I am a 77 year old retiree and not a sophisticated investor. Had my selfdirected IRA for many years with Scottrade and it will transferred to TDA on February 23, 2018. TDA has “hundreds” while E*trade offers “thousands” of funds, but without an account in either company I cannot find out which ones they are. TDA charges $50.- for a transaction fee funds while I paid $17.- at Scottrade and don’t know what other fees may apply. I wonder if I would be best off with Vanguard which is known for low fees. I already have 3 Vanguard Funds and one Vanguard ETF. I also have one fund each from Fidelity, T Rowe Price, Oakmark, Mairs&Power and a James Fund. I am grateful for any advice I can get.

@MFO Members: The proof is in the pudding.
Regards,
Ted
YTD: RPG 8.24%
YTD: RPV 6.04%
1yr. RPG 33.68%
1yr. RPV 24.52%
3yr. RPG 13.03%
3yr. RPV 12.28%
5yr. RPG 17.59%
5yr. RPV 16.16%
10yr. RPG 13.68%
10yr. RPV 11.91%
(Source M*)

Simon said:
“I have an IRA with T. Rowe Price” - Good. It doesn’t get much better than these guys.
“and have some dry powder ready to buy on the next correction” - Not me. I believe the next “correction” from these levels will more closely resemble a trap door over a rather deep pit (maybe something out of Alice in Wonderland).
“I've been waiting an awfully long time” - That’s not your fault. It’s silly season in the equity markets.
“The obvious choice is PRDGX but it has lost a Morningstar” * - Don’t be seduced by the stars. Read the Prospectus and a couple recent annual or semi-annual fund reports to garner the flavor of the fund and how it invests. Always balance out the M* reviews with at least 2 other opinions. I like Lipper and Max Funds.
Suggestions:?
It’s a big fund universe. My own experience is limited to about a dozen families. But you did say you wanted answers based on personal experience.
(1) Dodge and Cox are deep value investors. Low fees. Solid long term performance. However, their flagship DODGX lost over 43% in 2008. (How strong is your stomach?)
(2) OAKBX doesn’t advertise itself as deep value, but in owning it and reading their commentaries for over a decade, I’m convinced it is run like deep value. They bought GM 4-5 years ago when you couldn’t give the stock away (slight exaggeration). It eventually paid off. The nice thing about this fund is it does a pretty good job hedging against steep losses. It lost 16.2% in 2008 - less than half as much as DODGX. I’ll point out that the former is normally classified as a stock fund and the latter a balanced fund. I’m not sure those distinctions mean a whole lot at this point in time. It’s more about your risk appetite and willingness to stick to your investment decisions.
The growth and value labels can be confusing. Sometimes value houses move into traditionally “growth” areas because they find the price attractive. And I suppose it could work the other way around as well.

Seems like good advice. Note, he also says:
In general, staying the course in a broadly diversified portfolio is the best strategy when all asset classes appear overpriced. If rebalancing is required to constrain portfolio risk, consider REITs and preferred stock. Good-quality preferred stocks yield about 5%, and many have yields that float with interest rates, so that they offer some protection if rates rise in the future. Mid-single-digit returns may seem unattractive relative to recent asset returns, but with valuations at current levels, low-single-digit returns could end up looking good.

Hi @larryB
I am aware of the traditional Black Swan definition. I've linked an Investopedia write regarding this, and have pulled a portion of the write, just below.
As to an out-of-thin-air Black Swan event; I surely won't have advance warning through my own means. But, I attempt to pay attention as to any possible triggers for such an event and this is the purpose of this post; to obtain other's view points.
Regards,
Catch

By Brian Bloch | Updated December 16, 2015
The concept of black swan events was popularized by the writer Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book, "The Black Swan: The Impact Of The Highly Improbable" (Penguin, 2008). The essence of his work is that the world is severely affected by events that are rare and difficult to predict. The implications for markets and investment are compelling and need to be taken seriously.
Black Swans, Markets and Human Behavior
Classic black swan events include the rise of the internet and personal computer, the Sept. 11 attacks and World War I. However, many other events such as floods, droughts, epidemics and so on are either improbable, unpredictable or both. This "non-computability" of rare events is not compatible with scientific methods. The result, says Taleb, is that people develop a psychological bias and "collective blindness" to them. The very fact that such rare but major events are by definition outliers makes them dangerous.
Implications for Markets and Investing
Stock and other investment markets are affected by all manner of events. Downturns or crashes such as the dreadful Black Monday or the stock market crash of 1987 or the internet bubble of 2000 were relatively "model-able," but the Sept. 11 attacks were far less so. And who really expected Enron to implode? As for Bernie Madoff, one could argue either way.
But the point is, we all want to know the future, but we can't. We can model and predict some things (to an extent), but not others - not the black swan events. And this creates psychological and practical problems.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/trading/11/black-swan-events-investing.asp

