FYI: Too much vanilla is growing tiresome for yield-hungry investors. So they’re trying out more exotic flavors -- including a particularly hot real estate exchange traded fund.
The iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF, ticker IYR, took in $425 million last week, the largest weekly inflow in almost a year. The fund hadn’t seen more than $400 million since last December.
Regards,
Ted
M* Snapshot IYR:
http://www.morningstar.com/etfs/arcx/iyr/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot IYR:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/iyr
IYR Is Ranked #11 In The (RE) ETF Category By U.S. News & world Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/etfs/real-estate/ishares-us-real-estate-etf/iyr

Supposedly both funds vary duration based on market conditions, right?; it is not written in their charters otherwise, I think. They are supposed to be tactical about these things. Fido is typically slightly more aggressive / bullish in all respects than other shops, in my experience. Though I am surprised FPURX gets little love here.
Sure about penny foolishness; for me it's always is a matter of 'long run.' I just historically have often not held funds quite long enough, or in large enough amounts, to warrant paying $50. In my mind anyway, meaning I want the option to bail sooner than later, feeling the pressure to hold since I already paid. You may well be immune to such self-pressure. It was something I learned vividly 02-09.
Have never used Vanguard, have been trying to simplify and reduce holdings and institutions.

"? You are saying Fidelity does not deploy the defensiveness savvy of D&C? That would show up in risk measures, right"
I am saying (and quoting M* to the same effect) that D&C consistently maintains a shorter (i.e. more interest rate risk defensive) position than does Fidelity. If you want to characterize that as savvy rather than mechanical, that's one way of looking at it, especially in a rising interest rate environment. IMHO, a "savvy" fund would vary duration based on market conditions. But that could be viewed as savvy in an aggressive sense.
My investment philosophy has been to (try to) be pound wise, rather than penny foolish. I'll invest in institutional shares and eat the $5 fees, rather than pay a fund company an extra 0.25%/year in order to avoid a five hundred penny toll. I would not look at a retail share class like PONDX when I could instead invest in an institutional share class like PIMIX and save money in the long run.
(PIMIX has a $25K min at Vanguard, with fees of $8/trade for Voyager Select and probably free for Flagship customers. "anywhere else" would seem to include Vanguard.)

ETFs and stocks cost $4.95 to buy or to sell, or about ten bucks round trip.
TF funds, once you have a position, can usually be purchased for $5 and sold for free, a round trip cost of exactly five bucks. You have to use their automatic investment system.
That requires you to schedule two or more investments, but it allows you to cancel at any time. So when you want to buy, you schedule your purchase (plus subsequent dummy ones), you wait for the first scheduled investment to be processed, and cancel the remaining ones.

Fidelity does not charge a fee for automatic investments in Fidelity funds or No Transaction Fee (NTF) FundsNetwork funds. After the initial investment, a $5 fee is charged per automatic investment into a FundsNetwork transaction fee fund.

https://www.fidelity.com/cash-management/automatic-investments

What is this 5 bucks you mention? For fidelity i believe that only applies to etf and stock trades. Mutual fund trades have a different set of price points

"Lipper aggregated rating is the same (ML uses that one), for some reason"
Lipper rates on five attributes:
Total Return/Consistent Return/Preservation/Tax Efficiency/Expense.
"Unlike Morningstar or U.S. News, Lipper doesn't award an aggregate rating to mutual funds or ETFs." Investopedia, Understanding Lipper Ratings in Mutual Funds
What ML is doing is giving you just the first of those five attribute ratings - raw performance:
"Rating based on Total Return and reflects fund historic total return performance relative to peers"
https://olui2.fs.ml.com/RIMutualFundsUI/RIMFOverview.aspx?Symbol=FTBFX
If all you care about is that raw performance, and you don't think that positioning a bond fund defensively now (while achieving the same performance) is an advantage, then sure, save five bucks (the cost of buying additional shares of DODIX at Fidelity) and invest in FTBFX.
I've supported the argument that "you can't eat risk-adjusted returns." So I'm not unsympathetic to the argument that one might reasonably ignore all but the first of the five Lipper ratings. However, all else being equal (or within $5 of equal), I would take the equal performing fund with the lower risk.
From M*: DODIX's "duration ... has historically run short of [AGG's]". FTBFX's managers "aim to keep duration close to ... [AGG's]."
Even for a Fidelity-only investor, once one is in the disinvesting stage, there's little to no cost in holding a TF fund - no cost to sell or reinvest, and at worst the occasional nominal fee to rebalance.

