Hi @MikeW: I have two emerging market funds with the American Funds Group. One is their New World Fund (NEWFX) which I have owned for better than ten years. The other fund of theirs that I own is their Developing World Growth & Income Fund (DWGAX). I recently purchased my first buy step (of four) in this fund and I plan to continue to add to it through a postion cost average approach until I have the position fully built.
I have other funds that I own that have some exposure to emerging markets; but, these are the two funds that I own that are considered to be emerging market specific.
Also, I found an interesting article written about emerging market funds that might be of some interest. It is linked below for easy reference..
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/740785/5-top-emergingmarkets-funds-that-look-beyond-emerg.html

Thanks very much for sharing your holdings Skeet. New World fund is one I'm evaluating now also. Can I ask how you plan the timing of your buy steps into your funds? Is this something that you plan to do once on the same day each month until you get thru the 4th buy step? Or do you plan based on your market barometer and when its giving you a undervalued rating?
thanks for sharing the article too.

Hi @MikeW: I have two emerging market funds with the American Funds Group. One is their New World Fund (NEWFX) which I have owned for better than ten years. The other fund of theirs that I own is their Developing World Growth & Income Fund (DWGAX). I recently purchased my first buy step (of four) in this fund and I plan to continue to add to it through a postion cost average approach until I have the position fully built.
I have other funds that I own that have some exposure to emerging markets; but, these are the two funds that I own that are considered to be emerging market specific.
Also, I found an interesting article written about emerging market funds that might be of some interest. It is linked below for easy reference..
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/740785/5-top-emergingmarkets-funds-that-look-beyond-emerg.html

Here's the full paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3075023
My take from the ETFStream summary is that, to answer @hank 's question, volatility is reduced by rebalancing. This comes from the statement that the Sharpe ratios for rebalanced portfolios was superior (i.e. smaller denominators [standard deviations], assuming the returns were similar).
The paper (again, inferring from the summary) is that this applied only to a portfolio with no flows in or out (or at least no flows out). I'm curious about the impact of rebalancing on one's spend down phase. To put it another way, does rebalancing increase or mitigate sequence of return risk?

“While the buy-and-hold strategy has a greater standard deviation of ending wealth than the rebalancing strategy, ... “
I’d suggest “end wealth” would be clearer in above statement. :)
Anyone catch whether the rebalancing strategy provides a more stable (less volatile) ride? That’s been the assumption I’ve operated under in the “post-50” years. But it may well be a faulty assumption.
Total return has always been secondary to me compared to the “sleep well” component which in turn promotes a “stay-invested” attitude, compared with a more volatile ride from which many decide to jump at the worst possible times.

FYI: The ETF industry is defined by only two consensuses. One: to index is better. Two: to rebalance is better.
And to that end, portfolio rebalancing is recommended by virtually every ETF provider, advisor and planner. According to Vanguard, rebalancing can provide 35 basis points of alpha a year. BlackRock rebalances its model portfolios every quarter. While most planners and advisors actively militate for rebalancing.
But does rebalancing add value for investors? Perhaps not, an important new research paper has found.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etfstream.com/news/6074_new-research-casts-doubt-on-benefits-of-rebalancing

FYI: Remember that the best hitter in baseball this year will fail 65 percent of the time.
— George Will
Mookie Betts hit .346 in 2018, failing 65.4% of the time. Mr. Betts reached base more often than his batting average indicates due to walks. His on base percentage (OBP), was .438, decreasing his failure rate to about 56%. Stocks, in the long run, have a similar failure rate.
Recent research from Hendrik Bessembinder of Arizona State¹ shows that from 1926 to 2016 just 42.6% of stocks provided lifetime returns that beat one month treasury bills. Fifty seven percent of stocks destroyed value over that ninety year span. If such a low percentage of stocks outstripped the return of a t-bill, how is it that stocks provided an 8.5% return over t-bills from 1926 to 2015? Back to baseball.
Regards,
Ted
https://globalinvestmentstrategy.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/baseball-and-stocks-games-of-failure/

Three month Treasury auction is projected to yield 2.37%. I'm not convinced it's worth going out another 15 months to pick up 1/8 of a percent. (Certainly not in a taxable account if you're in a state with even a 5% income tax.)
Really flattening yield curve now.