From July 30th, 2007: https://forbes.com/2007/07/30/pullback-panic-subprime-pf-ii-in_jk_0730soapbox_inl.html#4a7eccd8266e
macrotrends.net/2324/sp-500-historical-chart-data

FYI: What should an investor do when all asset classes appear overpriced? The 10-year U.S. Treasury bond currently yields about 2.6%, much lower than the 5% historical average and only slightly higher than the Federal Reserve’s 2% inflation target. Yields of lower-quality bonds are unusually meager compared with those of traditionally safe Treasurys.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.cetusnews.com/news/How-to-Invest-in-an-Overpriced-World.ByLWlySBz.html

But I agree there are many good value funds -- perhaps the cheapest, if not certainly the most keep-it-simple-stupid (and equal-weighted!) value fund is BRLIX....at least to me.

Nice choice. I like Bridgeway as a company - investor-friendly, honest, treats its employees well, and FWIW donates 50% of profits to non-profit organizations. Which also brings to mind BWLIX. Now marketed by American Beacon, but still Bridgeway-managed.
Don't get too hung up on the M* ratings. First, because they're retrospective; second because changes can just as easily reflect some especially good (or bad) year falling out of view (e.g. 2007 now off the radar, 2012 out of the five year weighting); third because they are risk adjusted while one may be focused on raw performance or prefer a different perspective of risk (e.g. symmetric vs. counting downside volatility more heavily).
So long as a fund is well managed, has an approach you like (see BrianW above), is reasonably priced, and available for you to purchase, it merits consideration regardless of what's in its stars.

Catch, A great write-up. Thanks.
- Catch said: I've become more of a technical investor with a big dose of leftover "what are the fundamentals of this investment world today"?
I never understood technical analysis, but respect those who invest based on moving averages, etc. and appear to do well. Fundamentals is hard to access. However, Europe seems to have pulled out of its multi-year slump. Japan is finally seeing some inflation and stock market rebound following a decades long bear market. Interest rates remain low at home and abroad. Larry Summers, speaking on Bloomberg recently, suggested some of the global market gains are due to people shifting money out of the U.S. due to our current banana republic political atmosphere. (Things like pledges to arrest / imprison your opponent if you win the election).
- Catch said: Does the market place remain a hugh pile of other folks money seeking profits, or does some real value exist, somewhere? Is this just a chase, chase, chase?
My sense, having invested for 50 years, is that there’s a whole lot of “chase chase” going on. That doesn't mean the equity markets can’t continue to spiral upwards for many more years. It does mean that as a 70+ year old retiree, I’m not willing to put a large amount of money at risk. So much depends on one’s situation and time horizon.
- Catch said: It is apparent that the really big money does much care one way or another about what is going on in politics, in general, yes? The U.S bombing North Korea or North Korea bombing Guam; well, that might change a few things for a week or so, eh?
Catch lists more potential black swans than I care to dissect. Most have been out there for years. But don’t you love “The law of unintended consequences” ? So many threats emanating from Washington to reign down fire and fury on the Korean Penninsula that it has driven the two nations there closer together. Some real dialogue is taking place between the two adversaries. Some revolves around the 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea. Neither country wants to partake of all out nuclear war on their peninsula.
- Catch said: Interest rates (still touchy/feely as to central bank actions) remain low, inflation remains low and the yield spread between the 10 and 30 year Treasury's has continued to shrink.
The HY spread doesn’t surprise me. There is often a strong correlation between the equity and junk bond markets. What happens to rates depends on the health of the world economy. Low rates have boosted the global markets higher following the near depression in ‘08. As the punch bowl is gradually taken away, do we achieve orbit or careen back to earth in flames? Nobody knows for certain. However, higher short term rates could actually help longer dated bonds if a recession were to occur as a result. For that reason I’m averaging a bit into a GNMA fund - the equivalent of taking a parachute along with you on a flight. A lot of dead weight - but priceless in an emergency.

