FYI: He correctly predicted the past six months’ market performance. His outlook for the next six months will disappoint you.
The U.S. stock market will be trading right where it is today in six months’ time — at 2,370 on the S&P 500 Index.
That’s the latest six-month forecast from Sam Eisenstadt, whose short-term stock-market-timing model is the best I’ve seen in my four decades of monitoring the investment-advisory industry.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sam-eisenstadt-a-supreme-forecaster-has-bad-news-for-stock-investors-2017-03-07/print

FYI: Sometimes the simplest questions are the most important to ask. Such is the case when I looked at the flows into low-volatility funds last week as part of the regular checkup on ETF fund flows.
While the rest of the ETF market is pulling in money by the fistfuls, low-vol funds, as a group, are actually having a pretty awful year. Through the end of February, they were down $578 million in assets.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/blog/why-low-vol-funds-are-bleeding?nopaging=1

There have been a lot of discussions about the Doubleline Schiller Enhanced CAPE funds, primarily DSENX, but I'd like to make sure I know how they work before doing anything with them. I would appreciate any corrections or clarifications.
In basic terms the fund is comprised of 4 out of the 5 cheapest sectors based on CAPE and the sector exposure is adjusted monthly. The funds achieves this exposure primarily through swaps. Swaps are very flexible because 2 parties can effectively agree to "bet" against each other over a period of time and they can negotiate the specific terms. By doing this they essentially replicate the index and gain the appropriate value exposure to the chosen sectors. At the least, however, the fund has to be gaining leverage through their use of swaps. It could be that neither party is actually investing or shorting the sectors but instead they just have a "paper" bet and each party only has to be concerned about the others ability to pay if they lose where the leverage comes from not actually "buying" anything. Or it could come in the form similar to futures contracts where the investment is leveraged and you only need to maintain a small portion of the value of the investment as margin.
Regardless of how they achieve the leverage the fund has therefore gained the ability to "perform" as if they had all their assets invested in those 4 sectors without investing all their cash and they use that excess cash to buy bonds, earn income and "enhance" the return that the index achieves.
To the extent that they use most or all of their excess cash to buy bonds, part of the risk is that they'd need to liquidate bonds to pay losses when the swap expires if the fund's sector exposures lose value. This might be why they have 18% of their fixed income investments in US govt. bonds, since they wouldn't be difficult to liquidate if it was necessary. They also have 8.7% in pure cash which I guess could be a margin requirement or could simply be a way of limiting the likelihood that they'd be forced to liquidate bonds if the equity investments lose money.
I guess to the extent that any of their swaps aren't readily marketable they would have to include a provision that either party could "end" the bet at any time. This would allow them to reallocate to whatever sectors are chosen each month, but my knowledge about the details of how they're effecting these swaps is basically non-existent so its just a guess.
Maybe I'm missing something but it seems like the main risks with the fund are related to the terms of the swap, which the public probably never finds out unless someone spills the beans and whether the fixed income securities they choose are sensitive to interest rates and could more than offset the income they produce due to a loss of value. Since a good majority of those bonds, according to the fact sheet, have short durations, it would at least seem like they're not being overly aggressive with their goal of "enhancing" the index.

JoJo26, I can buy BPRRX in my Fidelity IRA for a minimum of $2500, but I already have QLEIX.

Hey, VF.
BPRRX is large cap. BPLEX is nominally mid-cap with 18% in micro caps and 15% in small caps, both of which is rare in a L/S fund.
I sort of think of BPRRX as the equivalent of Grandeur Peak Stalwarts, the mid-cap produce from the micro-cap specialist offered as a gesture of goodwill to the advisor community.
David

My wife was a teacher in the SF Public School System for 35 years (and deserves a hero medal). She was extremely fortunate, in that the SF teachers had a decent pension system (CA Teachers Retirement), were allowed to also contribute to Social Security, and also were allowed a self-funded, self-directed 403B. After she retired we rolled the 403B over to an IRA.
Because of that, we contributed self-funding to the max on her salary, and Social Security and self-funded IRA on my salary. For the twenty years of my final job with San Francisco as a radio tech I also received a city pension.
While we were very fortunate to be in the right spot at the right time for those benefits, we also saved like crazy for forty years, and are now very comfortable.

Hi @Tony,
Good question Tony. Sometimes I write using abbreviations.
The $SPXA200R is the symbol to view the number of stocks within the S&P 500 Index that are above their 200 day moving average which is one of the barometer feeds thus the 200R would be the number of stocks (percent wise) above the 200 day moving average. I have provided a link to this charting. The "200R MACD" is an abreviation I use to indicate the MACD reading of the above, and that it is not price based, thus not to be confused with the priced based MACD for SPY. Likewise, the 200R RSI would be based upon the number of S&P 500 stocks above their 200 day moving average and not to be confused with the price based RSI.
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?c=$SPXA200R

