Hi TPA.
Thanks for your response. Actually, I agree with what you say. Hard to disagree.
Yackin about Friday's hiccup in many markets won't change a thing. Sit tight and you'll still do well with good funds over 20 years. And over the next 30, I expect most of us will be dead - or at least convelescing somewhere.
I don't see many here fretting about their gains or losses. Perhaps you do. I may laugh when my funds head south over a day or so or scratch my head in puzzlement when I see nothing but green - but I realize it doesn't change a thing over the longer run.
As humans we talk about a lot of things we can't control or shouldn't worry about. The weather, sleazy politicians and whether aliens exist for example. So I don't see any harm in looking at how an assortment of funds performed on a given day.
Investing is a bit like driving on the snow and ice in Michigan. When you feel the rear end starting to slide around - often the best thing to do is take your hands off the steering wheel and foot off the brakes. Car will regain its tracking and steady if you don't panic and muck it up. So, the best thing to do about Friday - or most any other day - is precisely nothing.
Regards

Hi John
Haven't followed board too closely past week. But I'd differentiate between being "interested" in all the aspects of markets and being "nervous." I for one find the daily moves in equities, bonds, foreign currencies and commodities fascinating - probably in much the way others enjoy a mystery novel or viewing TV "reality" shows. And I enjoy gabbing about such with others who find the stuff of interest. Suspect those who don't find this stuff of great interest are likely off visiting other types of sites gabbing about racing or cooking or coin collecting or something else.
Been in this for over 40 years. Heck - was investing at Templeton when Sir John was still managing some of the funds. So no - not "nervous" or I'd be gone from the markets by now. We all know that the stock market can fall 25% in a single day ((Oct. 1987) or 50% in a matter of months (2008 & 2009). Narrower segments like gold, oil, junk bonds and tech can do even worse than that over very short periods. And these things invariably happen without warning - although 1 in 50 pundits will probably call it correctly ahead of time and gain temporary retrospective fame after the event. So a very long-term perspective and, as much as possible, a hands-off approach are always recommended by me,
Yes - some posters here do seem to be trying to time the markets. It's not for me to tell others how to invest. But, I view that as akin to standing on a mountain and commanding the wind to stop blowing or change direction. It might actually work once every dozen or so times. But generally the wind just blows you away.
Still traveling in southern Fla. Nothing but 80s here. Take care.

If these funds are being sold as safe and "you won't lose your money" options, then the rep or the salesperson should be hung. How can you earn money if you don't take some risk with it?
Personally, I do not favor target date funds. I use asset allocation funds which keep a steady allocation over the years.

Addendum to prior comment: Into the Valley of the Shadow of Death Rides the Novice Investor
http://www.etftrends.com/2015/03/getting-it-wrong-with-mlp-etfs/
“Why so wild in MLP-land?” according to Miller Howard, a money manager that specializes in income-producing stocks, the Wall Street Journal reports. “There are many novice investors in MLPs that don’t really know what they are, what they do, or what the long-term story is. They’re just in it for the yield, or following the ‘hot dot’ of excellent performance for the past decade.”
Howard argues that many new investors falsely believe that since MLPs are exposed to the energy space, the sector should be sold off when oil prices fall. With MLP-related mutual funds growing to $32 billion in assets from $3 billion over the past four years, Howard points out “that’s a lot of inexperienced investors.”

