BRUFX was up. Also, PTIAX. I'm mostly bonds, but still own stock funds. Everything else was DOWN. Strange, but it happens. My total portf. was down by -0.1%.

Schwab shows that following:
DJIA
27,739.73 +46.85 (+0.17%)
NASDAQ
11,264.95 +118.49 (+1.06%)
S&P 500
3,385.51 +10.66 (+0.32%)
Russell 2000
1,564.30 -7.77 (-0.49%
My account resulted in(-.4%)
This isn't the first time being negative after an up day. I was wondering if other MFOers have the same results in their accounts from time to time ?
Looking for a better Friday close , Derf

Hi guys,
Politics aside.
As of market close today ... Old_Skeet's market barometer which follows the S&P 500 Index has experienced a softening in some of its feeds over the past few days. Enough for me to make this post. If you are short of cash within your portfolio and wish to position for a possible market dip of pull back then ... I'm thinking ... now might be a good time to raise some cash. No gurantees; but, I see the possibilty of a storm brewing. How big it might become is a guess.
For me, I'm about 15/45/40 (cash, bonds, stocks) so I'm sitting tight and not doing anything since I'm already position with enough cash to open an equity spiff if felt warranted.
Have a good evening.

Yes, FSMEX opened again on April 1, 2020
1 Yr 3 Yrs 5 Yrs 10 Yrs Life
26.36% 21.42% 18.37% 19.91% 15.23%

Thanks for that. I'll keep an eye on it.

The five — Ford, Honda, BMW, Volkswagen and Volvo — sealed a binding agreement with California to follow the state’s stricter tailpipe emissions rules.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/climate/california-automakers-pollution.html
One highly placed person feels that auto makers outside of these five will “produce far less expensive cars for the consumer, while at the same time making the cars substantially SAFER.” OTOH, "Stanley Young, a spokesman for California’s Air Resources Board, said the agreement achieved “continuous annual reductions in greenhouse gas emissions while saving consumers money.”
So which is it? Should someone looking at the auto industry invest in companies that make cars that may be less expensive off the shelf, or companies that make cars with potentially lower TCO, depending on miles driven, price of gas, etc.? (I ask this as someone who has put 3500 miles on our car since purchasing it three years ago.)
One benefit of the agreement is certainty for the five companies. Usually that's something the stock market likes.

“This represents consistency from a policy point of view,” said Bob Holycross, vice president for sustainability, environment and safety engineering with Ford.
“Whether it is from one political party to another or the changes from elections or what the makeup of Congress is, we have to have regulatory certainty beyond just political cycles governing the investments we make,” he said.

Thank you for your reply, msf, especially the information on the Africa ETF and the excellent references on PFICs.
I won't be circumventing any restrictions on making a purchase, and will answer all eligibility-to-invest questions honestly. This will limit me to funds set up to be offered to US persons. I have been finding out that that does reduce what is available to me substantially. Many funds have separate structures set up for selling to US and non-US persons, and some just don't sell to US persons at all, probably because of the draconian reporting requirements, which the IRS has managed to push non-US companies into complying with.
The language in the Sturgeon disclaimer is unclear, and I don't think they have that regional restriction, mostly because they know I'm in the US and they're talking with me. The disclaimer seems to say that they won't sell where selling is illegal, and they especially won't sell in the UK or US if selling is illegal there. I doubt that means to say that selling is illegal to US persons, or they wouldn't be talking with me. It's a website disclaimer, and I suspect that what it's getting at is that they can't sell on the basis of anything on the website, meaning that if I'm interested they'll send me a 100+ pages of more legalese to read before investing.
I don't think Sovereign Man (nor I for the purpose of choosing investments) cares about the historian's distinction between empire and nation state. What matters in this context is whether the US economy is sustainable for another ten to 20 years, and if it isn't, how that will affect my finances before I die. I agree that it is likely that the collapse of our economy will drag down the rest of the world. In that case, we're all cooked. But it's also possible that some other regions may be less affected, and if that happens, then one may benefit from owning something in those other regions.
I'm thinking that my new portfolio may come out looking something like:

• 17% US-based funds of US businesses (mutual/ETF)
  
• 17% Europe-based funds of Western European businesses (domiciled in Europe, denominated in euros/Swiss francs)
  
• 17% Asia-based funds of developed-market Asian businesses (domiciled in Asia, denominated in yen/yuan)
  
• 25% Emerging market funds (domiciled outside the US)
  
• 25% Frontier market funds (domiciled outside the US)

This is a strategy of diversification by both region and level of economic development. It's interesting that we can talk about the risk of investing in frontier markets because of the potential for political and economic instability and war. But is the US really still a bastion of security? It seems to me that there are some ways in which an investment in Tanzania or Uzbekistan may be safer that one in the United States.
When I look at the above list, I get scared. What if I make the wrong choices in the last two categories and lose half my nest egg? But when I ask that, the converse fear comes to mind. What if I keep my diversification entirely within the US and our system crashes under the weight of debt, disease, or war? Then I lose everything. That's scary too.
I think I may have found some partial answers to my third question, which was asking for websites that profile non-US mutual funds. I'm still reviewing these sites to see how much useful information I can find without paying exorbitant fees. From what I see so far, they mainly focus on "alternative" investments, which means private placements, hedge funds, etc., but also include emerging and frontier market funds.

• CitywireSelector
  
• Asia Asset Management
  
• Preqin
  
• BarclayHedge Awards
  
• HFM
  
• Investors Choice Awards

I'm interested in hearing from more people with information that supports or refutes what I'm saying, or that answers the three questions in my original post. Thanks guys, and thanks David for this great forum.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/18/business/passive-etfs-stocks-gold-bonds/index.html
The next bubble: Passive investing in ETFs
Individual stock pickers like Warren Buffett are increasingly looking like dinosaurs in a market that's driven by investors scooping up passive exchange-traded funds that simply own the biggest stocks

Yes, FSMEX opened again on April 1, 2020
1 Yr 3 Yrs 5 Yrs 10 Yrs Life
26.36% 21.42% 18.37% 19.91% 15.23%

So, I've received two intriguing offers for cash...one from Fifth Third Bank: get $600 for opening a checking account and maintaining $15k balance for 90 days and one from Chase : get $600 for opening a checking account for $5k and opening a Chase savings account for $15k.
I have the cash, which I have earmarked for an investment in Q1 of 2021, but if I open these accounts for the bonus and then close them in less than a year, will it negatively impact my credit score?

@WABAC I used to slice and dice (or collect) funds am comfortable dealing with complexity. That said, my spouse has no interest managing portfolio and I'm leaning towards holding a core or two and building around it with a few specialties.
@Irwilliams VTMFX would be a good core if available at Fidelity. (TAIAX) American Funds Tax-Aware Conservative Growth and Income is okay, but trails VTMFX pretty much all periods.

Keep an eye out for FSMEX re-opening, and jump on it. If you've spent anytime around a hospital you'll know they run through a tremendous amount of stuff. Until then check out the other health care fund he runs for Fido.
I'ld get a good utility fund, a good consumer staple fund. Fido has all those flavors, although the turnover is a little high for my taste. I like GLFOX for my infrastructure fund. The expense ratio has been declining slowly but steadily. The turnover is a reasonable 33%. And the yield is often north of 6%. I should have bought a NASDAQ 100 fund for my taxable back in March while I was shopping.
I have a few other oddballs. It's really hard to beat the performance of indexes after taxes. But I break them down into small, medium, and large. I use BRILX as a surrogate "index" for large caps. It keeps the sectors and holdings relatively balanced.
Lots of fund collectors here. You'll probably get an earful.

PRWCX, FSDAX, and soon PRBLX in very large slugs as core positions.
Several AF's (as 1/3 of another account) as core positions
Lots of quality dividend stocks (nearly all QDI) that reinvest and accumulate.
A few speculative trades in one of my taxable accounts
The only tax efficiency I worry about is balancing capgains/losses. Fund cap gains means I can afford to lose some more cap losses on spec trades. Normally I try to keep that difference under $1000/year if I can help it, even when I'm moving lots of stuff around.

