The term "investor" tends to be used too broadly in investment product contexts yet, being that a majority of middle age workers are underfunded in their retirement plans, a 7% return from these products won't get these "investors" very far in accumulating assets. A different question to ponder should be, how can they invest in order to achieve "excess" returns in order to secure a decent retirement lifestyle ( similar to what they've been used to ) ?
An Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) study polled
workers age 55 and older who said the following about their retirement savings:
60% have less than $100,000 in retirement savings
43% have saved less than $25,000
36% have saved less than $10,000
Further, it is a little known fact that healthcare premiums have risen by a 7% compounded rate over the past 15 years. An inflation adjusted return from a "balanced fund" won't even cover this essential expense. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UyAulQv9gUgjq5g-TUrs_Wa7lbIEQ3K72StlUVewoKw/edit?usp=sharing
This population will need to produce returns via programs that can produce steeper expected return trajectories with risk mitigation. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ua-R53o7c588nUr705hY4YaBEcG1qOrNvtonQIwpVws/edit?usp=sharing

I am really conflicted....VGHCX hit a dollar threshold where it's due for a 30% haircut per my established portfolio guidelines. The problem is, it's been on fire and I may look back on this as a foolish and profit limiting re-balancing exercise. I am thinking about just letting the year-end distribution go to cash, and then direct that to the divi payors I had earmarked for the larger allocation.
Frankly, I admit this is not the worst problem to have.

Nice problem to have. With long term persistent smooth upward momentum (something Junkster would be proud to own) why not monitor for a 20 or 50 day crossovers to the 200dma. No sell signals over this last three years using this method.
Here's an article from Seeking Alpha that might be of interest:
no-one-ever-went-broke-taking-profits

FYI: REITs have become increasingly popular over the years as investors continue to search for yield in the current ultra-low rate environment. Given this huge demand from investors, issuers are lining up with products to quench their thirst.
Following the trend, Fidelity recently filed a product focused on the REIT space. Though the issuer has not as yet disclosed some of the key details like expense ratio and ticker symbol, we have highlighted those details that were available.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/156517/fidelity-plans-new-reit-etf?article_id=156517&type=BLOG

Mr.Ritholtz(Barry) suggests all century as he believes Anthony Robbins is data mining by picking years start and stop carefully.
I suspect we would all agree that Barry's is better though some of us would make different suggestions
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/get-there/why-the-all-weather-portfolio-is-a-wash-out/2014/12/05/ca580a2e-7be3-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html?tid=hpModule_79c38dfc-8691-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z14

According to Schwab's 11-page 2015 global outlook, we can throw out everything we think we know about EMs, commodities, and a strong dollar. Excerpts:
"A strong dollar, weak commodity prices and solid emerging market stock performance ... can coexist in the environment we foresee for a few key reasons:
"There are now far more commodity consumers than producers among emerging market stocks. ... Nearly 50% of the value of the companies in the MSCI Emerging Market Index is now in the financials and technology sectors. ... By and large, emerging market companies are not the commodity producers they are often believed to be—or were in the past.
"The China-driven commodity boom that coincided with strong emerging market performance is ending ... as China refocuses its growth. The transformation of where growth is coming from in China has been dramatic. Resource-heavy State Owned Enterprises now represent only about 25% of China’s GDP. ... A testament to the decoupling of Chinese stock market performance from commodity prices is the fact that over the past three years ending November 25, 2014, commodity prices ... are flat to down while the Hang Seng Index of Chinese stocks is up about 50% ....
"Emerging market countries have made structural changes. Smaller trade and budget deficits, larger foreign currency reserves, debt denominated in local currencies, and flexible exchange rates are leaving these countries much less vulnerable to an extended rise in the dollar than they were in the past."

FYI: Of the three top-performing sector mutual fund categories of the past 15 years, health care has come a long way to catch the other two leaders: real estate and energy.
A $10,000 investment in health care funds on Sept. 30, 1999, would have grown to $50,255 by Dec. 2 this year. That result trails $55,466 for real estate funds but surpasses energy funds' $46,485 and the S&P 500's $21,554, according to Morningstar data.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTg3MzAxNDk=
Enlarged Graphic: http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=WEBlvpent120504_1K.gif&docId=729245&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1063&caption=&id=729237

@catch22: Thanks for the response. For your queries
1. I have not thought of any LB as yet. 2. other major holdings are PRHSX=18.3%, vpccx=14.8%,prwcx=13.0%, and vcvlx=9.4%, rest around 5% each. 3. no bond funds
4. SS+freelance work may cover 60% of need before taxes. Thats why I am essentilaly in equity funds. mid/small was at 67%, half of which was moved to VTSAX on reaching 60 ( 1+ years ago)

with 4 years to stop working and start medicare, do you think the above weightage should be higher or can some moneys be moved to some other large blend fund to make a little extra?