As we'd anticipated, Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX/SIGIX) just received their inaugural five-star rating from Morningstar. And they're also Great Owl funds, based on our more risk-sensitive rankings.
Of 219 diversified EM funds currently tracked by Morningstar, 18 have a five-star rating. 13 are Great Owls. Seafarer and 10 others (representing 5% of the peer group) are both five-star and Great Owls.
Baron Emerging Markets(BEXFX) - $1.5 billion in AUM, 1.5% e.r., not quite five years old, large-growth with an Asian bias, mgr also runs Int'l Growth.
City National Rochdale Emerging Markets (RIMIX) - 90% invested in Asia, City National Bank, headquartered in Hollywood, bought the Rochdale Funds and was itself bought in January 2015 by the Royal Bank of Canada. Interesting funds. No minimum investment but a 1.61% e.r. The EM fund acquires exposure to Indian stocks by investing in a wholly owned subsidiary domiciled in Mauritius. Hmmm.
Driehaus EM Small Cap Growth (DRESX) - a $600 million hedged fund (and former hedge fund) for which we have a profile. Expenses are 1.71%.
Federated EM Equity (FGLEX) - a $13 million institutional fund with a $1 million minimum, not quite five years old, mostly mega cap portfolio that had two really good years followed by two really soft ones.
HSBC Frontier Markets (HSFAX) - 5% front load, 2.2% e.r., $200 million in AUM, midcap bias and a huge overweight in Africa & the Middle East at the expense of Asia. Curious.
Harding Loevner Frontier EM (HLMOX) - modest overweight in Asia, huge overweight in Africa & the Middle East, far lower-than-average market cap, half a billion in assets, 2.2% e.r.
Mirae Asset EM Great Consumer (MECGX) - marginal inclusion since the retail shares are four stars (1.85% e.r. is a drag) while institutional is five stars, not quite five years old, mega cap growth, lots of companies (hotels, consumer goods, drug companies) that directly interface with consumers.
Seafarer Overseas Growth & Income (SFGIX) - $136 million in AUM, 1.4% e.r., small- to mid-cap bias, top 4% returns over its first three years of operation
Thornburg Developing World (THDAX) - oopsie: lead manager Lewis Kaufman just jumped from the $3 billion ship to start an EM team at Artisan.
Wasatch Frontier Emerging Small Countries - $1.3 billion in AUM and closed to new investors
William Blair EM Small Cap Growth - $300 million in AUM and closed to new investors.
On face, the pattern seems to be that small works. Lots of exposure to smaller firms located in smaller markets, even by EM standards. SFGIX is the second-smallest fund in the group, which makes it all the more striking that it's the least expensive of all. Among the least risky of this elite group.
Congratulations to Andrew and his team. We'll share a conference call with him on April 16 and you'd be more than welcome to join us.
David

@davidrmoran Agree. The dip seemed right, and I put $1K into ARTFX simply because I wanted to commit to Bryan Krug a.s.a.p. But I've not added to any HY for over 2 years, and I'll probably turn off the AIP into ARTFX soon. The recovery has been too fast and rather confused. I don't get it. "Going naked" with HY is now, once again. too pricey.
@msf I couldn't agree more. For each of the past 3 years, I've refocused on this short space and crunched the numbers, believing if I just tried harder I could come up with something. I can't make the digits work. Last Fall, I had to really torture the numbers just to make them only as senseless as the previous year. Low duration/"ultra-short" have such high turnover and higher e.r.'s that when one adds in the invisible trading costs it is no wonder their returns are uninspiring. As @Edmond noted in a long comment recently, the short end is a very crowded trade; with so many on that side of the boat, and given how long the financial repression has continued, I think the short end may be spring-loaded and could pop up a little more than people expect, at the first tightening. And I certainly don't want to be there (and esp. not in an ETF) if that were to happen.

Hi Guys,
The “History does not repeat itself, but it Rhymes” quote is questionably attributed to Mark Twain. The marketplace has a storied history and loosely adheres to a history rhyming pattern. Loads of researchers have explored its historical rhymes with modest success to extract useable investment rules.
Yale Hirsch is one of the most time-honored and prolific of that research group. His and his son’s “Stock Traders Almanac” is a classic for active traders. So is his book titled “Don’t Sell Stocks on Monday”. That’s good advice, since statistically the stock market yields ground on Monday, gathers a little momentum throughout the week, and is highest on Friday’s close.
The Hirsch team operates a website. The site is subscription-based, but anyone can freely access its dated pdfs that contain a boatload of market advice and statistical summaries. For example, here is a direct Link to their December, 2014 issue:
https://stocktradersalmanac.com/NL_Archive/2014/2014_12.pdf
Typically, the Hirsch work ethic is guided by detailed statistical pattern finding. To quote one of Hirsch’s succinct recommendations: “ Buy on Monday, Sell on Friday”. That’s not bad advice for mutual fund holders who plan to adjust their portfolio positions. Although I’m definitely not a trader, I do follow Hirsch’s sell on Friday rule when I infrequently trade.
Another useful observation is that the stock market only rhymes in the long run, not for day-to-day short run fluctuations which are truly random. The time scale is a determining factor for market rhythms.
Sometimes investors, especially rookie investors, confuse the Gamblers Fallacy with the Regression-to-the-Mean maxims. At a quick glance they appear to be in conflict with each other. They are not if time scale is introduced into their interpretation.
To illustrate, recall that the Gamblers Fallacy is to make a wager on Black if Red has been a predominant recent roulette outcome. That’s false since the roulette wheel doesn’t know what the previous spins registered. Each new spin is completely independent of earlier outcomes.
On a daily basis the stock market is positive about 51% to 52% of the time. It’s almost a fair coin toss. Researchers have examined records countless times to discover if any short term temporal correlations can be identified. No such correlations exist. What wealth the market produced or destroyed today gives nearly zero signal what it will do tomorrow. Some speculators do see an illusionary correlation; that’s the Gamblers Fallacy doing harm.
In the longer run, like over many months and years, regression-to-the-mean seems to operate with an uncertain grip on marketplace returns. Long term outcomes are reasonably predictable. Outliers revert to an average. Last years market wizards fall from grace. Momentum is an illusive happening that loses power suddenly.
The Periodic Tables for investment categories and for Sectors constantly demonstrate rapidly changing favorites. Over the longer periods, a regression-to-the-mean is a fairly reliable characteristic of the investment markets.
I appreciate that this is not new stuff for seasoned MFOers. We recognize that the markets only rhyme in the long run; that the short term markets are mostly dominated by purely random happenings that are subject to crowd behavior irrationality. Knowledge of market history is a necessary ingredient for investing success.
Your comments are encouraged and welcomed.
Best Regards.

