speculative plays that haven't yet worked out, but also due to slower growth in the major equity and bond indexes. So the IRA hasn't grown much the past year or so. As a consequence, I'm less likely to spend.
Another concern is the intense political rhetoric about curtailing SS which seems to ebb and flow. We're also dependent on a couple DB pensions, so the speculation re SS and pension solvency both have an impact on our thinking. While I can control our investing and spending, I have no control over what the politicians and courts do in regard to those other two matters. Probably a dumb response - but there's an emotional component to all this that's hard to escape.
I was probably 45+ when we finally got down to hard-tacks and paid off all our revolving credit and instituted an annual written budget. It was than that savings really increased. The first few years were excruciatingly difficult for us. Drove worn out vehicles and curtailed discretionary travel among other things. In retrospect, it was the smartest thing we ever did.

let's see. i stopped smoking not for health reasons but just because ciggies got too damn expensive. gave up drinking for other reasons -- sigh -- but doing that gave me an excuse to no longer go to bars, so i'm saving a ton of money that way. no more liquor store expenses either. constitutionally, i don't like going out to eat, so i bet that saves me some money right there. just got rid of my cable TV service, moving over to the Kodi home theater thing (which is giving me fits).
my town is small, so i bought an electric bicycle to do all my errands with. haven't started my car for short hops in a few months. bought and modified a bike cart so i could take my dog to the park and elsewhere w/ me.
several years ago, before leaving town for several months, i hid $4k somewhere in the house and have been unable to find it. i've spent hours searching, to no avail. it's driving me crazy.
similarly, during y2k, i took $10k in small bills and hid it in a strong box. then i forgot about it, until 8 years later, when i saw the strong box and wondered to myself, hey, i wonder what's in there. lo and behold ....
but i digress.
i will wait until i'm sweating bullets in the heat and my dog is nearly comatose before i turn on the stupid, electricity-sucking air conditioners.
often being pound wise and penny foolish, i will spend hours on slickdeals looking to save a few cents. most recent ***big*** find: norizal anti-dandruff shampoo, which dropped from $10 for 7 oz to $8.07 with amazon subscribe and save. yeah, man!
refuse to buy organic meat a/ because it costs so much more and b/ because deep down i believe the organic label is just another ploy and/or marketing scheme.
love thursdays, when the weekly supermarket circulars arrive. i grab em, hop in bed, and begin looking for what's on sale that i normally buy. 75% of what i get is from these circulars.
and on it goes, much to the dismay of my loved ones ...

Hi @Charles and all expressing thoughts in this thread.....
Not picking on you in this thread; but this group of words you wrote,"caught" my eye.....
"But markets have simply not supported their hedges."
This style of wording are what I might expect to read in a market report from a fund manager during a down period.
They may also be words I could udder to myself or my spouse attempting to explain or rationalize a rough/down period in our personal portfolios.
IMO, all investors are hedged with or against a position(s).
Over the past few years we have greatly reduced our bond portions, moving to mostly U.S. centric, broadbased holdings at first, with particular direction towards more various healthcare postions. Within the last year more bond postions were sold with more direction towards the Euro area.
Hedging, be it at a fund level or personal level; is establishing an investment(s) based upon, at the very least; thinking and thought about what one determines at the time to be themes or movements and trends.
I am not able to use an algo device to support whatever I see with investments. I must use personal assessment of factors here and there; and can readily throw in a batch of technical data and charts, at least to the extent that I understand what I am viewing.
To fit my view of the fund types in this discussion and the management methods is that rather than "markets have not supported the hedges"; is blaming the markets for the failures.
I wouldn't get away with this type of thinking at this house. I would deserve and get a selfie arse kick and would expect the same another.
For whatever their knowledge, experience and the machines provide for these fund type managers and still they miss the "investment return" boat; at this house, with this failure status, there would be some very serious introspection to determine the problem area(s).
We're still "hedged", err, I mean invested, in areas of our choice for reasons we currently believe to be valid.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Catch

