FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Donor-advised funds—offered by Fidelity, Charles Schwab, and Vanguard-allow investors to take more control of their philanthropic giving.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=Xn0iWu-fH86F_Qbsi7PYCw&q=Barron's++How+Smart+Investors+Give+to+Charity&oq=Barron's++How+Smart+Investors+Give+to+Charity&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3521.9498.0.11088.11.11.0.0.0.0.98.819.11.11.0....0...1.1j2.64.psy-ab..0.10.720...0j46j0i131k1j0i46k1.0.w8it6kqOJ30

Hi @Catch22,
Thanks for the question.
Q: What would I personally do?
A: Rebalance, if I wanted to follow the discipline. Beyond this, if I was in the accumulation phase of investing I'd widen the rebalance channel from 5% to 10% perhaps even 20%. If I was in the distribution phase of investing I'd rebalance and follow the strategy. Another thing one might consider is a lower limit rebalance at 5% and an upper limit rebalance at 10% (possibly 20%) on the equity side. In this way you buy the pullback and let the winners run longer than normal.
Currently, for me, within my own portfolio I an overweight equity based upon what my equity weighting matrix is calling for by about five percent. This is based mostly upon a seasonal investment strategy where I generally overweight equities during the fall and winter and begin to lighten up come spring (rebalance). During the summer I generally follow a neutral weighting position. The matrix is driven by my market barometer. In addition, my normal equity allocation ranges from 45% to 55%. Currently, I am at 51% to 52% range as determined by a recent Morningstar Instant Xray analysis putting me somewhere between a 4% to 5% overweight over the matrix's reccomended allocation.
In rebalancing, you are most likely booking profit making unrealized gains realized. In this way, they are less likely to get vaporized in severe market downdrafts. This raise the question. Would you rather pay taxes on your gains (if warranted) or see these unrealized gains get vaporized in severe market declines and downdrafts. I'm of the camp pay the tax (if necessary) and rebalance ... harvest some of the gains along the way and don't let them get vaporized in stock market downdrafts.
The barometer, which follows certain metrics of the S&P 500 Index, as of Friday December 1st market close scored the Index as overvalued and not far from an overbought reading.
In addition, I think @davidrmoran made some good comments about this as well (goals, greed, needs and risk tolerance).
Skeet

In these vehicles $10k has gone to ~$42k and $26.5k since you bought, so yeah, take your equivalent of $7k or a bit more from Contra and put it into Pimco.
OR ...
It depends on your goals and discipline and tenets. Are you a strict (re)balancer? Do you like / are you willing to let things that have done well run?
Most important, what are your needs and horizon? I mean, many of us run into this all the time. I myself would probably leave all alone if you do not need the money for several years. But that is the aggressive / greed of another speaking. Otoh, if you need some of this in less than, I dunno, 3-4-5y, then yeah, rebalance to Pimco. How important is 50-50 to you ?

Hi @Old_Skeet
So, I purchased FCNTX and PIMIX , March 17, 2009; 50% of a total portfolio into each.
What would one do, especially after Feb. 2013 when Fido Contra really started to walk upward and away from PIMIX?
Would one sell pieces of FCNTX and buy more PIMIX to maintain this upper and lower limit ranges to attempt to maintain a 50/50 mix?
The last assumption is that I definitely want to keep both funds, as I had already been a long time investor and fan of management with FCNTX and am most pleased with PIMIX as a bond balance to a strong growth fund.
Assume all monies are IRA; so taxes are not part of the transactions.
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?FCNTX,PIMIX&n=2194&O=011000
Thanks,
Catch

Hi @bee,
Thanks for posting the article.
What you have read is just one person's take on a five percent rebalance threshold.
My take is somewhat different. And, I'll explain. Take a 50/50 portfolio with a total value of $100,000. This would equate to $50,000 in equity and $50,000 in fixed. 5% of $50,000 is $2,500. This puts the upper limit at $52,500 and the lower limit at $47,500 and if valuations for the respective area goes above (or below) a rebalance is warranted in this example. Natually, other factors might also be considered such as (but not limited to) seasonal strategies.

