FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
If you’re looking for raging bulls or rabid bears, you’ve come to the wrong section of this esteemed publication. But if you’re seeking ways to make sense of perplexing economic times, and money in a market that offers slimmer pickings than in recent years past, stay right where you are.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=getting+down+to+business+barron's&oq=getting+down+to+business+barron's&gs_l=hp.3...1719.12428.0.12722.33.22.0.11.11.0.69.1246.22.22.0.msedr...0...1c.1.61.hp..5.28.1103.q7h7har2WHg

It seems to me that one of the main problems with this type of discussion is that some participants seem to classify fellow citizens as either "100% self-made men" (whether true or not) and "everyone else", who by definition are therefore no-good lazy scumbags. Interestingly, these folks invariably classify themselves as the 100% self-made type. The dictionary defines "selfish" as: "lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure". I leave it to others as to whether that particular definition is appropriate to the type of individuals I've mentioned.
Perhaps my observations for the past 75 years are not typical, but it has been my experience that there many more than just two types of individuals; rather there is a very broad spectrum of people, with hugely varying degrees of human assets: inherited assets, mental ability, physical ability, and plain old luck. Sure there are no-good bums out there who have chosen not to contribute their fair share to their personal good, to say nothing of the common good. BUT I DO NOT FOR A MOMENT BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE THE MAJORITY of those who need some sort of assistance to allow them to survive.
To suggest that all it takes for anyone in America to succeed is a little hard work is totally fatuous. This concept of rugged individualism, wherein someone feels that they have absolutely no obligation to spend one tax dollar on anything that isn't a direct immediate personal benefit to them is, in my opinion, just plain sick. I say this as half of a married couple who have no children, but have cheerfully voted for over fifty-five years to support our public schools, common infrastructure, and where reasonable, public assistance to the less fortunate. Does that mean that there is no place for alternatives, such as charter schools? Not at all: depending on the effectiveness of the local school system, alternatives may be a very good thing.
Additionally, anyone who thinks that our younger people have the same advantages of relatively inexpensive higher education, employment and retirement stability that we older folks enjoyed is living on some other planet.
I'm under no illusion that this commentary will change one single mind, but at least some things have been said that needed saying.

Read this quote in an article. To tell the truth it makes me feel like now is the time for dampening down risk. The question is what are the best vehicles for accomplishing that while realizing returns better than short term bonds and cash. Are you positioning your portfolio for a significant correction, and if so what investments are you using?
"US equities have risen each year since 2009. Since 1871 US equities have never risen for seven consecutive years. Are you betting that 2015 will break the record? Even though there are secular bull and bear markets that can last 20-30 years, there are dramatic cyclical market downturns that occur about twice a decade which can have severe negative impacts on one's cumulative investment return. It took 30 months for the S&P 500 to fall 49% between March 2000 and October 2002, and about seven years to recover (total return). It took 17 months for the S&P 500 to fall 57% in the 2007-2008 financial crisis and 5.4 years to recover (total return). More significantly, this last recovery has been fueled by central banks flooding markets with liquidity and forcing money out of savings and into risk assets to find a return.

I am trying to reduce the number of MFs I own and would like some thoughts and suggestions on one, maybe two I could/should eliminate in the "Mod. Alloc." category.
I own:
OAKBX (Oakmark Bal.), I know M* categorizes this as "Aggressive", but I consider it Mod.
FPACX (FPA Cresent)
WHGIX (Westwood Income), I know this WAS a Conservative Alloc fund, but the last couple of years it has landed in the Mod. arena
FYI, I also own HBLIX (Hartford Bal.) on the Conserv. Alloc side.
Maybe I'm answering my own question, but when I compare the 3, 5 year metrixs OAKBX comes in a distant last. But I often see many "experts" and other MF board members talk very highly of it. Even the 1, 3 and 5-year annualized returns are no better.
Any thoughts or suggestions??
Thank you,
Matt

Hi Junkster,
Thanks for posting your take on your asset class of choice for 2015.
My "Big Three" themes that I am concentrating on and increasing my current positions in are in Europe, Emerging Markets and Commodities along with their producers. Why? Because I believe there is good value to be had in these areas; and, they are currenly selling for lower P/E Ratio multiples when compaired to others.
I wish you and all the others MFO members the very best in 2015.
Old_Skeet

Old Skeet, not necessarily my take as I blow with the wind - here today gone tomorrow. At my age, assets, and spending habits my preference going forward would be to be either 100% junk corporates or 100% junk munis or 100% cash. I freed up less than 10% yesterday from my 100% junk munis because I think junk corporates look intriguing (just need more of an upward trend) and always being a believer in the January effect like the diversified emerging markets. Would like to establish positions there and then add (quickly) if indeed they are the place to be in 2015. But I worry about everything, like can U.S. stocks make it seven years in a row or can rates here keep declining.