Hi @MikeM: I am much like you in using cash alts such as money market mutual funds plus I have built a nice CD ladder within my investment cash sleeve. I have a 1.55% cd maturing in a couple weeks; and, I plan to roll most of it into another 18 month cd with a yield of around 2.5% to 2.6%. However, I most likely will cut some out of it and put this money into an income generating mutal fund held within one of my income sleeves. Funds I'm considering are PONAX with a yield of 5.23% or PMAIX with a yield of 5.82%. I'm thinking of shifting some more money that was targeted to the cash area of my portfolio into the income area. For me, all bond funds are part of my income area.

You're looking at performance for Jan 29th, and on that day, VFINX dropped 0.14%.
Edit: The D&C own website says:

Daily Prices
as of  January 29, 2019 	  	Price 	  	Change from Previous Day 	  	
Stock Fund 	  	               $185.02 	  	+$.12 	  	
Global Stock Fund 	  	       $11.81 	  	+$.02 	  	
International Stock Fund 	  	$39.56 	  	+$.16 	  	
Balanced Fund 	  	                $97.86 	  	+$.08 	  	
Income Fund 	  	                $13.41 	  	+$.03 	  	
Global Bond Fund 	  	        $10.45 	  	+$.01 	  	

Read the full analyses. The current one (almost a year old) has the summary line: "This remains one of the more independent-minded, idiosyncratic funds around, but this hasn't led to outperformance in recent decades."
Let that sink in. Hasn't outperformed in recent decades. Now look back at the analyst report not decades ago, but merely three years before current one was written. That one gave the fund a Silver rating.
What changed? The fund had a really bad past three years. But it was with the same people, who had been there, as M* noted, for decades. So why downgrade the people? M* says it's because they had a couple of high conviction misses. That goes to performance, or is M* saying that people it loved suddenly became more stupid?
M* also downgraded the performance pillar. That would be perfectly reasonable if this were a rating of past performance. But it's a judgment of how M* expects the performance to be in the future. So is M* admitting that after praising the people and the fund for years (it started giving out analyst ratings in 2011 with Gold for this fund), it completely missed the boat and is now just projecting more of the same?

https://money.usnews.com/investing/investing-101/articles/best-cash-equivalents-amid-rate-hikes
Consider these liquid assets for your portfolio.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/806636/000119312519022093/d678081d497.htm
497 1 d678081d497.htm 497
LONGLEAF PARTNERS FUNDS TRUST
SUPPLEMENT DATED JANUARY 30, 2019
TO PROSPECTUS DATED MAY 1, 2018
References to Longleaf Partners Fund in the Table of Contents and on page 23 of the Prospectus should now indicate the Fund is open to new investors.
LONGLEAF PARTNERS FUNDS TRUST
SUPPLEMENT DATED JANUARY 9, 2019
TO PROSPECTUS DATED MAY 1, 2018
Effective January 1, 2019, Ross Glotzbach became CEO of Southeastern Asset Management, Inc. (“Southeastern”) and a Portfolio Manager of Longleaf Partners Global Fund. The Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information should be updated accordingly. Mason Hawkins remains Chairman of Southeastern and a Portfolio Manager of all Longleaf Partners Funds.
On page 30, under Purchases and Redemption through Brokerage Firms and Other Authorized Intermediaries:
A broker may charge a commission to its customers on transactions in Fund shares, provided the broker acts solely on an agency basis for its customer and does not receive any distribution related payment in connection with the transaction.
LONGLEAF PARTNERS FUNDS TRUST
SUPPLEMENT DATED OCTOBER 1, 2018
TO PROSPECTUS DATED MAY 1, 2018
Under the Additional Investments section on page 26:
Online Transactions: Once you have opened an account, the Fund’s website, longleafpartners.com, can be used to make subsequent purchases. Choose “Account Log In” and follow the instructions. Payment for shares purchased online may be made only through an ACH debit of your bank account of record. Only bank accounts held at US financial institutions that are ACH members can be used for online transactions. Online transactions are subject to the same minimums, maximums, and investment restrictions as other transaction methods.
When you buy or sell shares over the Internet, you agree that the Longleaf Partners Funds are not liable for following instructions believed to be genuine. The Funds use certain procedures to confirm that your instructions are genuine.
Under How to Redeem Shares on page 27:
Online Transactions: Once you have opened an account, the Fund’s website, longleafpartners.com, can be used to make redemptions and exchanges. Choose “Account Log In” and follow the instructions. Redemptions will be paid only by check, wire, or ACH transfer and only to the address or bank account of record. Only bank accounts held at US financial institutions that are ACH members can be used for online transactions. Online transactions are subject to the same minimums, maximums, and investment restrictions as other transaction methods. Daily online redemptions are limited to $100,000 per Fund.
When you buy or sell shares over the Internet, you agree that the Longleaf Partners Funds are not liable for following instructions believed to be genuine. The Funds use certain procedures to confirm that your instructions are genuine.
LONGLEAF PARTNERS FUNDS®
ADVISED BY SOUTHEASTERN ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC.
6410 Poplar Avenue, Suite 900
Memphis, TN 38119