@MJG
You noted:
1. "Morningstar’s Russell Kinnel has a likely alternate explanation: today’s investors are news chasing. We are captive to the 24/7 constant news cycle that prompts us to trade far too frequently, often with wealth compromising impacts. As investment timers, our composite track record just plain stinks. Sorry for that bluntness, but it is realistic."
2. "A wise old adage is that “if you find a problem, find a solution”. Investing advice need not be complicated to promote better outcomes.Indexing a portion of your portfolio, ignoring the daily news cycle, and staying the long-term course is simplicity itself."
>>>Obviously, investors and their experience; being their time in the "game" with their own money, varies. Their ability to absorb and use "news" will be limited by their own processes and experience.
Many likely trade too often, to the bad side of positive investment returns; based upon market noise.
However, the so-called daily/weekly/monthly news chasing or noise offers a base of information upon which one may form a process for investing. It is to the person to determine how to use the "news chasing or what I name as "monitoring".
As a base of information builds over time, an investor should be able to establish a much improved method for reasoning their investment choices.
Not unlike building a base of knowledge in math or whatever subject area one chooses to use for an example; a student may consider the daily grind of learning subject matter to be "boring, useless or so much noise". But, we know all of this daily "chasing" of the subject is to build a base from which to expand to a higher level of knowledge.
Long term investing should always be the goal, of course. But, long term investing may be a series of shorter term investments, for some, that do not remain static; but dynamic. Many here, based upon my recall, have longer term, core investments; but there are also those who supplement this with a portion of their portfolio that is dynamic.
One may only use their own success and confidence with the various choices available today; to determine their forward investments paths. Absorbing investment news on a short term basis (daily) basis may allow one to build a base of knowledge over time that will allow better decision making in the future. What may appear to some as a "knee-jerk" investment is really a consolidation of actionable news over a long time period.
Hell, many investors have been waiting for 6 years watching Europe and wondering what will become of their markets. There have been many head fakes over these years for the European equity areas in general.
Has the Euro finally started a meaningful path to parity??? The slow decline of value in the Euro v the dollar over the past year had continued to be offset by other problems in Europe regarding equity sectors, IMO. Is this "problem" beginning to be removed?
We'll hang around with some money in this area, until we hopefully discover early enough, that it is time to leave. Being the price trend of the underlying investments.
Euro/$
Regards,
Catch