@MikeM - I didn't say I was being smart. It is "unconscious bias". I'm thinking "at least the guy is not an ass****". So I own him in my "alternative" slot. Him donating to charity is not reason to buy him. However, that prevents him from being my first candidate to sell when taking a tax loss. I would put John Montgomery in the same category, Thankfully have had much better luck with my Bridgeway holdings.
Hindsight is always 20/20. I haven't owned HSGFX for 10 years. I have actually owned HSTRX for that time though. I thought I bought HSGFX about the time he could start being "right" again. Morningstar had summarily dissed him. Seemed to be good time. I was thinking lot of people would dump the fund based on M* comments. So I started creeping in.
Obviously I was wrong. So as I said, I keep rectifying my mistake a bit at a time. I could try rectifying it all at once but with my luck it will go up 20% the day I sell all my shares.
As I keep telling people. "Hurry up slowly".
Now, I'm not sure we should call these funds "market timing" funds. They do seem to have some plan at work. The one irony in WBMAX Q1 report is this. They make a point about not being simply short given their negative view of the markets. The fact of the matter is, if they done exactly that, the fund would have performed better. Right now it is performing like a 2X short fund compared to the S&P 500.

"Morningstar and Barron's ninth annual survey of perceptions and usage of alternative investments sheds some much-needed light on decisions taking place at advisory firms and intuitions. (The survey was conducted in the spring of 2015 and covered the 2014 period.) '
"The survey highlights some astonishing trends at a time when alternative flows are starting to moderate. While organic growth rates for liquid alternative mutual funds during 2014 are still larger than any other broad Morningstar Category, they were the slowest on record since 2008, at 12%. But the survey shows that advisors aren’t all doom and gloom and may be looking to allocate more into alternatives over the next couple of years. But the pace at which institutions appear to be withdrawing from alternatives does raise an eyebrow."
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=691385&SR=Yahoo

VF, if donations to charity were a reason for sticking with Hussman, and I've seen you state that before, wouldn't it be more effective to just donate directly to those charities yourself while investing with a winning manager? Then at least 100% of your donation, or expenses, goes to a good cause instead of 66% and 34% into his pocket.
From what you stated, you seem to be happy paying for no-BS and a charitable individuals expenses. When in actuality, everything he has said for the last 10 years has turned out to be BS in investment sense. You don't mention how or why this fits your investment plan.
You are right about the silence on Whitebox though. Much like all the ballyhoo about Marketfield just a year or so ago. Which makes me feel even more strongly that none of these market timing funds are worth a hoot. They will look good until they're not.

Good points LB. Again, not in either of these funds so no skin in the game. I once thought "alternative" funds sounded cool, but now think they are useless, or at least not needed in a portfolio. At least for me.
Hey, I think that is what Ted has been saying all these last few years... Smart guy. :)

I do believe "rate hike delay" has been stated here many times from the non-professionals, eh?.............for the past several years.
Sidenote: Canada's central bank dropped rates again this week. The cb's have their fingers crossed to attempt to weave some economic magic. Things are just different, as is usual/normal after a major market melt; but just a bit more over the edge this time as some areas were never allowed to properly normalize............being let the trash side of companies, investment sectors to "die".
We're just running on the outside edge of the "money machine"; trying to skim a little piece for ourselves.
Have not felt more like being a gambler during the past several years, with investments. Probably just an aging thing, eh???
Take care,
Catch

thanks for info...I already own PRWCX...was just trying to help learningcurve.