Morn'in @Junkster and @Old_Skeet and @fundalarm
Okay, both of you (Junkster/Old_Skeet) are looking to the emerging market area and I presume in a broadbased manner, not country or area specific, yes? But you are, looking at the better performing funds as of late, and/or the one's that have been beaten down the most in the past year. Is my presumption somewhat correct?
Now, and this has been falling into place for the last year or so; are the currency wars that have come to be in place.
I will use the Euro as a sample; as it has finally started to break its higher price that has been in place for too long (don't know who/what has been giving the support).
One buys fund "x", a Eurozone fund, 3 months ago using $US's. At the time (Oct 23, 2014) the dollar would purchase 1.27 worth of Euro denominated shares. If one were to sell today, the expectation would be selling this Eurozone fund, would be to receive a 1.16 Euro per $US value on the sale. EDIT: Euro now at $1.12 this Friday morning, -2% or so).
Per reference charts, this is the value of the Euro to the $US: (before move to $1.12)
---1 week = -3.3%
---I month = -8%
---3 month = -11.5%
If I were buying foreign/emerging markets funds today; I would have to have strong consideration to currency moves today; moreso than 1 year ago and even moreso than years ago. WisdomTree's hedged etf's would be my first look; although many do not like etf's; I would find this would be the path to travel at this time. I would expect that these fund types have found more money flows recently. DBEU (+4% YTD) and HEDJ (+7.5% YTD) are the first to come to mind, relative to Europe.
I apply the Euro example to also be a consideration for other currencies that are part of the emerging markets countries.
Lastly, isn't it ironic that the U.S. now has some of the highest yields on a 10 year note, globally, especially when adding the safety factor? Excepting the hurting countries; i.e., Russia, Venezuela, (oil and commodity countries). One may make a lot of money, when crude prices rebound; buying Venezuela 10 year bond/notes.
Global 10 year yield data
New money flows at this house may move more into real estate funds; which is currently at about 11% of the total portfolio.
Please let me know if I have "cranial/rectal inversion" in this viewpoint.
Just my 2 cents worth.

@hank I think everyone should find another horizon and dispense with the wishful thinking. Hope is not an investment strategy.
This lifted today from a WaPo story and posted to Barry Ritholtz's blogsite by commenter RW:
This is mind-blowing: You have to pay Switzerland to lend it money
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/21/this-is-mind-blowing-you-have-to-pay-switzerland-to-lend-it-money/
This isn’t really new, though, so much as Europe’s new normal. As the Financial Times points out, €1.2 trillion, or $1.4 trillion, of eurozone debt has negative yields that mean lenders are paying borrowers. But what it is new is just how long people are willing to pay governments to borrow. At first, they only did so for 1-or-2-year bonds. Then, in a sign of how dysfunctional Europe’s economy still is, investors started paying Germany to borrow for five or six years. But now, as you can see above, Switzerland has beaten everyone else to be the first to have negative ten year borrowing costs, at -0.2 percent. And by “first,” I mean in history. This has never happened before.
IMO, this is not a time to be filling all your asset allocation boxes. If you think the U.S. is tapped out and you need to find more fertile fields, Europe looks like a bad destination. It is a mess and getting worse, and the euro is a basket case (and sterling isn't too far behind). The race to debase is on, and currency warfare is now obvious. I see no upside to converting/exchanging, directly or indirectly, my US dollars/dollar assets for something international right now, and becoming Wiley Coyote past the cliff edge in the blink of an eye.

Adding "he said sarcastically" gets the point across, too. Mike got a pretty bad rap because he isn't usually sarcastic. Now after all these years you-all expect me to be sarcastic, so I don't get in all that much trouble.

FYI: Mutual funds focused on paying dividends to income-minded investors outperformed the S&P 500 for much of the past 10 years.
But dividend funds have lagged since early 2013. A $10,000 investment in the average dividend mutual fund on Dec. 31, 2004, would have grown to $19,186 by Jan. 20 this year, according to Morningstar Inc. data. The same amount put in the S&P 500 would have $20,592 sitting in it now
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTg4NzgzNTU=
Enlarged Graphic;
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=WEBlv012215.jpg&docId=735669&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1152&caption=&id=735579

I do believe AIG and BAC will probably do ok in the next 3 years (I actually own them) so I would hold this fund for awhile if I had a gain. If no gain why not take the loss and buy those two stocks. Still I can't imagine investing in such a non-diversified fund . Its not why I Invest in funds.

@jlev: "why SHRAX ?" great long-term manager, Rich Freeman, with excellent results, in the 8th percentile over 15 years.
Regards,
Ted

Easy guys.
@MikeM was defending government programs by taking a post to its eventual conclusion.
I am 100% certain from his comment he supports continued Veteran's benefits and would cite the GI Bill as a staggering success.