John wrote: " But, are they planning to make changes to get back on track?"
From the interview I cited above it seems these guys like to make contrarian bets - in the belief markets will eventually realize the wisdom of those positions and "catch up." He mentioned an early bet on Europe as one contrarian play that worked. Funds using a contrarian strategy need a stable core of long-term investors who aren't going to jerk their money out after one or two bad years. (And recent articles posted on this board cite a flood of money pouring out).
If money flees before those investments turn-around and start making money, it puts the fund in greater jeopardy. That's because isn't enough leverage left (in dollar terms) to make up for the loses from having sold assets at a steep discount. I don't know enough to say whether this fund will turn-around. If they can stabilize their asset base (perhaps by reducing the retail investor component) they have a good chance.
It's hard to get inside their heads. Are they running their operation more as a hedge fund, with a fairly stable asset base from a core of large investors? Or, are they primarily trying to pull-in greater and greater AUM from retail investors? There was a lot of speculation on the board earlier on that they should have closed the fund to new money. I understand that concern, but think it's somewhat mis-placed. Unless you can stop assets from running out the door after a bad year or two, it's very hard to run a "contrarian" fund like this.

okay, got it. i still would like to see MFO allow user-input start dates for comparisons. most of the stats do me no good when one find is three years old and the next is 15 years old.

Re: risk metrics, it's possible that you are only getting 5 years worth because that's all M* offers unless you have a premium membership. Just a hunch.

Bob C is correct.
Hussman tries to time equities in and out, long and short (technicallyhe doesn't "short" stocks - but he achieves similar effect through puts). 10+ years losing $$.
MFLDX stepped right when they should've stepped left. Overweighted commodities at the wrong time in an attempt to hedge equity risk. Can happen to anyone. But that's what these types of funds are supposed to do - hedge equity risk.
I dislike the go anywhere funds largely because I don't think the advantages justify the high fees. Also, they are subject to unusually heavy inflows and outflows due to the fickle nature of many investors. MFLDX might be wise to do more to encourage longer term investing. Some ideas: raising minimums, imposing front-loads, adding or extending redemption fees or otherwise cracking down on hot money. Wouldn't have prevented this year's swoon - but would have lessened the impact (and perhaps the negative publicity).
But, please don't put this fund in the same other-worldly camp as HSGFX. How many other funds would even have retained the same "manager" for a full decade with so dire a performance record?

i just went to run a risk profile comparing POAGX to PHRSX and, well, come to find out that according to the profile, POAGX is only five years old and thus the metrics that are spit out can't easily be used to compare the two funds. see: http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/fund-ratings/?symbol=poagx+prhsx&submit=Submit. and yet if i go to morningstar, i see that POAGX's chart started in 2005. what am i missing here?
also: it sure would be nice to be able to set a customized starting date for risk-profile comparisons. that way, if one fund is very old and another fund is just sort-of old, you could set the date to just sort-of old and the resulting stats would be directly comparable. the way it is now is sometimes, it seems to me, less than useful. what do you think?

Hussman's funds have been effectively market neutral for a while, with (I believe, I haven't looked lately), near/all of the holdings hedged. The options strategy seems overly complex and I'm wondering - if Hussman's stockpicking is actually doing well if you take away the hedging, is the hedging overly costly/a poor method? Hussman should break out his non-hedged performance (well, what it would have been.)
Basically, Hussman - from what I've read - underestimated QE and ZIRP. As I've noted in other threads, he wasn't betting on something that would provide an asymmetric return if shareholders waited long enough (the poor returns that those who bet against subprime had until they were finally right), he was simply bearish.
I'd love to ask Hussman a few questions, not to go after the performance of the last few years, but to try and gain an understanding of the strategy, as I don't quite see how his views line up with a fund that has a considerable weighting in stocks and is fully hedged. Would a few staples and healthcare stocks with little-or-no hedging have been a cheaper and more effective strategy that also expresses his views? I think so, but maybe he'll prove me wrong somehow.
The fund's website has no email address or else I'd ask him a few questions.

There is still about $550 million in his Total Return fund. That's down from $2.7 billion in 2011. But it is hard to believe any shareholder would still be in the fund. Similar for the so-called Growth fund, which has actually a 10-year NEGATIVE return, but still has more than $900 million in it (down from $6.2 billion in 2010). Folks have crabbed (rightly so) about MFLDX this year, but at least that fund's long-term record is respectable. Hussman's funds are simply terrible in almost every way imaginable. Can you imagine the marketing tool..."We will only charge you 1% to give you an average return of -2% over 10 years."

