FYI: (The Linkster says, "never get your honey where you make your money.")
The head of portfolio risk management at Pimco, Bill De Leon, resigned Friday following a week-long internal investigation into his alleged behavior at a charity event in May 2017, according to a published eport
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=eitXW-kty6yPBPT8vYgC&q=Pimco+top+portfolio+risk+manager+gone+after+investigation+into+inappropriate+touching&btnK=Google+Search&oq=Pimco+top+portfolio+risk+manager+gone+after+investigation+into+inappropriate+touching&gs_l=psy-ab.3...4190.4190..6161...0.0...59.116.2......0....1j2..gws-wiz.....0.AACeak-fThg

Since, the stock market now sits towards all time highs perhaps some other retail investors that went through the Great Recession will comment on how they tranversed it. I am sure there were more ways than just one to do this with good success. A point of infomation about my above post. I did very little selling in my mine and my wife's IRAs and they recovered just fine although I did go towards a more aggressive equity asset allocation in them as the market began to recover. Note, we were not taking distributions from the IRAs when the Great Recession came upon us; but we were taking from the inheritance account to improve our standard of living. My answer now being in retirement is to hold more cash and take no more than one half of what my five year average total return is in my portfolio and to reduce spending during periods of market declines. In this way my portfolio grows over time so when a good market dip or swoon does come and the portfolio loses value my valuation drop want sting as bad as it otherwise would had I not grown its valuation. I'd sincerely be interested in learning what other retail investors did (within their own portfolio) to navigate their way through the Great Recession. Perhaps, we will hear from some that were taking distributions during this period and some that were within a few years of retirement as I was. With my current asset allocation I figure I can weather a 25% decline in the equity markets pretty well and have a portfolio decline of about eight to twelve percent perhaps no more than fifteen. Interestingly, this seems to be the amount of cash I currently hold (15%). Again, I'd reduce withdrawals along with spending. RMD's could if necessary get reinvested in mine and my wife's joint taxable account. My current withdrawal rate is about 2% of all the portfolios combined investment value. The portfolios generate income at about 3% plus any capital gain income distribution when combined bumps the total income yield upwards toward the 4% to 5% range. Again, an interestingly, I am holding about three to four years of portfolio income generation in cash.

@BrianW,
Thanks for your question as to how I transversed the market swoon during the "Great Recession."
Without going into great detail; but, explaing what I did and why. My parents passed in 2004 so I got step ups on the assets I received from their estates. When 2008 came and the market began to pull back I was at about 70% equity at the time and I sold down when a position developed a 10% loss and continued to do so until I was about 40% equity. Since, a good bit of my investment wealth was in a taxable account this put a sizeable loss on my books. Also, I was at about 40% equity when the S&P 500 turnned upward at the "Devil's Number 666" and sitting on a wad of cash. As the market turned up I began to average back in asset classes that had the faster moving currents. Having a sizeable loss on my books I was able to reposition from time-to-time booking profit and using the losses to cover my gains. I was able to do this for a good number of years and getting my portfolios position pretty much like I wanted them. In time, I started reducing equity and again selling down equities as the markets continued to advance keeping my asset allocation in mind. In addition, I made some nondeductable contributions to mine and my wifes IRAs. Today, these nonductable contributions help as we take RMDs as they are not fully taxable due to the nondeductable contributions made. My accountant deals with this.
Currently, in retirement, my family's portfolios combined bubble at about 15% cash, 35% domestic equity, 15% foreign equity, 25% fixed (bonds) and the rest in other assets such as convertibles, perferreds, commodities, etc. For what it may be worth I consider this to be an all weather asset allocation. In the past several years I have not done the buying and selling (repositioning) that I once did as I have fully used the losses. However, I still do some selling to harvest some of the gains over time but keeping joint income (husband and wife) back of the threshold for higher medicare premium assesments.
There you have it ...
Old_Skeet

davidrmoran's link is to an excellent article by the relatively* conservative writer Robert J. Samuelson, and very much worth a read.
I came close to posting it yesterday myself, but because of the detail of the article I didn't feel that I could post a reasonable summary of excerpts, as I prefer to do.
The article details exactly why a return to "the rapid growth of the early post-World War II decades, when from 1950 to 1973 the economy grew at an average annual rate of 4 percent" isn't going to happen again.
* (weasel word inserted to hopefully satisfy david) :)

FYI: U.S. stocks rose on Monday as a jump in 10-year bond yields to a month’s high boosted financials and technology stocks rebounded, with investors waiting for earnings from marquee corporations to assess the impact of an escalating U.S.-China trade row. The Dow finished lower down .05%.
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-22/asia-stocks-face-mixed-start-dollar-holds-loss-markets-wrap
Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/wall-street-rises-as-financials-gain-tech-rebounds-idUSKBN1KD1HG
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/stocks-reverse-higher-alphabet-rallies-earnings/
MarketWatch:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-poised-for-sluggish-start-with-tesla-set-to-ding-tech-stocks-2018-07-23/print
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/23/us-stock-index-futures-political-turmoil-bubbles-away-earnings-loom.html
Bonds:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/23/us-bonds-and-fixed-income-auctions-and-economic-data-in-focus.html
Currencies:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/23/dollar-moves-in-focus-after-trumps-currency-comments.html
Oil:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/23/oil-markets-g20-warns-of-risks-to-growth.html
Gold:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/23/gold-markets-us-dollar-moves-in-focus-after-trump-comments.html
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
SPDR's Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
Current Futures: Positive
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