Lipper aggregated rating is the same (ML uses that one), for some reason.
As are their 10y M* ratings.
Interesting that 0.02% ER difference (if I am reading it right) impacts both Lipper and M* fee ratings, a single rating level change. I suppose you have to draw a line somewhere.
I cannot see any period other than 3y and 15y where Fido outperforms, so I should have written that it's hard to see why you would prefer D&C unless all other variables are equal (xaction fee absence). In other words if you used Fido only then you would not have much reason to prefer D&C.
Still, a somewhat puzzling article.

DODIX vs. FTBFX:
Assuming past is prologue (a not so great assumption), and given that these are two relatively vanilla intermediate term bond funds, M* star ratings should fairly well encapsulate their relative risk-adjusted performance. 5 star vs. 4 star.
Likewise, Lipper rates the former more highly: 5/5/5/2/5 vs. 5/5/4/1/4 (better in preservation, tax efficiency, and cost, respectively)
The better M* rating is due to D&C's lower risk - average vs. above average (determined in part, but not exclusively, by volatility). As noted, performance has been similar (within 0.10% annualized) over 3, 10, and 15 year periods, though D&C has outperformed by 1/4% annualized over the past five year span.
Similar SEC yields (2.59% vs. 2.62) with similar average credit ratings (BBB per M*) yet significantly lower average duration (4.20 years vs. 5.39 years). Important as rates begin to rise.
Big difference in turnover (27% vs. 137%).
I'll go along with Hank on trust in company, even though FMR, LLC is also privately held (49% of voting shares controlled by Johnson family)

Thanks for sharing @MikeM
The robo at 13.3% YTD is eye-catching. I have no experience with robo. I looked at T. Rowe Price’s funds (more or less out of habit) to see how their target date funds compared. Price’s website puts their Target Date 2025 fund (TRRVX) as of 11/24 at +13.53% YTD (although Lipper has it a bit lower).
From Price’s website, the current composition is:
Domestic Bond 35.1%
Domestic Stock 33.9%
Foreign Stock 18.2%
Foreign Bond 10.1%
Cash 2.8%
Convertibles 0.3%
Preferred .02%
Looks like TRRVX’s total equity weighting is in the 50-55% range (and about where Lipper puts it).
As I think you know, I never offer advice (It would be dangerous!) So just trying to glean what I can from your serve.
I’ll share that my benchmark, TRRIX, is only up +9.5% YTD. I lag it by about a percent. Some of that has to do with an injection of $$ from a real estate sale last summer. That slug of $$ only started earning at mid-year, but due to my poor math aptitude I include the sum in the year’s starting total for computing purposes.
Good luck. Thanks for the informative presentation.

Ok. I'll post my self managed portfolio.
But FWIW, I have 1/2 my retirement savings in a Schwab robo-portfolio, which is about 62% equity, 28% bonds and 10% cash. As of 11/24, the robo has returned 13.3% YTD. The percentage is based on $ amounts from 1/1 to 11/24. Up to others to judge if that is good or bad, but I'm happy with the the robo so far. I tend to be too conservative some times and the robo helps not over-think everything.
The self managed portfolio is less aggressive. Most of it has been pretty steady, fund/percentage wise, but I like to play with stocks with a small part of the total and my stocks have changed over the year. I also have adjusted and re-adjusted the bond funds a couple of times. Not sure why I don't just put all the bond allocation in PONDX and be done with it. But what fun is that?
M* instant xray shows the self managed portfolio percentages to be:
CASH 17
U.S. STOCK 21
FOREIGN STOCK 22
BONDS 34
OTHER 7
The self managed, which has consistently been conservative at about 40-45% equity, has returned 12.1% YTD. I think that is pretty good. Again, that's based on real dollars, not M* calculated.
the self managed portfolio consists of:
EQUITY and BALANCED FUNDS:
PRWCX Allocation--50% to 70% Lcap
ICMBX Allocation--50% to 70% Scap
DSENX LV- unfavored S&P500 sectors
GTLOX Lcap Blend
GPGOX World Stock
SGENX World Allocation
FMIJX Foreign LC Blend
SFGIX Diversified Emerging Mkts
BOND FUNDS:
MAINX Asia Centrix Bond Fund
PGMSX TRP Global Multi-Sector
PFIDX Low Duration floating Income
PONDX Multisector Bond
Individual Stocks:
V Visa
VLO Valero Energy
BABA Alibaba
QCP Quality Care Properties
I do think I own to many bond funds. I'll likely cut back. I also plan to move some money from DSENX to DLEUX. I think Europe may have better value and that is what these 2 funds are all about.
For the record, I will be 64 in 2018 and plan to retire from full time work. I'll likely work part time because I get bored easy. I have been doing a lot of thinking, setting up spreadsheets and reading about setting myself up for withdrawals. Looking forward to more discussions on that theme.