I like & own AIG SunAmerica's Focus Dividend Strategy (FDSAX). I have linked below it's fact sheet.
https://www-1012.aig.com/pdf/focused-dividend-strategy-portfolio-fact-sheet_s5110fs1.aspx

The AQR long short equity fund QLEIX looks pretty good but it is closed and just has a 3 year history.

Not that it matters, since it's not available to new investors, but it's been around 4 1/2 years and will hit 5 in July. (Even some L/S funds without a long history have been around for a few short weak periods for equities, e.g., a few months in 2014 and 2015, 2015 overall, and Jan. 2016, for peeks into down-market performance. None of those were deep and sustained like 2007-2008, of course, but the GR was back far enough that many funds of all kinds with that extensive a record have changed managers/strategies or have had big increases in AUM that have likely affected strategy and performance since.)
That Calamos fund (CPLSX) looks interesting. So many different strategies within long-short ...

I'm keeping my shares for now. The 4 cents one day loss represents .015 of the share price. That's not enough to bother me even on a day that the index goes up. MSCFX after all is not invested in the index.When the index goes down perhaps this fund will also not move in tandem. That's my 2, 4 cents.

Calamos has an interesting looking fund that was originally a hedge fund that was converted to a mutual fund a few years ago. It has beaten the s&p 500 over the past ten years. Here is a link to a Barron profile of the fund - http://webreprints.djreprints.com/54361.pdf?utm_source=calamoscom&utm_medium=site&utm_campaign=barrons1122

The only L/S fund that's been around for the full market cycle and has qualified as a Great Owl, is Hundredfold Select Alternatives (SFHYX). That's not an endorsement, just a statistical report. It has outperformed its peers by 2.7% annually for the full cycle.
The star is Boston Partners Long/Short Equity (BPLSX), which is closed. Ali Motamed, who comanaged the fund from 2013-15 and worked at the adviser from 2003-15, now manages Balter Invenomics (BIVIX). It launched last year and has outperformed BPLSX, though with noticeably more volatility.
Though not technically a long/short fund, Litman Gregory Masters Alternative Strategies (MASNX) has a solid cast and great long term record. Swan Defined Risk (SDRIX) is an interesting options-based fund that we've written about. At base, the manager argues that you can't protect against all risks so you have to define the one you're hedging. In his case, the fund is constructed to buffer a major market drop but doesn't try to dodge smaller options. River Road Long-Short (ARLSX) has modestly outperformed the L/S group since launch with substantially less volatility. If you use the search function on the "Commentary" page, you'll get some text about each of them.
Finally, I'd strongly consider investing in a fund that holds a lot of cash. They function exactly like a L/S fund: reduced volatility and reduced returns when the broad market is rising, reduced losses and increased returns when the market falls. In our February issue, I'll name the 15/15 funds: funds with at least 15% cash that had total returns of at least 15% last year.
For what that's worth,
David

Black swan is perhaps a bit too strong right now. But, ankle biting geese upon the investment markets can cause a scare here and there. Ever been chased by a protective goose? They can be very serious creatures.
I've become more of a technical investor with a big dose of leftover "what are the fundamentals of this investment world today"?.
Does the market place remain a hugh pile of other folks money seeking profits, or does some real value exist, somewhere?
Is this just a chase, chase, chase?
It is apparent that the really big money does much care one way or another about what is going on in politics, in general, yes? The U.S bombing North Korea or North Korea bombing Guam; well, that might change a few things for a week or so, eh?
Interest rates (still touchy/feely as to central bank actions) remain low, inflation remains low and the yield spread between the 10 and 30 year Treasury's has continued to shrink.
Spread between 30's and 10's:
---Feb. 3, 2017 = .62%
---July 21, 2017 = .57%
---Nov. 10, 2017 = .48%
---Dec. 1, 2017 = .39%
---Jan. 19, 2018 = .27%
For a period during much of 2016 the spread remained about .6%.
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?$UST30Y,$UST10Y&p=5&O=011000