Little5bee: Happy to help. Just happen to have held PRWCX & a number of their funds-of-funds for many years. PRWCX dates back almost to inception.
Yours is an interesting question/suggestion - as a purely academic pursuit (the spirit in which I responded). As a practical matter, however, it's unlikely one would purchase 10 shares of a fund they don't need to secure an interest in one share of PRWCX. And it's uncommon (but not unheard of) for their fund-of-funds to hold much over 10-15% of any one fund.
Regards

re "timber"- an excerpt from a current article in the WSJ:
U.S. Home-Builder Confidence Hits Highest Level in Nearly a Decade

"WASHINGTON—A gauge of home-builder sentiment hit its highest level since November 2005, reflecting confidence in a steadily improving U.S. housing market.
An index of builder confidence in the market for new single-family homes stood at a seasonally adjusted level of 60 in July, the National Association of Home Builders said Thursday. A reading over 50 means most builders generally see conditions as positive.
June’s reading was revised up one point to 60, marking two straight months that the index has been at its highest point in more than nine years. Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal expected a reading of 59 in July. "

@msf,
If I understand insurance plans deductibles correctly they reset each year. This also seem like something that needs to be managed over the course of a single health event. When does the deductible coverage begin? When does it end?
If a patient is being treated for a single condition that bridges multiple years, which I'm sure many do, keeping track of these recurring deductibles seems like the kinda math you might be able to handle :), but maybe not the average sick guy :(.
I wonder if doctors are able to offer services that provide a "package of care" that has a cost, but not a time frame thus avoiding having to meet a second deductible for at least that "illness". An illness doesn't know when the year's deductible resets and so long as you remain in contract with the insurance provider (don't change carriers) it seems continuation of care should be covered under the original deductible... not multiple deductibles due to calendar reset.
In my imperfect world, a deductible for a health event should be treated much like a deductible for a car crash. If it takes the mechanic longer to "fix" my car I'm not required to meet a second deductible. A patient should not be required to meet multiple deductibles over the treating/healing process (maybe multiple years).
Then again, I don't want my doctor to tell me I just "totaled myself".
Just some thoughts and thanks for all your information here. Great thread l5b!

Staying with the baby boomers group only.........I find that at least 5% of this group could have "investible monies" worth +$1 million. I would lean towards a higher number.
I can only reference this from the viewpoint of Michigan and the auto industry; as well as all of the ancillary supporting business.
In particular, from the early 1970's through the mid-90's, the big 3 auto companies had hugh payrolls, as well as the many of the outside vendors supplying product to these companies.
Many union "blue collar" jobs found high wages, superior benefits and many households had both adults working at auto factories. These folks were making a lot of money on an annual basis for many years for their household. Add the 1,000's of skilled trade jobs that were part of this and at a much higher wage. There were also many small business formations for a variety of tool and die works for all sorts of piece parts.
Knowing personally that the debt ratio for most of these folks was very poor; as they spent a lot of this money, too; but that a guess of 5% of this overall group was prudent with their spending habits could find "investible" monies to be ready available.
I recall a WSJ or Baron's article from 1976 ?, from which I pulled data for a report that noted at the time a list of per capita income by states. New York was first, Alaska was second and Michigan was third. There were so many people employed at high wage/low skill jobs to offer this per capita rate of income.
I am sure similar scenarios of wage happened in other industrial areas of the U.S. during this period.
IMO, I consider at least 5% of the baby boomer group (non-professional) to have at least $1 million of invested monies. This of course, does not include value of primary homes or similar related areas.
Too late at night, to search for a document.
My uneducated, no data observation, just from being there, summary.
Take care,
Catch