HSGFX had an uncharacteristically good 2018. For 1 year it’s ahead 7.5%. However, it’s lost in excess of 5% yearly over the past decade. For holders of this fund I’d suggest forgetting about drinking scotch and instead buying a bottle of Old Crow for around $8.99.
I agree these types of funds are prone to poor returns if for no other reason than their typically high fees. But it should be noted that almost by definition an “alternative” investment is expected to perform contrary to equity and bond markets (ie: go up when they go down). Since bonds and equities had a stellar decade, underperformance of alternatives was expected.

Hard to know what to say here. I don't find these arguments especially compelling.
I mean, yes, we know AI is here and it's going to take over the world. I don't see AI customization creating 150mm separate portfolios for 150mm separate retail investors, but maybe I'm missing the author's point.
Financial advisors are already using "really, really, really smart" software to make allocations for clients.
Now, whether or not all fund companies go AI, is another matter...is TROW or Fidelity, for example, going to largely do away with its human analysts in 10 years or so?

FYI: In the next few years, the entire rationale for investing via funds will dissolve. Advances in technology have transformed industry cost structures. Absent the need to pool assets for volume discounts, advisers and relationship managers can skip the one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter vehicles. Instead, financial advisers will use software to truly customize portfolios, resulting in a more engaged and loyal client base.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=1mdQXPjrJ5e9jwTp9KfgDA&q=Death+Of+The+Fund+&+What+Comes+Next+&btnK=Google+Search&oq=Death+Of+The+Fund+&+What+Comes+Next+&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30.3480.8036..9172...0.0..1.164.1760.14j5......0....2j1..gws-wiz.....0..33i299j33i160.Ors8USFYOpk

@Bobpa: My portfolio was built over many years of investing. From an all equity income fund perspective I have two sleeves that are geared towards equity income genertion with these funds being found in the growth & income area of my portfolio.
The first sleeve is my domestic equity g&i sleeve and holds the following funds with their ttm yield in (y%). The funds held in this sleeve are ANCFX (1.74%) ... FDSAX (3.03%) ... INUTX (3.46%) ... and SVAAX (3.93%). This sleeve as a whole generates a yield of 3.26%. Include fund capital gain distributions and the income generated is much greater and has averaged above 5%. The three year total return on this sleeve is 8.7%.
The second sleeve is my global equity g&i sleeve and holds the following funds with thier ttm yield in (y). The funds held in this sleeve are CWGIX (2.33%) ... DEQAX (2.55%) ... DWGAX (2.28%) ... and, EADIX (3.95%). This sleeve as a whole generates a yield of 2.77%. Include fund capital gains distributions and the income generation is much greater and has averaged above 5%. The three year total return on this sleeve is 7.1%
I have other sleeves that are also geared towards income generation within my portfolio; but, these are the two sleeves that consists of all equity mutual funds.
In doing a Google search on the subject I came up with the below linked article.
https://investorplace.com/2018/02/10-best-dividend-funds-to-buy-now/
Old_Skeet

"Case in point" this is not. The S&P indexes, as I've written before, are the exception, not the rule.
I wrote about (and linked to a column about) the S&P Index Committee where at the end of the dot com boom, it made a misplaced bet on "new economy" stocks. Even the S&P Index Committee acknowledges that its so called indexes are actively managed, by entitling a piece "Inside the S&P 500: An Active Committee".
In a traditional sense (and the one used in the S&P writing) an index is supposed to measure the market, i.e. provide "an accurate picture of the stock market". Yet that paper seems to offer as its rationale for making rule-breaking changes that an objective is to stabilize the market. Maybe that's a different objective from beating the market, but it's still an objective different from measuring the market. Either way, these "indexes" are by intent not providing accurate pictures of the stock market.
The argument that the committee acts to stabilize the market is a curious one to make. It undercuts the thesis that we don't have to worry about too many people investing in indexes (yet) because they don't impact price discovery in a significant way.
In the Barron's piece, Rob Arnott says that discretionary changes to indexes typically underperform the market. M*'s Ben Johnson is quoted as saying "This is what you sign[] up for" when you invest in an index. But you don't have to sign up for discretionary changes. You can pick an index that is rule-based.