Update:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/890540/000113542817001085/frost-allocation-funds-497.txt
497
1
frost-allocation-funds-497.txt
THE ADVISORS' INNER CIRCLE FUND II (THE "TRUST")
FROST CONSERVATIVE ALLOCATION FUND
FROST MODERATE ALLOCATION FUND
FROST AGGRESSIVE ALLOCATION FUND (THE "FUNDS")
SUPPLEMENT DATED DECEMBER 1, 2017 TO THE
INSTITUTIONAL CLASS SHARES PROSPECTUS AND THE INVESTOR CLASS SHARES PROSPECTUS,
EACH DATED NOVEMBER 28, 2017 (THE "PROSPECTUSES") AND THE STATEMENT OF
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, DATED NOVEMBER 28, 2017 (THE "SAI")
THIS SUPPLEMENT PROVIDES NEW AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEYOND THAT CONTAINED IN
THE PROSPECTUSES AND SAI, AND SHOULD BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
PROSPECTUSES AND SAI.
The Board of Trustees of the Trust, at the recommendation of Frost Investment
Advisors, LLC (the "Adviser"), the investment adviser of the Funds, has approved
a plan of liquidation providing for the liquidation of each Fund's assets and
the distribution of the net proceeds pro rata to the Fund's shareholders. In
connection therewith, the Funds are closed to new investments. The Funds are
expected to cease operations and liquidate on or about December 22, 2017 (the
"Liquidation Date").
Prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may redeem (sell) their shares in
the manner described in the "How to Redeem Fund Shares" section of each
Prospectus. For those Fund shareholders that do not redeem (sell) their shares
prior to the Liquidation Date, the Funds will distribute to each such
shareholder, on or promptly after the Liquidation Date, a liquidating cash
distribution equal in value to the shareholder's interest in the net assets of
the Funds as of the Liquidation Date.
In anticipation of the liquidation of the Funds, the Adviser may manage each
Fund in a manner intended to facilitate its orderly liquidation, such as by
holding cash or making investments in other highly liquid assets. As a result,
during this time, all or a portion of each Fund may not be invested in a manner
consistent with its stated investment strategies, which may prevent the Fund
from achieving its investment objective.
The liquidation distribution amounts will include any accrued income and capital
gains, will be treated as a payment in exchange for shares and will generally be
a taxable event. You should consult your personal tax advisor concerning your
particular tax situation. Shareholders remaining in a Fund on the Liquidation
Date will not be charged any transaction fees by the Fund. However, the net
asset value of each Fund on the Liquidation Date will reflect costs of
liquidating the Fund.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
FIA-SK-046-0100

FYI: Vanguard has appointed seven experienced investment management professionals as portfolio managers of 23 equity index funds, including some of the largest index funds in the world. Vanguard, which manages $3.56 trillion in index fund assets, periodically rotates its portfolio management staff across the globe in order to strengthen the breadth and depth of the firm’s investment management capabilities.
Regards,
Ted
https://pressroom.vanguard.com/news/Press-Release-Vanguard-Appoints-New-Portfolio-Managers-To-Flagship-Index-Funds-113017.html

@catch22,

The author estimates that $32 trillion of wealth (returns in excess of Treasury Bills) was created between 1926 and 2015 via the approximately 26,000 stocks that have appeared in the CRSP database during that time. Of these 26,000 stocks, only 86 of the top performing stocks (less than 0.33%), were collectively responsible for over half of the wealth creation. And the top 1,000 performing stocks, less than 4% of the total, accounted for all of the wealth creation. The other 96% only matched the return of the one-month Treasury Bill with many of them producing less.

Article alludes to the long term value of owning real estate:
https://newsmax.com/Finance/GaryCarmell/Bessembinder-Fascinating-Skewed-Study/2017/04/24/id/786073/

Whew. I have had VZ as an income stock on and off for 5 years, selling for tax losses almost every year, then watching it. come back up. In June, it was down to 44 and change, and I bought it for 53 last December. Sold it today at $52.36 just before the news hit about Trump having asked Flynn to meet with Russians. For once, sold at near 12 month high :) Down to a $500 loss from a loss of almost 5k. May rebuy again next year, will see.

@Old_Skeet, thought you make like this article on re-balancing:

"The higher your stock allocation the more stocks have to drop to hit your 5% band. If your target is 90/10 and we assume bonds don’t change then to hit 85/15 your stocks would have to drop by 37%. To go from 75/25 to 70/30 the required drop is 22%, which is a pretty big correction. What really surprised me is that to go from 50/50 to 45/55 still requires stocks to drop 18%."

https://thefinancebuff.com/5-percent-rebalancing-band.html

does 1000 points even mean anything anymore?

VF - I think you have to be in the “right” funds. I did note that VFINX gained around .75% Thursday, in line with major market averages. However, suspect that for most of us in more diversified funds the gain was only about half that - maybe less. Bonds continue to be a drag - even the short and intermediates, as that part of the curve has risen the most in recent weeks. International wasn’t that hot yesterday (unless your manager threw in some FVP).
So, 1000 points doesn’t amount to a cup of warm spit for a great many. Correct that: Thursday’s 300+ gain in the Dow didn’t amount to much green for the average fund investor. :)

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Smaller firm makes case for going beyond past performance when evaluating funds.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=eh0hWtnbLoWl_QaVjJDgAQ&q=investment+news+Morningstar-WSJ+feud+gives+CFRA+opening+to+challenge+bigger+rival's+methodology&oq=investment+news+Morningstar-WSJ+feud+gives+CFRA+opening+to+challenge+bigger+rival's+methodology&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1695.10829.0.12036.18.17.0.0.0.0.132.1375.16j1.17.0....0...1c.1j2.64.psy-ab..1.16.1284.0..0j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i131i20i264k1j0i20i264k1.0.7YY8ByJ4zk8

I have ~25% in bonds and cash, I think, but I count SS as bondlike, as I have said before, so my balance is more toward 55-45 equities-bonds.

sold some more
drinking same blend
have a lot of ~3.5% debt, wondering if I should pay it down