I would transfer VGWLX to Vanguard. I use both Fidelity and Vanguard. Over time they were my 401(k) administrators. There is no equivalent global allocation value oriented funds in Fidelity. The subadvisor, Wellington, to VGWLX is well respected.

Hello,
I'm new here and am an accumulator in late-40's with about 10 years before I call it quit. My tax deferred spaces are pretty much filled with target date funds/moderate allocation funds. I'm wondering what funds you hold and possibly why?
Our taxable is about 25% of the portfolio. With some selling/buying this year, the current holdings include:
BIAWX (Brown Advisory Sustainable Growth Fund) - Large-cap (with some mid-cap) growth
MIOPX (Morgan Stanley Institutional Fund) - Foreign large growth, with 30-40% in EM
VGWLX (Vanguard Global Wellington) - 65/35, large value/blend, corp bonds
BIV (Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond) - Treasuries and corp bonds, no MBS
VWAHX (Vanguard High-Yield Tax-Exempt Fund) - High yield muni with better credit than most
VGWLX - I recently discovered that this fund is not available for automatic investment at Fidelity. As I don't want to pay $75 TF for every addition, this one is likely to go.
Thanks,
soaring

Several observations
1) The economy, unemployment, inflation, debt, opinions, experts are not the stock market. They can be off by months and years.
2) As a trader I only depend on charts, uptrends that derive from the price. The price is the ultimate indicator. It is what sellers and buyers agree on real time regardless of anything.
3) The top 6-10 high tech companies are nothing like the dot com or nifty fifty. They control the world with enormous cash flow and earnings. Sure, one day they will be down but not for long and these top high tech may be replaced by others just like INTC is no longer a top one.
4) You can join the ride and leave any time. Just hold an index like SPY,QQQ with a trailing order at a certain % you are willing to lose and let it go. You can do it with a certain % of your portfolio.
5) As a retiree I only trade stocks/ETFs/CEFs/GLD/whatever when I have a very good chance to make several % in hours and days (when it goes down, then goes up with a clear uptrend and then I join the ride). For the rest I use bond OEFs.

yeah
“The regulatory environment next year is going to be brutal for these [six] companies."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/08/19/tech-stocks-markets/

I hope so.
And I don't read the Bezos Post.

A Magnificent Six replay of the Nifty Fifty in the making?

yeah
“The regulatory environment next year is going to be brutal for these [six] companies."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/08/19/tech-stocks-markets/

I hope so.
And I don't read the Bezos Post.

yeah
“The regulatory environment next year is going to be brutal for these [six] companies."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/08/19/tech-stocks-markets/

Your post made me think of this one I read recently

The value of companies like Apple, Google and Microsoft is made up primarily of “intangibles”. That term can cover all sorts of things, and is often taken to refer to some special aspect of the firm in question, such as accumulated R&D, tacit knowledge or ‘goodwill’ associated with brands.
R&D is at most a small part of the story. The leading tech companies spend $10 – 20 billion a year each on R&D https://spendmenot.com/top-rd-spenders/, a tiny fraction of market valuations of $1 trillion or more. And feelings towards most of these companies are the opposite of goodwill – more like resentful dependence in most cases.
A simpler explanation is that the main intangible asset held by these companies is monopoly power, arising from network effects, intellectual property, control over natural resources and good old-fashioned predatory conduct.
In this context, the crucial point about intangibles isn’t that they aren’t physical, it’s that they can’t be reproduced by anyone else. No one can sell a Windows or Apple operating system, even if they were willing to invest the effort required to reverse-engineer it. While there are competitors for the Google’s search engine (I recommend DuckDuckGo), there are huge barriers to entry, notably including the fact that the product is ‘free’ or rather supported by advertising for which all consumers pay whether they use Google or not.

It doesn't take much effort to find articles attributing the recent performance of the S&P, or the NASDAQ, to the monopolists.
I have a hard time combining the stats you describe with the stats that say most Americans don't have 400 simoleans in savings.
There's something about the Robinhood stories that remind me of the animus surrounding avocado toast.
Someone bid Hertz up to a ridiculous level at some point. But where I live we can still find two avocados for a dollar. And that covers a few slices of toast.

