The folks at Leuthold shared a recent email titled "We did WHAT?" which reports that they shorted the NASDAQ in July. They wrote:

While our tactical portfolios almost exclusively hedge equities using our proprietary short-selling strategy, last month we upped the hedge by shorting the NASDAQ 100 via the QQQ ETF. One of the driving factors is that July’s broadening action was much more of a NYSE phenomenon than a NASDAQ one—the latter market still looks highly bifurcated and triggered a “maximum-negative” reading on the HLLI in early August.

Partly in consequence, they posted top 6% returns in July (up 3.7%) and top 21% returns over the past four weeks (-0.3%). I know they're a bit tame, perhaps a bit wonky in a small Minnesota shop way, for some investors but they have top tier performance over the trailing 1-, 3- 5-, 10- and 15-year periods with relative returns ranging from top 12% (3-year) to top 31% (15 year) against their Morningstar peers. They've comfortably outperformed their Lipper peers since inception (1995) on both upside and downside measures.
Happily, for the budget conscious, the LCR ETF seems to be outperforming LCORX by (eyeballing here) about the different in their expense ratios.
Today's note: "the 21-day correlation between Large Growth and Large Value turned negative for just the fifth time in 33 years. Two previous signals coincided with major rotations into the Value style."

I also lived through 2000-2002 bear market and at that time I was single, 37-39 years old and was investing entirely with Janus...blast from the past!!
Janus Mercury, Janus Global Technology and at the time the vaunted Janus Worldwide with Helen Young-Hayes. I was 100% equities. I admit soon after 9/11 I just couldn't take it any longer with the market's long correction and sold out of my complete positions into a Janus MM fund for a month or so before reinvesting into the markets. I toned down the risk by going 75/25 equity/fixed income. I believe the equity fund was Janus Core Equity and the bond fund was Janus Flexible Income...again, names of those funds might be off just a bit.
As stated in my previous post, I didn't sell anything during the GFC with the difference being the experience I had living through 2000-2002 and the eventual rebound and also having a respected friend who encouraged me to stay the course during the GFC as he was doing.

Paulson! yes @ BaluBalu, that is who I was referring to earlier.
And. @hank, no, nada, I sure wasn't advocating for all in all out etc...I was trying to point out that it is now easy to look back and say one should/could've(?) started averaging in..but at the time it wasn't easy at all...so with the knowledge of hindsight, it sure is easy to say now that should have went all in....
My drawdown was -3.7% (truth!) during the 08' flush (hey FD1000, how do you like that?)...as I got somewhat toasted during 2001 flush, I had good muscle memory recall....and also when I went to an open house at a new condo development in San Diego....I told the nice gal sales rep that the price points were kooky insane....she asked where I was from...and said that explains it..."you don't get it"...I said no ma'am, YOU don't get it...a year from now you will be on your knees begging me to pay 40% less than these prices...I was right....and now 15 years later, would say she was also...LOL! Then I also had a Washington Mutual open up by me with higher than market CD rates...the gal there was wanting me to sign a 5-year CD...I said, nah, I'm walking you guys are making home loans to folks who couldn't afford a storage shed...I don't want anything to do with ya'll and as a matter of fact I am going to short the piss out of your stock...made a nice bundle on that trade.
The more I read on this thread and think back 30 years+...the more I think a moderate-conservative multi-asset, balanced approach with some flexing around the edges is the way to go....sure would have more monies now and have had less stress, worries etc...

@hank
Ten index funds is too much 'diworstificiation' to my mind.
--- Diworsification is the process of adding investments to a portfolio in such a way that the risk-return tradeoff is worsened.
A quote from Steve Jobs (Apple) that applies to the many things too many investors attempt to chase or justify.

“A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them”
― Steve Jobs

NOTE: We've remained U.S. centered with investments since the GFC. Hell, Europe remained broken for years after the melt. AND, if investment 'things' become bad here, they're probably worse everywhere else, globally.

-
Thanks @catch22
Re: your #10 complex (Decaphobia)
Does this mean you won’t go near asset allocation “fund-of-funds”? The ones I look at, including several well regarded ones from T Rowe Price (like TRRIX) typically invest in 15-25 other funds. While this one doesn’t limit holdings to just index funds, you can find many that do. What do you know that these managers don’t?
The reason I myself maintain 10 equal weight positions in assets like OEFs, CEFs, ETFs, stocks (9 positions + cash) is the ease of swapping out one position for something else should I desire to take profits from an over-performer or raise / lower the portfolio’s overall risk profile. Having fewer than 9 holdings (+ cash) would entail a greater degree of risk in selling 100% of a position and replacing it with another. In my dreams … I envision having only 5-7 holdings. But am in no hurry to achieve that elusive goal.
To each his own. I was happy to own only a single fund (TEMWX) during most of my working years. Sir John did a great job managing it in the early days. I think what’s really important is that investors have a plan and adhere to it, whatever plan fits their needs. Investing a lifetime’s accumulated wealth at 80 isn’t the same as building an asset base when you are 25 or slyly gaming the markets at 50.