FYI: Index funds are supposed to be immune to the hustle and bustle of buying high and selling low that is usually thought of as the typical active managers’ missteps. That’s not quite true, though.
Case in point: S&P Dow Jones Indices booted PG&E (ticker: PCG) stock from a couple of its indexes last week, just days following the California utility’s announcement that it would file for bankruptcy protection at the end of the month caused the stock to sink to $6. However, PG&E stock jumped more than 70% on Jan. 24, when the utility was found not liable for the Tubbs fire in October 2017.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/pg-e-stock-proves-your-index-fund-isnt-that-passive-51548680401?refsec=funds
M* PCG Ownership: (Click On Ownership)
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnys/pcg/quote.html

@tmadell: Dr. Madell, thank you for writting such a fine newsletter. I would encourge you to publish a newsletter model asset allocation (conserative, moderate and agressive) along with perhaps one for income generation with their anticipated returns. I'm thinking some investors might find this of interest. At one time I ran a 70/20/10 (stock/bond/cash) allocation while I was in the building phase of my portfolio. Holding some cash offered me the opportunity to buy pullbacks and/or engage some spiffs (special investment positions) form time-to-time. Then as I approached retirement I began to reduce my stock allocation and began to hold more bonds and cash. Recently, I have switched towads an all weather (20% cash/40% bonds/40% stock) asset allocation model. I'm not quite there yet but well on my way. I'm thinking that this all weather model will provide me ample cash, ample income and ample growth to offset inflation plus a little more. By my math I'm thinking my all weather model should generate an average annual return of somewhere between 4.5% to 6%, on average, possibly a little more, at times. With these anticipated returns I should be able to withdraw up to 4% annually and still maintain and perhaps even grow my principal. Currently, my withdrawal philosophy is to take no more than one half of what my five year average rolling returns have been. In this way, I have over the past five years, since I retired, been able to grow my principal while providing a reliable and steady income stream. Currently, my portfolio yields about 3.4% plus any capital gain distributions and when combined have averaged better than a 5% income stream.
Perhaps, my above comment concerning income generation might provide a topic to write about in an upcoming issue.
Thanks again ... Dr. Madell ... for publishing such a fine newsletter. I have enjoyed reading it.
Old_Skeet

Re: Is our entire stock market essentially dependent on the FED?
Sometimes it feels that way. But only if you’re very short sighted. The Fed can sometimes precipitate or delay the onset of recession (and the accompanying market losses) through monetary policy. But, over a decade or longer their influence from setting overnight lending rates is much less. Who knows why stocks do what they do day-to-day? Expectations of future Fed policy enter the picture, but IMHO, are but one ingredient.
Some well known market observers have been making the case that the enormous monetary stimulus created after the 2007-09 recession by central banks around the globe has caused an unsustainable asset bubble which must deflate one of these days. They cite not only excessively low interest rates (0 in some countries) over that period, but also the massive bond buying campaign our Federal Reserve engaged in. The Federal Reserve is now in the process of “unwinding” stimulus by selling their bonds in the open market. That process has been ongoing since late 2017. This “unwinding” is the part of the equation often overlooked in discussions of Fed policy.
This explains the Fed’s bond buying / selling process and rationale behind it:
“If the Fed buys bonds in the open market, it increases the money supply in the economy by swapping out bonds in exchange for cash to the general public. Conversely, if the Fed sells bonds, it decreases the money supply by removing cash from the economy in exchange for bonds. Therefore, OMO has a direct effect on money supply. OMO also affects interest rates because if the Fed buys bonds, prices are pushed higher and interest rates decrease; if the Fed sells bonds, it pushes prices down and rates increase.” https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/monetary-policy-recession.asp
Added: Since posting I have become aware of an article in Friday’s WSJ suggesting that the Fed is considering halting their bond selling earlier than planned. No doubt, some of Friday’s market rally was related to the story.
WSJ: "Federal Reserve officials are close to deciding they will maintain a larger portfolio of Treasury securities, putting an end to its portfolio wind-down closer into sight."
You may need to get around a paywall or find a summery of story elsewhere to read beyond the headline. https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-officials-weigh-earlier-than-expected-end-to-bond-portfolio-runoff-11548412201