"Angie O’Leary is the head of wealth planning at RBC Wealth Management, U.S."
OMG.
O'Leary: "he rule uses a portfolio assumption of 60% stocks and 40% bonds."
Bengen (actual paper): "portfolios consisting of 50-percent intermediate-term Treasury notes and 50-percent common stocks (an arbitrary asset allocation chosen for purposes of illustration)"
---
O'Leary: "would create a paycheck that lasted for 30 years"
Bengen: "In no past case has it caused a portfolio to be exhausted before 33 years"
(from this Bengen concluded that if all you needed was 30 years, 4% would work)
---
O'Leary: " modern times require a more dynamic approach to the 4% rule"
Bengen (not so modern times, I guess): "Let us consider first the case where there is a change in the client's goals. ..."
---
O'Leary: "Now ..., experts recognize that this simple rule of thumb needs some modernization. "
Just now? The "rule" has been analyzed, critiqued, modified, qualified, etc. since the day it was published. For solid, substantial yet reasonably readable and moderately short "modernization", from six years ago, here's
Vanguard, Revisiting the ‘4% spending rule’    https://www.vanguard.com/pdf/s325.pdf
O'Leary expresses concern that "Historical [nominal] bond returns for this period were close to 5%, well below what can be expected today." Vanguard somewhat dismisses this concern:

Vanguard believes it’s important for investors to consider real-return expectations when constructing portfolios, since today’s low stock dividend yields and U.S. Treasury bond yields are, in part, associated with lower expected inflation today than 20 or 30 years ago. [Vanguard projects a 50/50 portfolio to be in the 3.0%-4.5% real-return range]. Although this level is moderately below the actual average real return of 5.0% for the same portfolio since 1926, it potentially offers support for the continued feasibility of a 4% inflation-adjusted withdrawal program as a starting point.

While I'm not as confident as Vanguard, their point is well taken - just because nominal returns are not expected to be as high as in the past doesn't mean that real returns won't be in the same ballpark.
O'Leary isn't providing information, just bullet points, points which experts are not "now" recognizing, but have been looking at for decades.
Here's Bengen's original paper, published in the Journal of Financial Planning, not written as piece for Marketwatch:
http://www.retailinvestor.org/pdf/Bengen1.pdf

Short term interest rates are rising on one hand while the corporate debts are at all time high due to the easy money policies.
Recent Barron article from Charles de Vaulx of IVA Worldwide fund mentioned the overpricing of corporate and high yield bonds. He is well respected as a consistent and risk adverse money manager. Click on the first link to the article.
https://google.com/search?client=safari&channel=mac_bm&source=hp&ei=Gt1VW8jYK4ipjwTunouICA&q=A+Stockpicker+Gets+Ready+for+a+Time+to+Buy&oq=A+Stockpicker+Gets+Ready+for+a+Time+to+Buy&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1665.1665.0.2799.1.1.0.0.0.0.169.169.0j1.1.0....0...1c.2.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.w-o3vRXHFzc

and culture wars aside, there's always economic nostalgia:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/these-3-advantages-once-ensured-us-prosperity-theyre-not-coming-back/2018/07/22/835b4102-8c49-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html

Interesting about SP500.
Here is an area of concern, maybe:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/business/derivatives-banks-regulation-dodd-frank.html

Sigh. The glue is resentment and rage against change and perceived loss, less econ than status, though it's risky to generalize. Many are the inputs. Skin color and land of origin are two of them, sure. But only two. Everyone has left out women's liberation. Maybe you are in violent agreement but not understanding it or something?
The relaxed openness of educated boomers 50y ago was in opposition to that then, and today much of it is same old same old.
How have you possibly read anything I have posted as denial of maga concerns?
Before summer 1969 it was adjudged quaint, hippies in SanFran, love summer, but then the two political murders by loner racist and loner wannabe Mideast terrorist type (or was it anti-terrorist), surrounded by police killings of black students.
Then aha came troops shooting white college kids for no good reason, in my home state, and we were finally on our own, as Neil Young put it.
Kent State was the starting gun, so to speak, for Trump.
Payback for the Woodstock spirit and vibe and values and openness / tolerance, ongoing to today, with a huge increase the last 20y. Of course hair and rock spread and were adopted / adapted. They are not the point.
My take.
You don't have to agree, man, although you report you were there, working politically and socially.