Fro Bob C. Dec. 16 '09
All that being said, we have a few managers/funds that we have used for what we would consider a long time. Among them are Thornburg Value and International Value, Artisan MidCap Value and Mid Cap, Diamond Hill Small Cap and Long-Short, Permanent Portfolio, Artio International, Artisan International, First Eagle Overseas, some of the Matthews funds, Oppenheimer Developing Markets, and several of U.S. Global's funds: Global Resources, World Precious Minerals, and Eastern Europe. One we have held only a few years is Ivy Asset Strategy, but we have a lot of confidence in its two top managers and expect it to be a core holding for a long time.
On the bond side, we have used Loomis for what seems like forever. Our other big holding has been Templeton Global Bond, and what a great manager it has.
But with all of this said, we don't know what tomorrow will bring. So flexibility remains a key component of our strategy. We have a whole asset class of "Alternative Strategy" for which we allocate 15-20% as a way of reducing volatility and adding low or negative correlation to portfolios. And we also have a "Tactical Sector Strategy" class that gives us a 10-15% allocation to overweight specific sectors. We hope that these two parts of our portfolios will give us a boost in good markets and a cushion in bear markets.

@hank
Ten index funds is too much 'diworstificiation' to my mind.
--- Diworsification is the process of adding investments to a portfolio in such a way that the risk-return tradeoff is worsened.
A quote from Steve Jobs (Apple) that applies to the many things to many investors attempt to chase or justify.

“A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them”
― Steve Jobs

NOTE: We've remained U.S. centered with investments since the GFC. Hell, Europe remained broken for years after the melt. AND, if investment 'things' become bad here, they're probably worse everywhere else, globally.

@MikeM +1 2 3
Have followed with interest your work with Schwab’s robo over many years. Appreciate all your comments. I’m thinking there are some actively managed allocation funds that might do quite well what robos profess to do.
I subscribe to a newsletter that publishes a “recommended portfolio” consisting of 10 index funds. (It’s currently almost 50% cash.) I don’t follow the recommendations - and can’t see any particular brilliance to the approach after about 3 years following it, except that the index funds recommended carry much lower ER’s than I pay for my actively managed funds.

The mandatory 12% in cash that returns about 0.2%, plus the mistimed heavy allotments to international, emerging markets and small caps since the funds inception has been a losing strategy for Schwab's Intelligent Portfolio. At one time it was 1/2 my retirement savings. I thought it would be care-free professionally managed money. After about 8 years, I finally gave up and baled on it at the end of last year. What sounded like a good idea, was not.

During the GFC we didn't sell anything, didn't buy much either other than continue to contribute to our Roth IRA's. We were mainly in PRWCX. I did jump into PRHYX when the yield was approaching 20%!! I believe it was early 2009 when I sold PRHYX after ~40% gain.

Yes. ‘07-‘09 (especially ‘08) would have been a wonderful time to be dollar-averaging in to a retirement account. I hadn’t considered that. At a younger age I’d had paid it little heed. Stay the course.
For some of us the year and a half long market crash was an unwelcome retirement gift. I was already 10 years in. Those retirees who got caught with more risk on the table then their individual situation warranted got taken to the cleaners.

@Derf. Thanks for pulling up a FA excerpt from February 25, 2009. The bear market ended just 2 weeks after that post. Yet, all sounds calm.
I really like this line …
”Your mix of ETFs should match your investment time table, your age, your level of risk acceptance, your income needs, and any other financial considerations.”
That was standard mantra for many years in discussing investment choices. It wasn’t about making the most money but rather about matching investments to your own needs and risk tolerance. You don’t hear that much (or as much) anymore.

Nah, I am logged in & checking things most every day, and that's fine. But I don't fixate on inter-day performance, so at least for my mindset, it's no big deal. By contrast, I'm sure for most retail investors, they shouldn't check every day b/c they may not have the mindset/discipline/knowledge to know that 'doing nothing' often is the best course of action.

I check fund performance via M* Portfolio Manager almost daily.There is no good reason for me to do this since I seldom trade. Bad habits are sometimes difficult to break!

Same here. It’s so damn easy to tap an icon on whatever hand-held device I’m already on - and up pops everything. This habit (of looking during the day) has helped occasionally, as when some more speculative hold enjoys a big intraday bump and I can quickly trim some off. But watching is largely a waste of time.
Were I to look only every 3 months I’d probably pull back the risk profile in advance. Add more cash / short term bonds. Carrying less risk would make it easier not to look, but would also impact performance negatively I think.

