December 13th Show:

@Simon makes an excellent point about how single years can skew figures. Regarding 2009, it would likely be more informative to include both 2008 and 2009 or neither. Volatile funds tended to crash harder in 2008 and surge higher in 2009 than other funds. These effects may have somewhat balanced themselves out.
Another year to watch out for with respect to this fund is 2019. YTD it is beating its category by 25%, even more than the 23% by which it bested its category in 2009. And because 2019 is the current year, this one year of superb performance skews not only the 10 year performance figure, but the five, three, and one year figures as well.
The growth of $10K to $101,253 (a total return of $91,253) is not the growth over 10 years, but the growth over nearly 11 years. Don't let M*'s new pages confuse you into thinking that they're presenting standardized figures.
The growth over the past ten years is shown on this M* chart. $10K grew to $58,483. This chart shows that FSELX left its peers in the dust, even excluding all but 18 days (and fewer trading days) of 2009.
The "new" M* performance page reports a 19.32% annualized 10 year rate of return as of Dec 13. That means that $10K grew to $10K x (1+ 19.32%) ^ 10 = $58,497. Give or take rounding, that's the same result as shown in the 10 year chart.
Here's the chart for the fund for the two years 2008 and 2009. It shows that FSELX crashed and burned relative to its peers, let alone the S&P 500, but it also recovered faster and higher than its peers and the S&P 500. All curves are U shaped, with this fund looking rather impressive, at least for those with strong stomachs.

One of mine - PRWAX - down 6.3% Friday ex-div. Pays est $3.85 on Monday, $3.63 of which is CG.
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=PRWAX&p=D&b=5&g=0&id=p74874272899

Going....going....almost gone.
On the main "Quote" page of every fund covered by Morningstar is a chart showing the growth of $10,000 over the last 10 years (for funds that are 10 years or older). In 18 days the return figure for 2009 will disappear. For many funds, especially in the technology and growth sectors, this will make an enormous difference to their headline 10 year total return.
For example, FSELX returned an astonishing 85% in 2009. Yet in the decade since it has frequently lagged its category. Its standout performance in 2009 clearly contributed massively to its 10 year total return of almost $102,000.
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/fselx/quote
Personally, I'll be glad to see the figures for 2009 disappear. They have distorted the performance of many, if not most, mutual funds and ETFs. Hopefully, a more accurate picture will emerge from 2020 onward.
Wishing everyone here a very happy holiday season.

Thanks for the warning re PRWCX. BTW - OAKBX paid out yesterday. While I no longer own it, still track it.
It’s not hard to spot the pastry after-the-fact. When a fund falls 5-6% in one day, that’s a good clue.

Those who've been here long enough to recall Fund Alarm will recall this turn of a phrase. Some of my own funds are paying today. PRWCX and PRDSX are among them:
PRWCX $1.82/share
PRDSX $1.635/share.
(You gonna eat that bear claw?)

Everybody makes some excellent points. There are two different ways of looking at allocation that might be muddling the messages here. If “allocating” between taxable and tax-sheltered accounts (like IRAs) than it makes sense to keep income generating assets in the tax-sheltered vehicles, as income is normally taxed at higher rates than long term cap gains.
What I have difficulty understanding sometimes is: within a total portfolio why it’s necessary to differentiate between the income producing assets and the rest? As @bee points out, what you really care about is total return. Now, albeit, income producing assets might possibly help smooth out the ride - making total return less volatile and more predictible on a yearly basis. But that really gets us into the second way of viewing allocation - as a way to reduce risk and volatility. So, while I now devote 25% of my IRA to two income producing funds (RPSIX, DODLX), it’s done strictly out of a desire to lower the downside risk and achieve more stable year-year total returns. That they churn out income isn’t what’s appealing to me. It’s the lower volatility and the fact that bonds often “zig” when equities and other asset classes “zag.”
To each his own. If your method works for you, that’s what’s important.

@MikeM - I'm having trouble following your reasoning. First off, many of the REIT investors I know of are not consumed by TR nor do they view it as the 'be all to end all'. It's always nice if they get it but they're more interested in the income stream REIT's provide. Buying REIT's when they've been beaten up can be rewarding (however now is not that time). Bonds and bond funds are also capable of gyrations.
Second, I don't understand this statement you made at all "... but buying them for their income distribution inside a tax deferred account doesn't have much meaning." The REIT's I own are all stuffed in a Roth IRA precisely to avoid income taxes on the distributions generated. I can also sell them free of capital gains taxes when prudent. What am I missing? According to M* buying REIT's in tax deferred accounts is the best place for them.
I meant to add this section from Bees' earlier linked capital gains distribution article:
"Consider Asset Location
Ultimately, an investor's best weapon against unwanted taxable income or capital gains distributions is to pay attention to which assets you hold in tax-deferred accounts (such as 401(k)s and IRAs) versus taxable accounts (such as brokerage accounts). Certain types of investments tend to be less tax-efficient because they are more likely to pay out taxable income or gains than others. These include high-turnover actively managed funds, some types of bond funds including high-yield corporate-bond funds, and REIT funds. Such holdings are a better fit inside of a tax-advantaged account such as a 401(k), IRA, HSA, 529, and the like. By contrast, municipal-bond funds as well as many index funds and ETFs can be good choices for taxable accounts."