Hi @bee
Don't hold FAGIX right now; but probably should....., but it was traded in for the time being :)
Although rightfully classified as a high yield bond fund, this fund has always been one of the hybrid funds that doesn't fit into a complete category. The name Capital and Income is likely an appropriate name for this fund.
The fund mix has always held about 80% true high yield corp. bonds, with the remainder in equity. Some of the HY bonds is/was foreign and some of the equity is generally foreign, too. Current management has been in place for more than 12 years; but the prior team always performed well, too.
If one has access to this fund through whatever type of account they hold, I would always recommend this fund for a portion of bonds, although being HY with the equity mix causes this fund to be more equity directed for/with market movements.
Current YTD is about +4.6%.
We have held this fund at various periods beginning in the early 1980's.
Fidelity view, composition
The reason this fund is not in our portfolio at this time is that the monies from the sale were placed into healthcare/bio/pharma holdings for a direct path into equities. This fund is always on our monitored list of funds. For those reading this, don't confuse this fund with Fidelity's HY fund of SPHIX. This fund, as well as other vendor's offerings of high yield bond funds with not likely fit the same mold as FAGIX. I don't consider the E.R. of .72% to be out of line for the performance of this fund relative to others of this category. FAGIX has remained high on the list of HY bond funds.
As with any market sector, this fund is subject to market conditions and will have its "off" periods.
@bee, I know you may or have probably already formed some graphs for this fund; sadly I can't offer your well designed graphic layouts you post here.
Just for the heck of it............... a 5 year combo return for a mostly U.S. centric portfolio of these 3 funds:
---VTI, u.s. blend, leaning towards lg. cap.
---PONDX / PIMIX , mixed bonds, depending on the markets (excellent management)
---FAGIX, as noted above
5 year average = 12% annual
Not too bad for such a "Strange Brew" (Bruce,Baker,Clapton)
Take care and thank for all of your fine offerings here,
Catch

1. Generally, you need to have an eligible HDHP (high deductible health plan) in order to open an HSA. However, if you have an existing HSA, you're allowed to open another one (even without having an eligible HDHP), and transfer/roll over the existing HSA to the new one.
For example, here's Alliant CU's page:

To open an Alliant HSA you must be:
- 18 years of age or older
- Must be enrolled in a qualified High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) to make contributions.
- If not enrolled in a HDHP you are still qualified to roll over or transfer funds from your current HSA

2. As others have stated, you don't need compensation income in order to contribute to an HSA. AFAIK (this is speculation), you don't need income at all (though you'll waste the deduction that way).
In order to fund (not open) an HSA, you must have had an eligible HDHP. However, since funding can be retroactive (like an IRA, you can fund it early the next year), you can fund the HSA because you were in an HDHP, even if you aren't currently.

MARKETS
Calpers Struggles as Its Return Falls Short
Largest U.S. pension fund earned 2.4% in fiscal 2015, shy of 2.5% goal
By TIMOTHY W. MARTIN WSJ
Updated July 13, 2015 6:43 p.m. ET
The California Public Employees’ Retirement System fell short of its annual return target in fiscal 2015, as public pensions around the U.S. struggle through one of their worst years since the financial crisis.
The $301 billion pension fund, the largest in the U.S. by assets and known as Calpers, said it earned 2.4% on its investments for the fiscal year ended June 30 because of a slump in the markets and weak private-equity returns. The performance was just shy of its internal goal of 2.5%. It was Calpers’ poorest year since 2012, when it earned 1%, and down from 18.4% in 2014.
Pension investments have been challenged this year by low interest rates, uneven market performance and the recovery of the U.S. dollar, which has weakened gains in global stocks.
Calpers played down the importance of its 2015 performance, noting that the pension fund had topped three- and five-year internal targets with returns of 10.9% and 10.7%. Calpers assumes it will produce annual returns over the long run of 7.5%.
“We try not to get too fixated or excited about any one-year return,” said Calpers Chief Investment Officer Ted Eliopoulos on Monday at a board meeting. “The strength of our long-term numbers gives us confidence that our strategic plan is working,”
Mr. Eliopoulos, who was named CIO last year, has moved Calpers to simplify its portfolio and dial down the risk. Those moves include halving the number of external money managers it works with by 2020, plus winding down its hedge-fund program. Reducing risk in its portfolio also could have the effect of missing out on outsize returns.
“It’s a marathon, not a sprint,” he said. “Nobody expects stable 7.5% or 8% returns year in, year out.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/calpers-return-falls-short-of-annual-target-1436802617
Tough Times For Broadly Diversified Portfolios
How’s your globally diversified strategy faring these days? Having a tough time? You’re not alone–the headwinds are fierce. For the first time in recent memory, the overwhelming majority of the major asset classes are in the red on a trailing one-year basis. As a result, broadly defined asset allocation strategies are suffering, at least relative to the stellar numbers in recent years.
Using a set of ETF proxies for the trailing 250-day (1 year) total return, only US stocks, US REITs (real estate investment trusts), and US bonds (broadly defined) are posting gains among the major asset classes. By contrast, the other 11 asset classes are in varying states of loss over that period.... The lesson, of course, is that mean reversion is alive and well when it comes to market (and portfolio strategy) returns.
With Charts