As to Europe.......
We investors know there are "days in the sun" for every investment; above other investment choices. We also understand that the "days in the sun" run their own paths and lengths based upon any number of factors.
These price trends in either direction have their own shelf-life.
For too many years beyond what I expected, the Euro/US currency ratio remained at $1.25 range average. I wondered why many times; but it was the fact and the reason was beyond my ability to define.
This circumstance began to change in the past several months. The Euro now only costs about $1.08 U.S. I expect further value loss in the Euro v. the U.S. dollar; in order to "help" with Euroland exports.
Relative to this, the below Euro-area indexes/etfs reflect price action YTD.
One may conclude their own opinion as to whether a "hedged currency" position is/was valid, so far.....
Several country funds have been included in this list as other reference points.
HEDJ Wisdomtree International Hedged Equity Fund +17.01%
VGK Vanguard FTSE Europe ETF +3.84%
EZU iShares MSCI EMU Index Fund +4.60%
EWG iShares MSCI Germany Index Fund +5.95%
FEZ SPDR DJ EURO STOXX 50 ETF +3.58%
EWU iShares MSCI UK Index Fund +2.83%
IEV iShares S&P Europe 350 Index Fund +3.79%
DBEU Deutsche X-trackers MSCI Europe Hedged Equity ETF +10.83%
EWP iShares MSCI Spain Index Fund -3.21%
EWL iShares MSCI Switzerland Index Fund +3.16%
HEWG iShares Currency Hedged MSCI Germany ETF +17.17%
FEEU FI Enhanced Europe 50 ETN +5.09%
EWI iShares MSCI Italy Index Fund +5.59%
DFE WisdomTree Europe SmallCap Dividend Fund +7.34%
IEUR iShares Core MSCI Europe ETF +3.84%
HEZU Currency Hedged MSCI EMU ETF +15.40%
EWD iShares MSCI Sweden Index Fund +5.75%
EWQ iShares MSCI France Index Fund +4.71%
FEP First Trust Europe AlphaDEX Fund +5.21%
FEU SPDR DJ STOXX 50 ETF +3.36%
Lastly, is this finally Europe's "day in the sun" for investment returns? Note: we're invested in HEDJ and plan to add as circumstances dictate.
Regards,
Catch

FYI: The Vanguard funds listed below earned taxable income and/or realized capital gains for their fiscal years ended December 31, 2014 or January 31, 2015, that were greater than the amounts distributed in December 2014. The remaining taxable income or gains will be distributed in March 2015 as "supplemental" income dividends or capital gains distributions.
Note: These supplemental fund distributions will be reported on 2015 tax forms. Vanguard will not generate updated tax forms for 2014. The gains reported here are taxable for the year during which they are declared
Regards,
Ted
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/article/supplemental-fund-distributions-032015

That's my point. Not only is there more risk, but the yields are less than banks. Using David's ETFs as examples (SEC yield/trailing twelve month yield):
FLRN (0.50%, 0.53%), FLOT (0.46%, 0.44%), BSCF (0.48%, 0.88%), BOND (1.13%, 4.20%).
I can't really comment on the PIMCO ETF (given management change, given PIMCO's extensive use of derivatives, etc.), but the first two are about as expected. The third - the Guggenheim Bulletshares - raises an interesting possibility.
This is a series of target date corporate bond funds. The idea is that they track indexes of bonds through the bonds' maturities. Assuming the funds execute well (they replicate the performance of the indexes sometimes with actual replication of the portfolio, but sometimes with substitutions), there is a price phenomenon that one might take advantage of.
Think of an individual bond, two years to maturity, whose coupon equals the current market rate. (Trying to make things simple here.) After a year, it's a one year bond. Its coupon hasn't shrunk, but (assuming rate curves haven't moved), it is now paying above market interest, because one year bonds generally yield less than two year bonds.
So its price will have risen. It's now a discount bond. As it gets closer and closer to maturity, that discount may initially continue to increase, but will ultimately shrink and then vanish to zero at maturity. So there's a window where, just by aging, bonds increase in price.
It's often too costly to trade individual bonds to take advantage of this behavior, but not so for ETFs. One could buy a 2-3 year bullet ETF, and sell it in a year. One would invest at the going rate for 2 or 3 year bonds, and pick up price appreciation. That price appreciation would seem to cover or at least substantially mitigate price depreciation due to rising interest rates. (Here I'm assuming rates don't go up by more than 1/2% over a year, and the duration is 2-3 years.)
One other thing to note about these ETFs - as the bonds in the portfolio mature, the funds go to cash (which pays nothing). So they seem to be pretty useless in their final year, and that could affect their pricing in other years. I haven't thought this through yet.
This isn't quite a cash strategy, but seems like a way to take advantage not of the 2015 target ETF, but of the 2017 BSCH, with 1.18% SEC yield and 1.58% trailing twelve month. May still not be worth the risk, but it does seem to be a way to boost expected return above bank yields (1%) while mitigating interest rate risk with price appreciation.
Shorter term doesn't seem to pay off, and longer term seems to have too much interest rate risk (longer duration). If you believe fully in the efficient market, this strategy is already built into the pricing, and on a risk-adjusted basis, you'll break even.