Schwab is at the bottom of the performance rankings YTD, 1 year (the only robo with single digit returns, more than a point behind second worst), and 5 year (tie for worst). Over three years it did 0.2% better than the worst.
As a blind guess without checking, I suspect the cause is cash drag, especially since Vanguard has outperformed Schab recently by more than 3%, and by more than 1% over three and five years.
Schwab ranks in the middle of the pack overall. That seems to be due to broad financial planning tools and features like Intelligent Income (mentioned by Barron's) for managing a monthly income stream. Raw performance only counts for so much; with Barron's that's 25% of the total score.

As a follow-up to @rforno’s “newbie” thread, it might be interesting to reflect on what the board looked like during 2008 - right in the middle of an eventual 17-month decline in the S&P (greater losses globally and in some domestic sectors). The period is known as ”The Global Financial Crisis” and is also sometimes referred to as ”The Great Recession”. Even money market funds had become unsafe and investors began fleeing until the government exercised extraordinary authority to backstop them.
It is easy in hindsight after these rare episodes to say: “Do nothing”, “Let it ride …” , “Just don’t look. It won’t really matter 20 years from now.” These are all intelligent responses. But is that how it really was?
Anybody recall the general tenor at Fund Alarm (predecessor to MFO) back then? And what the smart, well informed, articulate posters were generally saying? Was the general feeling one of “I’m sitting tight.”… “I’m not making any moves.”, “I’m not even looking because longer term everything will be great.”
Possibly some were reading / participating on other investment forums, or possibly some recall what their friends, family members, co-workers and / or neighbors were saying and doing.

It may also be possible to use a payment app with Fidelity accounts. Whether that app in turn lets you schedule transfers to a third party depends on the app. For example, according to this old (2018) moderator post, Paypal wants you to limit transfers to only Paypal customers.
For the most part, anything you can do with a Fidelity CMA account you can do with a "regular" account. When Fidelity first introduced CMA accounts, they struck me as a marketing gimmick. They still do.
There are only three differences I'm aware of (or at least that I care about):

• The CMA account offers the option (it used to be mandatory) of sweeping cash into FDIC-insured banks instead of higher yielding MMFs.
  
• The CMA account provides free ATM rebates for all customers; Fidelity doesn't rebate fees for customers of "regular" accounts unless they are at the Premium ($500K) or above level or are paying for "wealth management".
  
• The CMA accounts can't be used for IRA accounts.

it's easy to set up such payments online between your own accounts (trick is that one name must be common to both account titles)
Unless you're setting up payments from a joint account. Several years ago when I set up transfers from a joint account to my individual taxable account Fidelity required a guarantee (or maybe just consent?) from the joint owner. I don't recall whether I also had to sign.
I asked Fidelity why they required it, especially since they were allowing me to make IRA contributions from that joint account without any fuss. Fidelity said that it was getting too many complaints from joint owners when money was transferred, even though "joint" means either owner has access to the full account. So it wanted the redundant, explicit approval from the joint owner. Except for IRA contributions because "everybody does that" or words to that effect.

Linking accounts with different titles requires paperwork guaranteed with Medallion Signatures. I had to do this years ago when I linked my Schwab Brokerage to my daughter's JPM Chase bank a/c. It took about 2 weeks after I mailed the paperwork. Once linked, I can set up onetime or recurring payments.
On the other hand, it's easy to set up such payments online between your own accounts (trick is that one name must be common to both account titles) or via the BillPay.
One trick may be to use auto-pay for a person. But BillPay will cut a check and mail it - it won't be online transfer. Some refuse BillPay checks - insurance companies (either outright refusal or incorrect crediting), banks themselves (one time I tried to use BillPay for bank locker payment - refused).
BTW, we have a bank account in India and rules there are totally different (to begin with, we can write checks from savings account & many other differences). We can setup onetime or auto-payments online to anyone so long as we have the complete bank and personal account information. And of course, instant transfers have been possible for several years - we in the US are just starting on that.

I don't trade my MF's. I hold them in a Roth and have for 10+ years. One recent addition has been PRCFX,
My taxable brokerage account is primarily dividend growth stocks, and broad market ETF's. The oldest stock was obtained in 2003 and the youngest in 2021. The ETF's are all relatively new. I hardly trade (as the term is used) but I will add to them when the market goes on sale. Technically I guess you can call that a trade but I like to think of it as stocking up on a bargain.
If pressed I guess I trade mostly the CEF's in my Roth account at the rate of one trade/mo. The CEF's are primarily income producing assets that take advantage of current market conditions. I don't buy them with the intention of selling but sometimes it's the right choice.