@msf: I concur with your reply to my question. When the Nav dropped from $10 to $9.75 I thought they let to much new money in & found fewer & less stable bonds to purchase.
Thanks Derf

Another guy writing stuff that's misleading, probably because he doesn't understand it. Do an instant X-ray on the 4 sector etfs in the fund and you'll find out it is NOT a value fund. I haven't tried to test that over its entire history but I'd be surprised if it's ever been a value fund based on M*'s definitions and how other funds are classified. When I've done that in the past it has always ended up as a growth fund or a blend fund close to the border with growth. People naturally think investing in the 4 lowest CAPE sectors (excluding whichever one of the "cheapest" 5 has the worst momentum) is a value approach and maybe it is, but that's not what this fund is doing. It's investing in 4 of the cheapest 5 based on the CAPE ratio relative to it's own history. So if technology has traded at an average CAPE ratio of 400 over the last 10 or 20 years (sorry, can't remember the precise details) and its only trading at a CAPE ratio of 300 today while Energy is trading at 25 today but has historically traded at 20, then technology is the "cheaper" sector in ranking terms for determining the funds investments.
The approach has worked very well and may continue to work but it has not led to a "value" portfolio based on the definitions M* uses to categorize other funds, it's not necessarily invested in sectors with the lowest traditional CAPE value and it's the traditional CAPE value that has proven more predictive of future (long-term) performance than most other things.
Outperforming value funds when it has "growth" investments is meaningless even if people keep writing about the fund that way. Buyer beware!! For transparency sake I do own the fund and I like it. I just don't appreciate the way it tends to be written about because I think it's likely to make people believe they're getting something that they really aren't.

Hi @bee
The last chart shows that RE funds do react to a change in yield of the 30 year bond and perhaps to the 10 year, too.
So, are the active managed funds managers "twitching" to changes in interest rates; and if so, only from a technical standpoint?
How much of any change in price for RE funds is triggered from just a few managers or some other large, unknown investor(s) sell/buy that trips the pricing of all equity within these funds?
I have not checked recently, but I am sure there is a very large overlap of the same equity companies (the top 10 holdings) that are held by many RE funds. A large sell or buy from a few RE fund managers would automatically drive the prices down for other funds holding the same equity(s), yes?
As to etf's in the RE space. Are their prices not driven by what are the results of the managed RE funds?
Needless to say, the RE fund area is very complex.....
--- interest rate sensitive
--- type of fund holdings (storage units, old developed malls, etc.)
--- fund management abilities and their LUCK of choices
For me, I attempt to do fundamental and technical processes. Nothing hard core for the most part; but to stay informed/observe interest rates and some implied trends in real estate sectors......a kinda, storage units are still being build in my part of Michigan; but retail malls everywhere are having problems. One could invest directly into the RE stocks, but I'm too short of time these days for this adventure.
The technical side: This is where the charts help melt overall thinking into this area, as well as other investments. The relative strength and 50, 100 and 200 days movements. For the most part, these would have to have solid directions and indicators for a sell or buy. The longer this equity bull market runs, one may find it easier or harder to sell. This, to me; is based more on how long an investment has been in place. I really don't want to give up FRIFX at this time; but if the technicals started to show trouble with the numbers, than away it would travel.
I have not stated much of value, IMHO.
Have you a "feeling" about this sector; and/or observations?
Take care,
Catch

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Millions of Fidelity Investment's retail customers were unable to access their online accounts on Wednesday morning due to an internal technical error, according to CNBC and other news outlets, but the outage did not appear to affect advisers using the firm's institutional online trading and wealth management platform, WealthScape.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=BM4fWqKGJsnF_QawxYywBA&q=Fidelity+outage+sidelines+retail+customers,+but+advisers+not+affected&oq=Fidelity+outage+sidelines+retail+customers,+but+advisers+not+affected&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3625.3625.0.5284.3.2.0.0.0.0.77.77.1.2.0....0...1c.2.64.psy-ab..1.1.83.6..35i39k1.83.k8NRAZNeTR4

">> As I've posted before, the fact that Fidelity does not currently have a cash offer on the table does not mean that it has not done so in the past or will not do so again in the future.
Cool. Not in the 45y I have been with them, I think, but I know you will find the truth."
See link embedded in the quoted post (only in original, not quoted version):
http://www.mymoneyblog.com/fidelity-brokerage-ira-transfer-bonuses.html

Bonus amount: $200 for $50k+, $300 for $100k+, $600 for $250k+, $1,200 for $500k+, and $2,500 for $1M+ net new assets.

I've since found a better link that describes the same (now expired) 2017 offer as well as what the page correctly characterizes as a unique offer by Fidelity - to match your IRA contributions (in the 401k percentage sense, not dollar for dollar) for three years. Both were 2017 promotions.
https://investorjunkie.com/11001/fidelity-promotions/

This chart from today's WSJ article on the bitcoin mania is truly staggering...

Full article (paywalled unless you know how)
Bitcoin Mania: Even Grandma Wants In on the Action
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-mania-even-grandma-wants-in-on-the-action-1511996653