A current article in The Wall Street Journal is reporting that "Profits and prices are threatened as record amounts of red meat and poultry fill U.S. warehouses".
"U.S. consumers’ appetite for meat is growing, but not fast enough to keep up with record production of hogs and chickens. That leaves the U.S. meat industry increasingly reliant on exports, but Mexico and China—among the largest foreign buyers of U.S. meat—have both set tariffs on U.S. pork products in response to U.S. tariffs on steel, aluminum and other goods. U.S. hams, chops and livers have become sharply more expensive in those markets, which is starting to slow sales, industry officials said."
(Emphasis added.)
Note: if anyone can suggest causative factors here other than the direct actions of the Dear Leader please so advise.

I honestly don't bet that any Trumpy MAGA types today would identify with the Woodstock crowd, though. I just re-watched "The Big Chill." AGAIN, I watched it. I'm way past memorizing the whole thing. Marvelous film. Hippie generation friends reunite for the funeral of one of them who died. I don't want to include any spoilers here. I think, though, that the script was inspired, like the frikkin' bible! grin and giggle..... The characters all had to deal, alone and collectively, with the LOSS of the utopian idealism from the Woodstock days. And as singer Dan Bern expressed it, we "settled for making a little money." Free love is taken for granted now. And weed. But I don't think that's any "great shakes." Hardly profound...... My impression is that the Trumpster-ites feel much more at home in a conservative, maybe bourgeois, consumerist, capitalist, flag-waving world which worships the dollar and wears US citizenship as a badge of honor---as if most of them actually selected it. Hard work as a measure of one's value. And if your hard work doesn't improve your lot--- what's WRONG with you, then? And we SURE don't want to be extending Southern Baptist traditions like GENEROSITY and TOLERANCE!" (Reference Lewis Braham's citation of the South. Baps, above.)
At the gym last week, a fellow who happens to be black was starting-up a conversation with me, complaining about so many speaking Spanish. I replied: "As long as the US is going to OWN an island where they speak Spanish, then ya really have to admit that Spanish is going to be heard a lot, all around." His retort was that they ought to restrict it to P.R.
Jesus. Really? I was glad I was ready to go, and I did. Later, I had to ask myself whether this black man might be one who did indeed vote for the Trump monster, against his own best interests.... I will never know.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085244/?ref_=nv_sr_1

A current article in The Wall Street Journal is reporting that "Many bonds around the globe are becoming harder to trade, prompting some investors to shift to other markets and raising concerns about a broad decline in liquidity."
"Liquidity, a measure of the capacity to trade securities without significantly affecting the price, has been a growing concern since the financial crisis. Traders say it has generally weakened across markets including stocks, bonds and commodities as the large banks that once kept these markets running have pulled back in response to limits on their risk-taking.
Recent episodes of extreme market stress in Italy and emerging markets have highlighted just how quickly trading conditions can deteriorate, exacerbating concerns that markets are becoming more vulnerable to a shock as central banks slow the stimulus they have supplied for a decade."

@LewisBraham. Ironically LBJ signed the Voting rights Act of 1965.

FYI: Money-market fund returns and other cash equivalents haven’t looked this attractive since before the global financial crisis.
That has some investors rediscovering the once popular destination for parking money during times of uncertainty, especially now with equities flirting with record highs and the Federal Reserve committed to raising short-term interest rates even more. No greater authority than BlackRock Inc.’s Larry Fink pointed out during a Bloomberg Television interview that cash equivalents are an attractive place to camp out.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/-old-guys-in-florida--likely-to-ponder-if-cash-is-still-trash-39853.html?print

Inflow into BBJP seems to be some what related to BBJP's lower fees (ER 0.19%). EWJ (higher fees) had outflows of .5B. Must be other Japan ETFs that also have seen outflows due to BBJP lower fees. Fees matter.
That said, I own HPJSX (ER 1.61%)...what's my problem? Performance matter more:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/weve-got-3-years-bull-market-theres-catch-103019752.html
Enjoy this weekend read.
Derf

From the prospectus link above:
(1) ‘‘Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses’’ are the indirect costs of investing in other investment companies. The operating expenses in this fee table will not correlate to the expense ratio in the Fund’s financial highlights because the financial statements include only the direct operating expenses incurred by the Fund.
(2) The Fund’s Advisor, Shelton Capital Management, has contractually agreed to reimburse expenses incurred by the Fund to the extent that total annual fund operating expenses (excluding acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses such as litigation or merger and reorganization expenses, for example) exceed 1.25% and 1.50% until May 1, 2019. This agreement may only be terminated with the approval of the Board of Trustees of the Fund. Shelton may be reimbursed for any foregone advisory fees or unreimbursed expenses within three fiscal years following a particular reduction or expense, but only to the extent the reimbursement does not cause the Fund to exceed applicable expense limits, and the effect of the reimbursement is measured after all ordinary operating expenses are calculated. Any such reimbursement is subject to the review and approval of the Fund’s Board of Trustees.

Vanguard's VWIGX seems to out shine Vanguard's VTIAX:

@crash
The quote taken out of context is misleading as it only refers to short term munis. The article says that investors in the 15% tax bracket would benefit from long term munis.