Thank you @rforno. I greatly value your insights (and read all of them).
I think the buy / sell thread may create the wrong impression. Like you, my long term core holdings rarely change. Most of the portfolio consists of OEFs transferred in or acquired new 5 years ago when I left TRP and opened a brokerage account at Fido. (The newest, LCORX, was acquired a year ago.) Other than occasional rebalancing those are hands-off.
I leave 30% in easier to trade vehicles. These can be CEFs, ETFs and a stock or two. It’s that latter group where I’m willing to experiment / tinker around in pursuit of some extra return. An example would be building a 5% position recently in a stock that has bounced around between $95 and $105. Has required some buying and selling over past month or two to get the average share price down.

44% of all US dollars ever created, were created in 2020 and 2021. Ya, that was the Covid era.
44% is about right, looking at M2. Such an increase is not unique. There have been other times, other situations aside from Covid, calling for monetary expansion. LBJ's "guns and butter" economy (1964 through 1968) boosted M2 by, oddly enough, 44% also.
OTOH, the subsequent contraction in M2 (5% from April 2022 to Oct 2023) appears to be unique.
Source: FRED M2 interactive graph
"The US dollar has lost 93% of its value since the year 1900."
Both of the quotes are designed to shock (or as you colorfully expressed it, to gobsmack). Not to inform or enlighten.
A 93% decline in value in 125 years is an annualized inflation rate of 2.1%, just what the US is targeting. In comparison, a pound sterling in 1900 would have the purchasing power of just 0.6 pennies (UK) in 2024. A decline of 99.4%.
https://www.officialdata.org/uk/inflation/1900?amount=1
That's what an economy in decline looks like.

This is what the US economy looks like:

I've probably gone 2-3 years in my long-long term portfolio. I rarely make moves there.

Subtitle: Risks, Myths, and Investment Opportunities in a Radically Reshaped Economy.
Almost finished. The case he's making is cogent and crisply, sharply written. A quick read, though very meaty. His thesis is that smart investors, looking forward, must move from growth to value--- specifically into basic materials. Oil, gas. Gold, silver, copper, palladium, platinum.
We are in decline, economically. I have said as much for several years, myself. Some of the reason for it is that the world has emerged and grown and thrived, following WW II. We're not the 800-pound gorilla in the room which can throw its weight around the way the USA was able to do, decades ago. A big part of the decline, says McDonald, is geopolitics and overspending Inevitably, the gummint will NOT be able to literally pay down the debt, ever again. It's too massive. In order to handle it, the gummint will have to continuously roll it all over as it matures, and play interest rate games to help cover it.
McDonald has no use for economic sanctions, like the sanctions imposed on Russia and specific Russians, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. (Crimea was previously stolen, annexed.) Russia has friends in other directions. Most are not even communist. Russia is still feeding raw materials to China so the Chinese can manufacture stuff. Gotta keep the power on. And they're not operating with any "Green Revolution" imposed upon themselves.
I was not surprised, in his treatment of that stuff in particular, that he simply ignored the ethical implications of not responding to the Putin-monster, and just letting him have his way. There is no investing conversation or essay or book which will go near anything to do with ethics. Obama, so I read, confronted Putin at a meeting of big-wigs, and told him flat-out: "We can do stuff to you." Granted, because of the multi-polar economic and political environment today, sanctions are proving to be as useful as trying to use your finger to push a string across the table.
Breathtaking quotations that gobsmacked me:
"44% of all US dollars ever created, were created in 2020 and 2021." Ya, that was the Covid era. But holy jaypers. DEVALUATION, much?????
"The US dollar has lost 93% of its value since the year 1900."
******************************************
McDonald includes summaries of some interviews he's had with some remarkably smart Shining Lights in the Investment Industry. I just finished up reading his account of a conversation with Charlie Munger. Final, distilled thoughts from that meeting actually lifted my spirits. I've made my share of mistakes in investing, but in broad terms, I could take some satisfaction, realizing I'd been doing these things by instinct, for the most part:
Charlie told him: "Trade and invest less. Sit back and wait for those top two or three opportunities that come along each year. Measure your level of conviction and allocate your capital accordingly. Above all, never trade or invest out of boredom or a desire to find something to do. Keep up your high level of passion for markets. Growing wiser is a combination of humility and diligent curiosity. Without the first, the second is useless."

Might Include
- Tactical trades
- Repositioning
- Closing out a fund or other investment
- Acquiring a new fund or other investment
- Portfolio rebalancing
What’s the purpose here? None, except to have some fun. I get the idea folks here trade a lot. My longest stretch without trading something the past 5 years is probably only a month. The core OEFs (7 or 8 funds) haven’t changed in at least a year. But I’ll rebalance a few of them every 6-12 months. It’s “around the edges” (approx. 20% of holdings) that’s held in ETFs, CEFs, individual stocks) that has gotten churned quite a bit.
Anybody out there that hasn’t traded at least once in the last 12 months?