Catch22 and Old Skeet, thanks for your input.
@Catch22, these two funds have done well since Jan 2016, but still have slightly under performed the general EM category during that period. Moreover, they significantly underperformed the more traditional diversified EM category (mostly more negative) from 2013-2015, so it emerging Europe might have more catchup opportunity to make up for those years of greater negativity. From what I have read, emerging European countries seem to be putting it together for growing economies (especially Poland), but there are admittedly risks, as in Turkey as you described. I could just see if EM and the US become seen as expensive at some point in 2018, investors could turn to other investment opportunities that are less expensive, such as emerging Europe. I could be wrong of course, but that is just part of my thinking.
@Old_Skeet, one fund that might fit your bill could be FEMEX. I don't know if it is any good, but it hits the areas you are referring to.

Hard to see over 10/5/3/1y why you would ever want it over FTBFX (slightly less volatility, I suppose), much less FSICX and / or PONDX (similar risk rating). I did not check the Metwest and Doubleline competition.

Being curious, I checked the following:
Both funds, Oct. 2000 to date:
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?TREMX,EUROX&n=4311&O=011000
Both funds, Jan. 2016 to date: both funds have had a decent run since Jan. 2016; is there may be more to be had??? If I were to invest in these areas, I would have to study more about the country holdings within the funds; as to economy, politics, etc. I.E.; Russia and energy, etc. for similar relative to a country. Turkey has political upheaval still in place. I recall Austria having severe banking problems after the market melt. I don't know the current status. Both funds have been flat to negative from Sept. 1. This is only an observation, as I don't know why this is the case......profit taking??? 'Course, the "markets" have caused fits for many since the market melt; and still cause head scratching, eh? "This time is different" is still in place, IMHO.
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?TREMX,EUROX&n=478&O=011000
I don't have recommendations for this area, as we are fully invested in other equity areas; and not a student of this particular area. For our own personal criteria; we tend to place no less than 5% into a given area to be meaningful for us and the overall portfolio.
Just my 2 cents worth on a Sunday morning.
Regards,
Catch

Indeed. Has both Great Owl and Honor Roll designations ...

Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Turkey are among the cheapest markets. Although a lot of fund managers/commentators believe more traditional emerging markets such as those in Asia have more room to run, they have had a run up and may longer be cheep, but "reasonable" (although China might still be considered cheap based on PE according to below link of chart from 9/30/2017...however China has had a good couple of months since then so maybe no longer cheap?).
I'm considering putting a small amount into either EUROX or TREMX. From 9/30/2017, EUROX top 6 country holdings are 34.5% Russia, 15.4% Turkey, 14.5% Poland, 7% Greece, 4.6% Austria, 3.3% Hungary (it should be noted that Morningstar last listed EUROX as having a turnover ratio of 164% so this could be different now). From 10/31/2017, TREMX has top 6 country holdings of 50.5% Russia, 15.6% Turkey, Poland 9%, Georgia 5.1%, Hungary 4.7%, and Romania 4.5%. My overall impression from reading fund reports is that the manager of TREMX is very valuation conscious, which is good if seeking emerging Europe as a value play away from other EM, however that has hurt TREMX in it's 2017 performance by being underweight Poland, which has had a great year. Valuation has also led to it's overweighting in Russia, taking up half of its portfolio. TREMX had a turnover of 48% compared to 164% for EUROX. TREMX is also more concentrated with 51 stocks, compared to 102 for EUROX according to Morningstar. ER of TREMX is 1.75%, EUROX is 2.33%, a difference to consider.
Any thoughts on investing in this region? Any opinions as to whether to invest in EUROX or TREMX? Are there any other Emerging Europe mutual funds (not ETFs) out there to consider?
http://www.starcapital.de/research/stockmarketvaluation