Interesting piece today. I don't listen to Cramer much; he, like his former co-host, are too devoted to the characters they play on TV. That said, Cramer made an interesting point (8/19/2020) about the shape and future of the market:

The S&P’s new highs are a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing about the hardship of millions of people on food stamps, or the millions about to be fired from service jobs, or the homeless, or the people who are just huddled at home waiting for the vaccine . . .
You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure this out. Just look the stocks that have brought us to these levels — they’re not the recovery plays. In fact, they are the opposite. They are stocks that tend to do well, because of what we call secular consideration [not] classic recovery stocks.
The winners in this market are the companies that are most divorced from the underlying economy.

Which is to say, it does not appear to be a prelude to a rebound in the underlying economy.
That's sadly consistent with a new E*Trade survey of the beliefs and behaviors of Millennial and Gen Z investors, the so-called RobinHood investors who, in many cases, are using the market as a substitute for sports betting and other entertainment. E*Trade reports (8/19/2020) that such investors:

• Risk tolerance skyrockets since the pandemic. Over half (51%) of Gen Z and Millennial investors say their risk tolerance has increased since the coronavirus outbreak, 23 percentage points higher than the total population.
  
• They are taking cash off the sidelines. Over one in three investors (34%) under the age of 34 said they are moving out of cash and into new positions, 15 percentage points higher than the total population.
  
• They are trading more frequently. Over half of investors (51%) under the age of 34 said they are trading equities and 46% said they’re trading derivatives more frequently since the pandemic, compared to 30% and 22% of the total population, respectively.
  
• They’re optimistic for a quick recovery.

If you care: "E-Trade's quarterly survey was conducted from July 1 to July 9 and included a sample of 873 self-directed active investors managing at least $10,000."
Fool (or coward) that I am, my portfolio remains pretty hedged in the sense that I'm maintaining RiverPark Short-Term High Yield(RPHYX) and substituting T. Rowe Price Multi-Strategy Total Return (TMSRX) for more of my fixed-income and a bit of my equity exposure. Overall equity exposure is 50%ish, though a foolishly high percentage is non-US stocks.
For what that's worth,
David

These abridged excerpts are from an article in last week's The Economist.

A reserve-currency issuer should play an outsize role in global trade, which encourages partners to draw up contracts in its currency. A historical role as a global creditor helps to expand use of the currency and encourage its accumulation in reserves. A history of monetary stability matters, too, as do deep and open financial markets. America exhibits these attributes less than it used to. Its share of global output and trade has fallen, and today China is the world’s leading exporter. America long ago ceased to be a net creditor to the rest of the world—its net international investment position is deeply negative. Soaring public debt and dysfunctional government sow doubt in corners of the financial world that the dollar is a smart long-run bet.
Challengers have for decades failed to knock the greenback from its perch. Part of the explanation is surely that America is not as weak relative to its rivals as often assumed. American politics are dysfunctional, but an often-fractious euro area and authoritarian China inspire still less confidence. The euro’s members and China are saddled with their own debt problems and potential crisis points. The euro has faced several existential crises in its short life, and China’s financial system is far more closed and opaque than the rich-world norm.
The global role of the dollar does not depend on America’s export prowess and creditworthiness alone, but is bound up in the geopolitical order it has built. Its greatest threat is not the appeal of the euro or yuan, but America’s flagging commitment to the alliances and institutions that fostered peace and globalization for more than 70 years. Though still unlikely, a collapse in this order looks ever less far-fetched. Even before the pandemic, President Donald Trump’s economic nationalism had undercut openness and alienated allies. Covid-19 has further strained global co-operation. The IMF thinks world trade could fall by 12% this year.
Though America’s economic role in the world has diminished a little, it is still exceptional. An American-led reconstruction of global trade could secure the dollar’s dominance for years to come. A more fractious and hostile world, instead, could spell the end of the dollar’s privileged position—and of much else besides.

(Italic text emphasis added.)