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

I have a sleeve (hybrid income) within my portfolio that holds mostly conserative allocation funds and account for just short of 20% of the overall portfolio. The funds held within this sleeve are AZNAX, FKINX, ISFAX, CAPAX, PGBAX, & PASAX.
I am very happy, thus far, with their performance over the years and have held one of them (FKINX) for better than fifty years.
Old_Skeet

Ted said: "Never confuse risk and volatility, they are not the same."
Yeah. I hear that a lot. Maybe, But, I'll submit that if you're 95 years old, they are very much the same.

>> 45 years it has returned essentially what the stock market has returned,
I must be missing something. Since origin, summer 1970, it has more than doubled SP500.

According to records, the S&P has returned about 10.5% since 1926, with returns reinvested; Wellesley 10.06% since 1970. That was what I was comparing. What the S&P has done since 1970, I don't know. I didn't even consider that. :(

>> 45 years it has returned essentially what the stock market has returned,
I must be missing something. Since origin, summer 1970, it has more than doubled SP500.
Wellington and DODBX have done notably better, but Windsor, FCNTX, and SEQUX have all done multiples better, Sequoia 6x or so. If I am reading the graphs right.
Some manager changes in there, of course.

@Leroy: Good choice, but a better bet Vanguard Fund is( VWELX 8.33% for 86 years) which has outperformed VWINX 1-15 years.
Regards,
Ted

After spending many evenings slicing, dicing, and contemplating a bunch of "set and forget" funds, in 2013 I bought Wellesley. It is 20% of my portfolio and I'm a happy camper.
Its long-term record, considering volatility, is hard to beat: Since inception in 1970 it has returned 10.06% annualized; its worst yearly return was in 2008 at -9.8%.
So for 45 years it has returned essentially what the stock market has returned, but with much less volatility (beta .53).

yup, those three sure have outperformed the last few years. but for CA funds, they seem to display a lot of volatility on the chart -- or at least compared to VWINX, they look like they do. thanks for the work!

>>>FYI: For many years, I’ve been asking people what money means to them. Typical responses have been words like “freedom,” “security,” “survival” and “happiness,” the kind of words that pack a real emotional punch. My take is that money is stored energy that allows us to do what we want with our lives. And though it does not bring happiness in and of itself, it brings the freedom to pursue happiness.<<<<
Money is completely worthless it you have serious and debilitating health issues. I know some whose every day existence is a struggle and all the money in the world will not allow them " the freedom to pursue happiness " nor will it allow them "to do what we (they) want in their lives "

Thanks Ted,
Article leaves out the fact that alpha (relative out performance) is just one component of investing success just as hitting is merely one component of successful baseball. If alpha has diminished over the years what other strategies impacted excess return? One or two paragraphs regarding these other strategies / factors might have lead the reader to the bigger picture. If alpha only contributes 6% to excess returns today, what's responsible for the other 94%?
Finally, a list of a few modern day funds that still do consistently provide outsized positive alpha would have been worthy of reporting. The chart in the article reveals that alpha still contributes 6% to the SD of excess returns. What active funds consistently out perform their peers with regard to alpha? There must be a few alpha dogs out there still.
What are your alpha dog funds?

FYI: For many years, I’ve been asking people what money means to them. Typical responses have been words like “freedom,” “security,” “survival” and “happiness,” the kind of words that pack a real emotional punch. My take is that money is stored energy that allows us to do what we want with our lives. And though it does not bring happiness in and of itself, it brings the freedom to pursue happiness.
What does all this talk of freedom and happiness have to do with Jack Bogle? Well, in 1975, Jack brought the first index fund to the public through Vanguard Group. Since then, the assets in stock and bond index funds have grown to about $3.9 trillion, according to research company Strategic Insight
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2015/03/03/why-you-owe-your-freedom-to-jack-bogle-roth/tab/print/?mg=blogs-wsj&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.wsj.com%2Ftotalreturn%2F2015%2F03%2F03%2Fwhy-you-owe-your-freedom-to-jack-bogle-roth%2Ftab%2Fprint&amp;fpid=2,121

I've got a handful of them also.
I do wonder about Kiplinger's choice of tickers, though. "A" shares for American Funds? That family's got a whole slew of R- classes (R-1, R-2, etc.) specifically for 401K funds; I doubt that many plans offer the "A" shares.
And "B" shares for Blackrock Equity Dividend? Years ago I actually had a 401K plan that offered B shares, but generally it's just tiny company plans that did that, "B" shares are highly disfavored now, and the Blackrock fund's B shares are closed (possibly excepting existing investors, though I haven't checked).
Fidelity, Vanguard, American, some T. Rowe Price, D&C. The usual suspects. Interesting to see that aside from American, load fund families are barely represented on the list. One each of Oppenheimer, Morgan Stanley, Goldman, MFS. No Putnam.

Why would they rewrite the objective unless they wanted to change it. This is a well respected fund that has done very well over the years. So why do anything different?
Or, as 00by stated, this is lawyer speak.
Take a snapshot of their holdings now and another one in the future. See what if any changes have occurred.

Let's assume that the S&P500 is overvalued. What's to say it couldn't become a lot more overvalued. You can lose a lot of cash by shorting. Shorting is a high risk and speculative activity. You can make more in the long run (decades) by taking good risks, rather than being big roller of the dice.

If you went on things like valuation, you would have either sold a lot of things too early in the last few years or missed things that didn't seem appealing from a valuation standpoint. I can come up with quite a few examples of things that I thought seemed expensive that I didn't get into and they've only gotten more expensive. Church and Dwight (CHD) is one that definitely comes to mind, there are a number of others.
Again, my view is to own the best ideas and just hold them long-term and reinvest dividends and there are things that I've tried to trade in the last few years, would have just been better off sitting and holding instead and that's really what I've decided to do. I have a great deal of respect for those who can sit and trade, I just find the route I've taken to be far less stressful and actually, much more enjoyable than micromanaging.

Mr. Studzinski noted:
In 2008, we had a period of over-valuation in the markets that was pretty clear in terms of equities. We also had what appears in retrospect to have been the deliberate misrepresentation and marketing of certain categories of fixed income investments to those who should have known better and did not. This resulted in a market meltdown that caused substantial drawdowns in value for many equity mutual funds, in a range of forty to sixty per cent.....
>>>So, would the summary be, that the big melt of 2007/2008 came from the liars and cheats who outfoxed the educated believers. That the greed factor by some, although aware of the liars/cheats hoped to be on the good side of trade and get out "just in time"? IMO, this is the likely broad answer; while most were left out in the cold.
The markets will always harbor some liars and cheats. The psychopaths who troll through investment land, always hoping in the "greater fool syndrome".
So, this time is different; in some aspects and remains the same in other aspects.
As to his note regarding capital preservation; this must always be a consideration within one's investments, no matter what form the investment. This has been discussed over the years, at both FundAlarm and MFO.
What caused the market melt?
@hank Have fun, knowing you two will, in the warm south. As your blood chemistry has become tuned to the "cold" you are going to feel way too hot for your stay, eh?
Knowing you will suffer through this bodily reaction, too.
Regards,
Catch