Appears to be pretty much all in for equity, choose your sector(s); be they broad based or more focused.
I remain of the mind set that mergers and acquisitions will expand and that some companies may do share buybacks; and whatever else one may consider to increase equity pricing above and beyond what may be considered normal or overbought levels. I do review RSI (relative strength) levels and many are rich right now.
We remain directed more to the large cap/growth without any direct investments into mid/sm cap; although these are inside of many fund holdings.
What say you about the forward direction of global equity markets?
Thanks and take care,
Catch

Hi guys!
Last week, in The Economist, they had a piece on India.....the great lie of the middle class in India. It's not China of 20 years ago. E-commerce in India in 2017 was about that in China for a week. US companies can't make any money there. GDP per person is $1700 --- and 80% of the people make less. 3% of the population own these 5 things: car or scooter, TV, computer, A/C or refrigerator. Top 1% make $20,000 --- good paying jobs are thin. Education is very poor.....1 in 9 is illiterate. Most US companies aren't selling basics, so they can't make money. Slick said a while back India was not a buy. From what I read, good call!
God bless
the Pudd

I moved some DSENX into DLEUX a few months ago, a small amount to start. My thought was; I like the CAPE theory, so if there is better value in Europe then CAPE should work well there. Maybe better than US.
If I compare the US version to Europe, The U.S version has done better, but not by a lot. But I take that with a grain of salt because domestic stocks have all been on a tear. so maybe not a good comparison. If I compare it to FEU, a broader Europe ETF, it under performs substantially over the last 3 months, 1.7% to 6.1% for FEU and by about 5% over one year, 23% for DLEUX versus 28% for FEU.
I don't know what it all means over this short time, but I don't have a huge stake in DLEUX to give it much worry. I don't plan to move any more DSENX to DLEUX at this point, but I'm not going to sell either. Still an experiment.

EMs (bonds and stocks) are highly cyclical. Conventional wisdom over the last 40-50 years has been that EM stocks will outpace more modernized economies over the long haul. Sir John Templeton used to make that point. However, during the decade or so that I owned his funds, his more sedate TEMWX did much better than the EM heavy TEGOX, which had higher fees and a lot more volatility.
I don’t think anyone really knows. At my age I’d maybe play them if they looked beaten up enough to catch a nice bounce. But I don’t want to own EM on a protracted basis - particularly the stocks, which can drop 30-40% before you can say “ouch”.

I've given up guessing. So far, the stock market has played the metaphorical crowd witnessing Trump shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave. Move along, nothing to see here.
Longer term, an extended shutdown will harm the economy. But that could just be a slowing, rather than a stall. And the market could shrug that off as well (despite profits being lower than they might otherwise have been).
Who knows? But I guess that's why you asked.

Let's put the pieces together:

To Satisfy Its Investors, Cash-Rich Apple Borrows Money (NYTimes, April 30, 2013)

Apple said last week that it planned to distribute [$100 billion] by the end of 2015 in the form of paying increased dividends and buying back its stock ... By raising cheap debt for the shareholder payout, Apple also avoids a potentially big tax hit. ... In some ways, the bond issue is a response to that tax situation.

Instead of Apple paying its taxes, it's getting doubly rewarded - paying a fraction of the taxes it was liable for, and mollifying its shareholders with cheap money made possible by Fed-inspired low interest rates.
If Apple had better use for that money than buybacks, it would have done something else. As it turns out, prior to repatriation, Apple was already spending tons of money domestically.
Apple's $350 Billion U.S. Economic Contribution Was Already In The Cards
(Forbes, Jan 19, 2018, opinion by Chuck Jones; no, not that Chuck Jones)
Finally, we need to be clear on what "offshore" means. It doesn't mean that the money was actually in overseas banks or investments. It just means that Apple couldn't spend the money domestically. It could, and did, invest that money in Treasuries and corporate securities (curious, since it was floating its own paper at the time - perhaps even making a profit on that arbitrage?).
Beware the $500 Billion Bond Exodus (Bloomberg Businessweek, Jan 17, 2018).

“The term overseas cash can be a bit of a misnomer, as it doesn’t have to be overseas and in fact a lot of it isn’t”