Given the fact that investors basically doubled their money in the stock market under Obama and lost about half of it under Bush, I wonder why there is all this hatred directed at him on a mutual fund discussion board. If someone says race, the haters immediately say emphatically, "It has nothing to do with race!" But then what exactly is it? The deficit? Well, the deficit grew pretty big under Bush too. The wars? Well, he didn't start them. The potential after six gravy years for a tax increase? Well, Bush 1 and even Reagan ultimately raised taxes after a while. So what exactly is it? The mere fact he's a Democrat or something else?

Cable news's institutional need to replace reportage with ideologically based opinion and misinformation, the nature of the internet as an echo chamber, and the resulting inability of the American citizenry to have anything resembling a civil or nuanced conversation?
Activist hat, off.
Edit: Probably more snark than necessary on my part. By and large people here actually are very well informed and have some decent discussions. I do think the discourse in America is terribly low as a society, however.

Interesting, just before I read this, I exchanged my holding in Robeco Long/Short BPLEX for the new PIMCO Long/Short offering PWLDX. BPLEX has been only a mediocre performer over the past few years and the Morningstar award reinforces my decision.

Given the fact that investors basically doubled their money in the stock market under Obama and lost about half of it under Bush, I wonder why there is all this hatred directed at him on a mutual fund discussion board. If someone says race, the haters immediately say emphatically, "It has nothing to do with race!" But then what exactly is it? The deficit? Well, the deficit grew pretty big under Bush too. The wars? Well, he didn't start them. The potential after six gravy years for a tax increase? Well, Bush 1 and even Reagan ultimately raised taxes after a while. So what exactly is it? The mere fact he's a Democrat or something else?

@Ted
Thank you for putting this subject forward here.
I get tired of "notes" to our Senators/Reps about various topics; but this is a good one to discover what type of response I receive as to why such a proposal would find its way into the conversation regarding "tax fairness" and "helping the middle class". An "out of touch" proposal. One would suspect that this is tied in with the "free" two years of community college proposal. Take the tax dollars from 529 distributions to offset the free college, eh?
Ah, the games (D.C.) make me feel like I am going to puke.
Take care of you and yours,
Catch

Charles, are you keeping the faith? I am for now but I am feeling less confident than I have in years.

Some of these tax issues have a pure leaning one way or another revolving around business or individual rates, deductions, etc.; but when I read about this regarding the 529's, I wonder who or why such a proposal would be put forth. Of what value is this to the government.
Is this supposed to help drive the president's idea of free tuition for two years at community colleges?
Don't get it.....

President Barack Obama is expected to propose a major change to 529 college-savings plans--removing a tax benefit that has attracted parents to these investment vehicles for years.
The president’s State of the Union address Tuesday night is expected to include a long list of proposed tax changes. Among them: no longer allowing earnings on new contributions in 529 plans to be withdrawn tax-free.
If that became law, it would be a major revision to 529 plans, and plan experts say such a change would likely result in contributions to these plans declining substantially. “Contributions would dry up in 529 plans, “ says Joe Hurley, founder of Savingforcollege.com, which tracks 529 plans
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-wants-to-reduce-tax-breaks-for-529-plans-2015-01-20/print

A quick heads-up: this discussion was flagged. We did, indeed, seem to be getting rather more heated, and more personal, than is healthy. So, I closed the thread and deleted some of the more personal commentary. Subsequent readers might notice some disjointed remarks, many of which might simply refer back to now-deleted content.
Back to wondering whether the euro at $1.12 means I could afford to visit family in Ireland this year. It's a happy thought. David

FYI: Long-term investors are getting a rare signal suggesting that now might be a great time to buy stocks — that is, if they are willing to risk a potential rough patch in the near term.
For just the fourth time in over 50 years, the S&P 500’s dividend yield moved last week above the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note. If history is any guide, this means 2015 could be a very good year for the stock market
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-dividend-yields-are-above-treasury-yields----and-thats-bullish-2015-01-20/print

SPDR Gold Trust assets surge
Jan 20 2015, 10:45 ET | About: SPDR Gold Trust ETF (GLD) | By: Stephen Alpher, SA News Editor
Gold holdings in the SPDR Gold Trust (GLD +1.3%) jumped by 1.9% on Friday to 730.89 metric tons - the biggest one-day gain in nearly five years. For the week, holdings rose 3.3%.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/2230086-spdr-gold-trust-assets-surge
Nat Gas tumbles
The United States Natural Gas ETF, LP (UNG) - NYSEARCA
$14.41-1.28(-8.16%) 12:45 PM, 01/20
Saudi Arabia has provided a bit of bad news, stating it's pushing back the completion date for its massive clean energy program (includes $109B worth of solar investments) by 8 years to 2040. Unlike many of its top energy customers, Saudi Arabia depends heavily on oil (suddenly much cheaper) for electricity production.U.S. solar stocks are also underperforming, but less dramatically. The Guggenheim Solar ETF (TAN -2.3%) is less than $0.30 away from its 52-week low of $31.77.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/2230496-chinese-solar-stocks-off-sharply