I have owned the Fidelity Real Estate Income Fund (FRINX) for about seven years with it being a member of my hybrid income sleeve. Thus far my total return in the fund has averaged a little better than 9% per year with an income yield of a litte better than 4%. With this, I've had some capital appreciation in this position during my seven year holding period as well as the production of income in the form of dividends and capital gain distributions pusing my income distribution yield upwards and north of 5%.
According to Xray this fund's asset allocation is listed at 7% cash, 30% US stocks, 1% foreign stocks, 38% bonds and 8% other (most likely convertibles and preferreds). I'm thinking that the referenced stocks are actually reits. As I write, according to M*, it is off its 52 week high by 1.42%.
In checking this fund at MFO it carries a MFO rating of 5 (best), a risk rating of 2 (conserative) and a bear market rating of 1 (best).
For me, this is a nice income generating fund and one that I plan to add to my position over time as I grow the income area of my portfolio.

I’ve got about 7.5% of my IRA invested in Fidelity’s real estate income fund, FRIFX, and consider it part of my bond/income allocation. Its yield and long term returns are comparable to some of the better high yield bond funds. What I like about is that its returns often differ from both bond and stock funds, so it’s an excellent diversifier for a portfolio. It held up much better in the 2008-09 crash than regular REIT funds.

what he said --- me too, and am going to increase

any thoughts on why some REIT's have performed so poorly this week?

The U.S. 10 Year Treasury rocketed up to 1.94% today from somewhere around 1.8% yesterday. That’s a huge one day rise. Earlier in the year it dipped briefly below 1.5%. Bonds (and REITS) tend to move in opposite direction to interest rates. To answer your question - REITS have probably been reacting to the steepening rates for a while. The REIT I sold off a month or so ago (OREAX) fell 1.64% today. I still track it and find it a pretty good bellwether for the REIT market. Generally, the 10-year bond yield has considerable impact on mortgage rates going forward.
The steep bump up in rates was obvious across the spectrum of investments today. Bonds (and many bond funds) fell. Financial stocks rose sharply. Looks like utilities fell back a bit - another area that runs with bonds - and opposite interest rates.

I’ve got about 7.5% of my IRA invested in Fidelity’s real estate income fund, FRIFX, and consider it part of my bond/income allocation. Its yield and long term returns are comparable to some of the better high yield bond funds. What I like about is that its returns often differ from both bond and stock funds, so it’s an excellent diversifier for a portfolio. It held up much better in the 2008-09 crash than regular REIT funds.

If you open and read this, there is an image of the guy that wrote this blog and he looks like he may have been about 15 years old when REITS crashed in 2007-2009, so I don't think he understands the pain REIT investors felt at that time. I don't know how he can make this summary statement below. If I look at the Vanguard ETF for REITS, VNQ, it lost 70%+ peak to trough during the great recession. Would that be considered a bond alternative with less risk for retirees?

REITs are a viable alternative to retirees and other income investors who desire greater income without having to take significantly more risk.

Often it seems like pure laziness and indifference to one's shareholders to me, but sometimes it's because managers will post quarterly or even monthly commentaries on their web sites instead of in the semiannual report. There is also less frequently I think a case where some managers are super-paranoid about saying anything publicly to shareholders for legal reasons. For instance, here you can find monthly commentaries from Invesco and Oppenheimer posted on their web site: https://invesco.com/us/literature?NavItem=Mutual%20Funds&activeItem=f2a435e8-f3a8-4105-9414-0aabe8658a1c

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4310950-retirement-why-reits-are-good-bond-replacements
Retirement: Why REITs Are Good Bond Replacements
Summary
Historically low – and even negative – interest rates are making it harder than ever to retire.
REITs are a viable alternative to retirees and other income investors who desire greater income without having to take significantly more risk.
Our method enables us to earn high and stable income from real asset backed investments.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/stock-market-news-december-12-2019-131542591.html
Stocks surge to record highs after Trump says US, China 'getting very close' to big trade deal
President Trump's tweet turned the stock market around

Some recent Shows:
Part 1:

Part 2:

Hello
Placed a new position for vanguard life-cycle 2040 fund and safeway bonds [cusip 786514BA6] YTM 6.6% today....

Around 12/30/19 per this link:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/924727/000110465919067277/a19-16887_6485bxt.htm
Was previously 11/30/19.

" And we know what happened to the ACA"
I wonder. Every time I look at provisions of the ACA, I go, oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that. For example, the tax on insurers. No one knows what's going on with that:

The health insurance tax was in effect from 2014 through 2016. Congress approved a one-year moratorium for 2017, and the tax resumed in 2018 at a cost of about $14.3 billion. Congress suspended the tax once again in 2019. If not further delayed, it will be collected again beginning in 2020.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190910.985809/full/
Regarding who owns munis: Munis were never great investments for much of the middle class. Most of the time, if you were below the 31% tax bracket, you'd have been better off investing in taxable bonds. This is reflected in the statistic that even 30 years ago (1989) fewer than 1 in 20 owned munis.
Rational middle class investors have been getting pushed further out of munis for a long time. Obama made the Bush tax cuts permanent for the middle and lower classes, making munis less attractive. Then the GOP moved even more middle class taxpayers into a 24% or below tax bracket (ordinary taxable income below $160K [single] / $321K [MFJ]).
One can't have it both ways - advocating lower middle class marginal rates and simultaneously bemoaning the fact that munis consequently become less attractive. So long as taxpayers in the highest brackets keep buying munis, states will continue to be able to borrow at lower rates and fund needed work on century-old infrastructure systems.

pipes can range from 15 to 100 years old depending on conditions, although some older northeastern cities operate with pipes that are 200 years old.

America's Aging Water Infrastructure