http://www.capitalspectator.com/tough-times-for-broadly-diversified-portfolios/

Bee, I did not know about the roll over from IRA to HSA. Thank you for that great information. Unless I'm mistaken, this is nothing like a shell game. Money into an IRA is taxed when you take it out, but in an HSA, there is no tax in and no tax out. What could be better then that?
I have been maxing out my HSA contributions for the last few years and not using the money. I pay for medical expenses with taxed money. But, I have been very lucky that I have had good health, limited expenses. I plan to use the accumulating money in the HSA account as a bridge to pay health insurance when I retire - until medicare kicks in.
Thanks again. You are a gem to this discussion board.

Hi, msf....I am also using my HSA for saving and investing. It's been a few years since I made the switch to Saturna, but I remember that originally I was in one "arm" of the firm, which didn't have a large list of funds, so I switched my HSA to the brokerage "arm". They still do not have the selection of funds that Schwab or TD have, but they offer TRP funds NTF, so that's what I focused on. Again, there are positives and negatives with them, just like with any brokerage. When I start withdrawing cash....who knows...I may decide to switch again.

Regarding complexities - each HSA administrator handles things differently - checks, debit cards, ACH transfers. Some will do the medical expense bookkeeping for you. (Similar to mutual fund companies keeping track of cost basis for you - pre-2012 - as a service, but not reporting it to the IRS.)
Whatever works best for you. Since I view HSAs as savings vehicles, I don't care about the withdrawal mechanism. I just keep track of all my eligible expenses since I opened the account. At some time in the future I'll withdraw a lump sum. I'll be able to justify the withdrawal with those medical expenses, so long as I keep good records.
Fidelity does offer an HSA account, but only to employer-sponsored plans. I've spoken with them for years about this. They tell me that they've gotten lots of requests, and they keep looking into it. My guess is that these are not especially profitable accounts, so they're not too interested.
- Accounts tend not to be large (limited contributions, people take withdrawals for expenses)
- Servicing costs are high (lots of small withdrawals)
- Regulatory costs are high
Question about Saturna - they mention Archipelago, but don't provide detail. Last time I checked (a couple of years ago?), this was a smaller list of funds (but more "interesting" as I recall), and required a $10K min. Did Archipelago vanish from Saturna?

As an additional funding source have you considered a rollover into your hsa?
If you haven't already done so and have a tax deferred IRA you can make a one time rollover from your IRA to you hsa. The amount cannot exceed your maximum allowable hsa contribution. For an individual that would be $4350 for 2015 and a but more if you have a family hsa plan.
Its a nice way to move what would be taxable IRA dollars into tax free hsa. This is not a distribution...its a one time rollover.

Generally, I don't see this as an advantage, assuming you have outside money with which to fund your HSA. It's basically a shell game. You're taking money out of an IRA and thus losing the deduction you could have had by making a regular HSA contribution. So effectively, you are paying taxes on that IRA rollover.
If I'm going to pay taxes when I move money from a traditional IRA to another tax-advantaged account, I'd rather pay the taxes (directly) and move it to a Roth, rather than pay the taxes indirectly (by losing a deduction) and move it to an HSA.
With the Roth, after five years, I can take the money out tax free, no questions asked. With the HSA, questions are asked - what were the medical expenses that this withdrawal is covering?
On the other hand, with the rollover to the HSA, there's no five year waiting period.
If you need to pull money out of a traditional IRA and you're under 59.5, then "laundering" it through the HSA gives you a way to do that (if you've got matching medical expenses). That's the only reason I can see for doing a rollover to an HSA.