@AndyJ Same here.I always forget which day to put the "string around my finger".
Have come to enjoy Mr. Gundlach's presentations.Gets me laughing at times with the irony I think he excels at.
Take a ways:
Janet Yellen- Time spent with foreign central bankers and the White House?
Negative yields in Euro Zone?
Central Banks purchases of gold? Possible $1400.00 this year.
Retest low $40's in W T I crude.Too early to buy beaten down debt in oil patch which has rallied ytd.
Long term demographics very scary in the next 15-35 years,especially Japan,most of Europe,and China.
Trend is your friend,especially in fx markets.$$$$$.All DoubleLine's funds,including E M's are $$ dominated.
Waiting for an Indian stock market correction to deploy more capital there.Long term investors-Buy India,put it in a safe for 20 years-Enjoy your foresight! Very compelling demographics.
When will the "Block Head" game end? 2019-22 shows extreme bond maturities.Interest rates at that time ??? Government debt service?
Despite asset/product expansion,Gundloch expects to continue DoubleLine's out performance.He appreciates the concern for his well being though !
Higher taxes coming,especially the very rich.Has 15% percent of his personal assets in muni's, especially California.Very comfy with that asset. Puerto Rico's debt will get across the goal line.Very compelling for high tax bracketeers.(he implies these tax advantages may be reduced in the future) I R A's ???.
@Scott Skeptical of old line auto manufacturers.The urban Millennials embrace a carless future with an on demand driverless car available in 30 ?? seconds.Mentioned Uber. Tesla,Apple??
Housing weakness? At least not very strong.
I own DLENX.

Hi Hank,
Thank you for reading my post. Sorry it is so negative with respect to your earlier submittal, but I believe some of your comments are prompted by your unfamiliarity with the annual DALBAR Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior (QAIB) report.
Keep in mind that DALBAR is just one investment agency that has examined the issue of individual investor shortfalls relative to the mutual funds that they own. Morningstar, Vanguard, and Academia have completed similar studies with roughly comparable conclusions. Investor shortfalls have been pervasive for decades, mostly associated with poor timing and wealth destruction crowd herding behaviors.
The DALBAR report is designed for consumption by financial advisors. They have been publishing it for 30 or so years. It has improved over these decades. Here is a Link to the 2014 edition:
http://grandwealth.com/files/DALBAR QAIB 2014.pdf
I don’t read it each year since the findings seem to be fairly repeatable and predictable. The report does address your first two questions directly, and I’ll summarize them here. I’ll also address your third question from my general interpretation of their data collection and processing methods.
Your 1. The DALBAR methodology incorporates dollar weighting with its monthly measurements of fund inflows and outflows. From an engineering perspective, it’s comparable to a mass balancing assessment.
Your 2. Quoting from the referenced report: “QAIB 2014 examines real investor returns in equity, fixed income and asset allocation funds.” DALBAR makes the requisite adjustments to correctly judge investor performance relative to proper investment categories.
Your 3. DALBAR merely manipulates numbers. It makes zero distinctions with respect to an investor’s motivations or investment proclivities. Its data sets do not and can not contain that very personal information which is illusive and likely not stable for any investor. Most investors probably can’t reliably recall their specific trading reasons. That’s okay; it would be scary otherwise.
I’m answering your questions without much updated research. Please access the referenced DALBAR document. Reviewing a primary report is always better than a secondhand source.
I hope this satisfies your curiosity. I really don’t have a test for accuracy, but the distinction between climate and weather is substantial and should be understood and respected. Regardless if individual investors are sophisticated or clueless, they are at a disadvantage when competing against resource rich professionals. Most investors are not especially sophisticated.
Best Wishes.