"We are captive to the 24/7 constant news cycle that prompts us to trade far too frequently, often with wealth compromising impacts."
Look at today. Mere hint that interest rates MAY rise and market gets obliterated to the tune of -300. It is very difficult to be a long-term investor when it feels as if the majority of market participants are operating on an increasingly shorter and shorter time frame. As I've noted before, the average holding period of a stock used to be years. Now it's days.
Keep in mind that this has happened previously and rates didn't go up and secondly, I still think even if rates did go higher, it will be a very, very long time before we go back to the yields we saw pre-2008.

M* seems to have a love / hate relationship with this fund. One Star yet gets a Silver badge. I wonder if there are any One Star / Gold funds out there?
FAIRX may soon be the first.
YTD, SHLD has had some surprising "ups"...19% since New Years Eve.
I believe this funds will raise or fall on its AIG bet.
AIG has a PE of just over 10.6, Price to book of 0.7 and some other impressive financials:

As of 8/2014, FAIRX sold 6M shares of AIG...has Bruce B. mention his reasons for reducing AIG by nearly 9%?

Do you think that the banking and loan industry will benefit? Maybe financial services will replace healthcare as the go to sector for 2015.

You know, I think for a number of reasons mortgages and loans will probably still not have the kind of demand that the industry would hope for, but I think if there was a noticeable and sustained move higher in rates that would likely get people who have been waiting around to move.
Rates have been low enough for long enough that perhaps some people interested in a loan have become complacent and have been waiting for even lower rates or they think rates aren't going anywhere.
I really don't have any interest in the financials from the standpoint of I don't think anyone truly has any real visibility. Several years after the financial crisis, the major banks are still fined for some bad deed at a rate that seems to be once every month or two.
If you look at the ten year, it wandered around the 1.50-1.70 neighborhood for 2012 into 2013, then in Spring of 2013, it ramped higher. Early this year, it fell back into that neighborhood again and bounced. Perhaps that area is/was the bottom?

FYI: The average value fund has outperformed its counterparts in growth and core, the latter of which invest in both growth and value stocks, during the past 15 years. But growth and core have led the way in the past 6 years since the market low of March 2009.
Look at the numbers. A $10,000 investment in the average value fund on Dec. 31, 1999, would have ballooned to $27,782 by March 4 this year, according to Morningstar Inc. data. The same amount would have grown to $27,675 in the average core fund, $11,574 in the average growth fund and $19,078 in the S&P 500.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTkwNjMxNDM=
Enlarged Graphic:
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=WEBlvPent030615.jpg&docId=742276&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1063&caption=&id=742277

@BenWP
Through the years some sales loads have been paid. Currently, a good number of my purchases are now at nav or reduced sales loads.
Old_Skeet

From Article:
"Fifty-six percent of the 3.3 million Home Equity Lines of Credit potentially resetting with higher, fully amortizing monthly payments from 2015 to 2018 are on properties that are seriously underwater, meaning the combined loan to value ratio of all outstanding loans secured by the property is 125 percent or higher, according to the report."
and,
"We are entering a period of higher risk over the next four years when it comes to resetting bubble-era HELOCs - especially given slowing home price appreciation that offers underwater homeowners less hope of recovering their equity in the short term."
Link:
home-equity-loans-face-risk

My "sleeve" system has 5 "Pots". Most holdings are in a taxable account. Core holdings include those in the Cash, Ballast, Moderate Volatility, and Stock Pots. The fifth Pot is the Special Situations Pot. Active trading is permitted in that ~10% of the portfolio. But, even there my primary tendency inclines to holding most investments for a year or more. There are 11 categories as the investments in some of the Pots get subdivided. The basic portfolio focus is on total return with low turnover of core holdings. The portfolio gets an annual review of its 35 holdings with changes in core holdings happening during that time period. Enough cash is kept on hand to handle annually predefined quarterly withdrawals without disturbing the core holdings. The final quarterly withdrawal of the year is increased if conditions are favorable. The system can comfortably be ignored for extended periods if traveling or other activities dictate. The organization of the holdings has evolved somewhat during my 10 years of retirement but is fairly stable now. This "Pot" system works well for me.

I have found the sleeve system a neat and good way to organize my holdings by assigning them to an area and then on into a sleeve. It has worked well for me over the past years; and, I am sure it will grow in use as more and more investors look for better organization and management systems.
If I were to list the fifty three funds that I own in a mass list so to speak ... Most would say what a hodge podge mess. How does he know what he has?
Now, if I list them by my area and within the sleeve that holds them then it becomes more organized and one has a better picture of what they own. And, if one fund falters then there are the others to offer support and to continue to propel the sleeve.
Old_Skeet