It has been a good discussion indeed. There are many facets of healthcare including pharma and medical supplies which are the old school but still performing well, and the future stocks of biotech, bionics and some other fascinating areas. Nano and molecular therapies are just starting and maybe in ten or twenty years will be mainstream. For a long term holding these are sure bets.
In some cases it is hard to separate biotech and healthcare as big pharma has and will continue to buy out companies that hold promising therapies. They have the big pockets so to speak.

It seems M*'s problems go back some years so your wait might be a long one. While they do have a very comprehensive data page, the fact that they cannot update a simple NAV is very frustrating as you know.
The day before I was watching AAPL and had their current day chart up. The live quote displayed on top was way different than the price on the chart. We are talking 30-35 cents or so. I ended up using another service. I am not a paid subscriber to M*.

Hi Guys,
Given his painful results over the past few years, John Hussman is an easy target to condemn. Indeed his investment outlook and outcomes have been errant and dismal, respectively. He now looks like the Wall Street gunner who can’t shoot straight. Just another financial hero who falls from grace.
I have never invested a dime with him, but I do enjoy his reports on occasion. As a minimum, he always develops a respectable argument to support his conclusions and recommendations. Unfortunately, predicting the future is hazardous business, and has been most costly for his clients.
Hussman is further evidence that forecasters can not really forecast. Phil Tetlock has studied thousands of so-called expert forecasters and has firmly established their record as no better than a fair coin toss. Here is a Link to a rather long discussion with Tetlock that explores how to improve any forecasting talents:
http://edge.org/conversation/how-to-win-at-forecasting
Hussman is far too nuanced for my investment tastes. I prefer much more simplified approaches, much like in the practices of the Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger team. Here are a few Buffett quotes that seem to conflict with the way John Hussman conducts his business:
“You don’t need to be a rocket scientist. Investing is not a game where the guy with the 160 IQ beats the guy with 130 IQ.” I suspect Buffett failed to recognize that a guy with a 130 IQ is pretty smart. That’s 2 standard deviations above the average person.
“If you don’t feel comfortable owning something for 10 years, then don’t own it for 10 minutes.” Long term holding periods is a key to successful investing as illustrated by the Fidelity references cited in the earlier commentary.
“The Stock Market is designed to transfer money from the Active to the Patient.” Frequent trading is erosive to end wealth has been demonstrated time and time again.
“I don’t look to jump over 7-foot bars: I look around for 1-foot bars that I can step over.” Hussman’s style seems to be the 7-foot barrier with great rewards when successfully cleared, but many pratfalls more often than not.
And finally, “By periodically investing in an index fund, the know-nothing investors can actually outperform most investment professionals.” Even the know something investor can profit from this bit of wisdom.
Buffett has penned scores of other applicable quotes that caution against the policies, the procedures, and the practices deployed by John Hussman. I prefer the Occam’s Razor general strategy (take the route with the fewest simple assumptions) endorsed by Buffett and Munger.
Have a terrific Holiday season, and Best Wishes.

TRAMX has not had a good very recent streak. I was fortunate in a backhanded way, so I did not get in right away, in '07, when it first opened. The new(er) Fund Manager seems to know what to do.
Past 5 years: +10.7% (Reuters.)

As MFO reports, Meridian Equity Income Fund is changing managers. Minyoung Sohn is taking the reins. He apparently earned a good but short record [3 years] with Janus Growth and Income.
I’ve been invested in this small Meridian fund since the day it opened. My investment has more than doubled, and I liked the conservative value approach of its experienced managers [the same people who manage Meridian Contrarian Fund, formerly Meridian Value Fund].
I’ve experienced many manager changes over the years [always an unsettling experience if you had confidence in the founding managers. The most distressing was when Michael Price sold his Mutual Series funds to Franklin Templeton].
The first result of this change at Meridian Equity Income is that the fund almost immediately issued a large capital gain. This occurred because the new manager sold a large number of holdings so he could invest in stocks that meet his different investing style. I suspect the distribution was made early [before December] to prevent existing shareholders from selling the fund in an effort to avoid the large capital gain distribution. [Fewer shareholders to share the taxable gain obligation] [Last year, Meridian Growth Fund also sold a large portion of its holdings as its new managers implemented their investment style].
The second result of this change of managers is that my money will now be invested in a more growth than value style.
I plan to keep my money in this small fund and give the new manager an opportunity to impress me. But these manager changes may be an argument in favor of investing in ETFs.
Does anyone have any thoughts about Minyoung Sohn?