@MJG
Sorry the illustrations I put up from an online article did not meet your test for accuracy. The point I hoped to make was that statistics, generally speaking, can be misleading. However, I'm still puzzled about who these average investors are and how Dalbar reached their statistical conclusion.
To be clear, here's the quote I referenced from Ted's linked article: "The average investor in stock mutual funds made 3.8% a year over the past 30 years, according to Boston research firm Dalbar Inc".
MJG, with your expertise in statistical analysis perhaps you would clarify the following.
1. Was the study dollar weighted? In other words, if I had invested $100,000 in funds over that period and you had invested $10,000, was my degree of success (or lack thereof) weighted 10 times more than yours in the study results?
2. What percentage of "stocks" held constitutes a "stock mutual fund" by Dalbar's definition? I own a fund that by design holds about 40% equities and 60% fixed income. Would Dalbar consider that a "stock mutual fund"? If not, than what was their cut-off point for inclusion of a fund in this category?
3. Does the study group investors according to goal or purpose for investing? Were all those studied investing for retirement? Or were a significant number short term "speculators" throwing money at an already "hot" equity market? If the second group was included in the study, than it would tend to greatly exacerbate the degree to which investor returns lagged fund returns.
For the record MJG, I do believe a great many individual investors harm themselves by moving in and out of funds in an attempt to time markets - and that this tendancy contributes to a large percentage of them badly lagging their funds over time. I've mentioned this before in some of my own posts. What I try not to do is throw out terms like "average investor in stock funds" unless I can somehow quantify that term for my reader.
Regards

This article should be dedicated to MJG. In the article " The average investor in stock mutual funds made 3.8% a year over the past 30 years..." I am skeptical on the methodology used to determine that tidbit.
And why some aging investor with a large nest egg should embrace a 20% and more decline in his portfolio is beyond me. My poor old Dad never recovered from the bear of 73/74 because of the timing of his retirement. Albeit, I would love a bear market about now.

Thanks Junkster. I'm more than skeptical of these "averages" that get thrown around. Twain said "Between Kipling and myself we corner all knowledge." He didn't mean to say both were equally brilliant. So WTF is the average investor? Does that have to be U.S. currency - or does it include the stash of "foreign" currency we keep on hand for our visits to Ontario? How about the wife's gold and jewelry collection? She considers it an investment. Does that count? The widow across the street puts her retirement money 100% in insured bank accounts. Is somebody like that included in that "average investor" statistic? Are FDIC insured deposits even counted?
If you include all the people "defaulted" into workplace retirement accounts - and a great many of them contribute very little and care even less about investing - I'd imagine you could skew those averages about as dramatically as the Twain quote does.
Three Ways To Lie With Statistics
http://m.wikihow.com/Lie-with-Statistics
Illustration: "For example, imagine you survey 50 households in a neighborhood for their income. Most households make between $40,000 and $60,000 a year, but one household makes $5 million a year. When you compute the mean average, the number will be significantly higher than the “real” average income in that area, because the $5 million number is so much bigger than the others.
"In a similar way, if you had data showing that 9 people each had $1,000 in their bank accounts, but a tenth person only has $1, the median average would work out to $900.10 – almost 10% less than the most common amount."
I really think step #1 in any article like this should be (meaning "ought to be and not necessarily will be") to DEFINE THE TERMS.

This article should be dedicated to MJG. In the article " The average investor in stock mutual funds made 3.8% a year over the past 30 years..." I am skeptical on the methodology used to determine that tidbit.
And why some aging investor with a large nest egg should embrace a 20% and more decline in his portfolio is beyond me. My poor old Dad never recovered from the bear of 73/74 because of the timing of his retirement. Albeit, I would love a bear market about now.

Terrible name. When these (target date) funds were originally conceived, interest rates were still in the near double-diget range - so the concept of increasing bond allocations over time made some sense according to the than conventional wisdom. Unfortunately, that may no longer be the case with the historically low rates of recent years. The "news" is nothing new, Experts have been sounding the alarm about this for some time.
I don't understand why any savy investor would choose these over, say, a good conservative allocation fund, and perhaps allocate his own desired amount into cash or bonds. However, as a default option for those who either don't know very much about money or don't care, I guess they still make sense. They're far better than not saving at all or letting the money collect moss in a 0 interest account.
I use Price's TRRIX (Retirement Balanced) as part of my overall allocation. It's part of their retirement fund lineup. But, unlike the others, it doesn't increase its allocation to fixed income over time. Essentially, it remains around 50-60% in fixed income indefinitely. Has low fees and gives you a nice slice of many of their other funds.

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%?