Regarding cap gains on homes - interviewee (at 5:54) states correctly: "it's also important - always important - for individuals who own their homes to keep great records of the improvements they've put into their homes in order to try to eliminate or reduce part of the gain."
The proposed changes would not make the record keeping tasks any more onerous than they are now or have been in the past. Regardless of how home cap gains are taxed, you always want to show as little gain as possible. Just like stocks, where you keep track of your purchase prices, buying and selling commissions, net proceeds (after other taxes/fees are taken out), you should be keeping track of similar home costs. The purchase price, improvements, additions, special assessments, etc.
A proposed House change to the law would only affect high income people ($250K/$500K per year income). Those people likely own homes that already have big gains that are taxable (more than the $250K/$500K that homeowners can exclude). So this proposed change would have no effect on record keeping needs.
Both House and Senate are proposing requiring people to stay longer in their homes to qualify for the $250K/$500K exclusion. The main people this change would affect are those who are flipping houses to keep their gains under the exclusion amount. They don't get much sympathy for me, and they're probably already keeping detailed records to achieve their objective of avoiding taxation on their home gains.
Longer term, more and more people will need those records. The amount of gain you can exclude, $250K/$500K, was set in 1997. At the time, that sounded like a lot of money. Now, $250K won't buy you an entry level home in some neighborhoods, though it's still above the median price of a home in 80% of the states, including New York ($247K). In another 20 years, lots of people may have taxable gains in their homes.

HR 1 won't eliminate the step up. Here's the relevant text:

(a) In general.—Except as provided in subsection (b), this chapter [11, that taxes estates] shall not apply to the estates of decedents dying after December 31, 2024 ...
[and] Section 1014(b) is amended— [in paragraphs (6), (9), and (10) only]
.

So the bill wipes out the estate tax (after 2024) while leaving the step up in basis. That's in a the unchanged paragraph (1) of Section 1014(b) of the Internal Revenue Code Section 1014(b)(1). That paragraph that provides a step up on "Property acquired by bequest, devise, or inheritance, or by the decedent’s estate from the decedent"
The Senate bill does not eliminate the estate tax, despite what you might have heard in that tax proposal interview at 15:10. Neither the Washington Post nor I can find any mention of an estate tax elimination in the Senate bill. Since the Senate bill doesn't eliminate the estate tax, we don't have to worry about how the Senate bill treats the step up when the estate tax is gone.

Hi MikeM,
Yeah, the email......I can't find it right now. I deleted it and it's not in the trash. The gist of it was this: with rates rising slowly and measured, this should not be a problem for a while in the real estate space. And if you look at RAANX when I bought in June and July, you can see how the chart is rising in the face of rates right now. Again, we've discussed this fund, you and I,......it's not like all the others.....57.3% real estate, 10% about outside the U.S. It has cell towers and cloud centers as well as farms and water rights. And with rates so low, at what point does it matter? That's the question, really. And will it take a year or longer to get there? And if you put it on a chart and look at it from October to now, ..... look at the rise. A tech bump, maybe? Just saying.....
God bless
the Pudd

Is this where "re-gifting" finally loses it's negative connotation?

Estate planning moves main stream (...not really):
No way I will ever challenge the present $5M nor the proposed $10M limit, but why not sell assets keeping the new tax proposal (stepped up basis provision for transfer of estate) in mind.
So, if I have 100 shares of xyz stock that I need to sell for income. Instead of selling them from my taxable portfolio and paying the taxes on the capital gain, I instead, gift them "in kind" to my family member first.
-They receive the gift (with a stepped up basis),
-They then sell the xyz stock at the stepped up basis price,
-They pay no taxes on the capital gain since it was eliminated when I first gifted xyz stock to them,
-They then "re-gift" the proceeds back to me (cash proceeds)...minus a steak dinner and a few nights of sleepovers for the grand kids.
This sounds a lot like how a Roth IRA works, but better. It doesn't have pedestrian contribution limits ($20M for a couple), no withdrawal (age) limits, nor any Roth conversion costs (income tax).

Re “I remain in a cash build mode.”
Maybe a “cash build moat”?
moat - NOUN, a deep, wide ditch surrounding a castle, fort, or town, typically filled with water and intended as a defense against attack.
Source: https://www.bing.com/search?q=meaning+of+moat&qs=AS&pq=meaning+of+moat&sc=8-15&cvid=020AF923D25746F5A72AFD2AE8E0E89F&FORM=QBRE&sp=1