FYI: According to the Economic Policy Institute,
“CEO pay grew an astounding 943% over the past 37 years, greatly outpacing the growth in the cost of living, the productivity of the economy, and the stock market, disproving the claim that the growth in CEO pay reflects the ‘performance’ of the company, the value of its stock, or the ability of the CEO to do anything but disproportionately raise the amount of his pay.”
For the past two years, we have highlighted the 100 most overpaid CEOs of S&P 500 companies, and the votes of large shareholders, including mutual funds and pension funds on their pay packages.
Regards,
Ted
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2017/03/02/the-100-most-overpaid-ceos/

The milestone numbers become a smaller percentage move. A thousand point gain for the DJIA is just 5% from 20,000.
Nick de Peyster
Undervalued Stocks

FYI: Stock futures pointed to a muted start for Wall Street on Monday, with appetite for equities slightly dented by geopolitical tensions involving North Korea and continued worries by some investors that markets have risen too far, too fast.
Regards,
Ted
U.S.:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-futures-point-to-a-muted-start-for-wall-street-as-selloff-talk-grows-2017-03-06/print
Europe:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/deutsche-banks-slide-pulls-financials-german-dax-lower-2017-03-06/print
Asia:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/japan-south-korea-markets-muted-after-north-korean-missile-tests-2017-03-05/print
Current Futures: Negative
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

@Puddnhead,
Sorry for drifting here (Buffalo wings & longnecks again..then @Old_Joe stopped by). Your fund is very small (51 million AUM) so could be nimble. It has a short manager record (4 yrs). It's ER is .97% (I like, not 1.01%, burp). The fund seems 'very indexy" (no strong concentrations). For a fund that has a "dividend focus" I would hope for a better yield than 1.19%.
Compared to other LC blend funds, I have GTLOX, POSKX, and OAKMX on my short list.
FundMojo likes: TRULX, BRLIX, FOHIX & VDIGX
Hope that helps.
A few funds that historically have outperformed here:

Considering that an S&P 500 emini futures contract is about 20x leveraged based on the margin requirement...but I hope this fails. Everything that could possibly serve an investor has already been introduced.

@PRESSmUP @catch22 - The M* sector table has blanks (well, dashes actually) in the fund's column. The other columns (category and benchmark) do have values.
It always pays to go back to the source:
http://www.doublelinefunds.com/shiller-enhanced-cape/statistics/ or
http://www.doublelinefunds.com/wp-content/uploads/shiller-enhanced-cape-fact-sheet.pdf
(aside from noise, 1/4 in each of Consumer Staples, Consumer Discretionary, Industrials, and Technology, as of end of January)
Barclays (CAPE ETN) is not as forthcoming. It lists only Consumer Staples, Industrials, and Technology (as comprising 75% of the fund). It forgets to list a fourth sector.
http://www.etnplus.com/US/7/en/details.app?instrumentId=174066
(click on Index Sector Weightings Tab)
It is curious that one of the supposed advantages of index funds is transparency, yet people are having difficulty finding out what sectors, let alone what securities, the fund holds.
Some of that is likely due to the fact that Doubleline gets equity exposure with derivatives, some of that is due to the index being proprietary, some of that is due to CAPE being an ETN that doesn't even hold anything (it's just a note that promises to pay according to the index performance).

@msf,
I believe the to NASDQ funds are considered low beta for their category (Large Growth). I am assuming S&P 500 is Large Blend. I like your suggestions with ER, I'll add that to my screening tasks.
Your link to the M*screener locked me out, try this one if you'd like to use the USAA M* Marketplace screener:
morningstar.USAAScreener

That's the same link (check the embedded URL). Oh well, works for me.
I think you're conflating two different concepts: comparison within category and comparison with a benchmark.
Unlike ER, beta does not exist in a vacuum. It is a measure of excess return (generally defined as return above 3 month Treasuries) relative to the market or relative to some other benchmark.
Once you have computed those betas for LCG, you can compare them to identify the low ones relative to the category.
I used M*'s premium screener to coax out the average beta for LCG. It's 1.03. The screener verified that the NASAQ index funds mentioned do have the high betas I described.
M*'s help for its screener describes beta here:
http://screen.morningstar.com/AdvFunds/data_definition.html?field=Beta+(3+Year)
I spot checked a bond fund in the final 18, and found the same problem with beta. For bonds, M* uses US Aggregate Bond Index as the benchmark. Relative to that benchmark, ACCHX came in with a 1.25 beta, vs. 1.14 category average for corporate bonds.
A good example of why beta may not be meaningful is FATRX. Since short term bond funds are bond funds, M* uses the same US Aggregate Bond index as a benchmark to compute beta. But these bonds on average have R^2 of 54, making the figures worthless. FATRX's beta is even less meaningful, with an R^2 of 46. With all that said, FATRX's (meaningless) beta of 0.49 is much higher than the category's average (and meaningless) beta of 0.29.
If the screener is looking at absolute betas (i.e. not relative to a fund's peers), then I could see it selecting FATRX. But if the screener is searching for funds with betas low relative to peers, then FATRX should not have popped out.
FWIW, when I use the USAA screener with just four criteria, I get 65 funds, including only one of the ones in your list:
- Open to new investors
- Available as USAA
- ER <= 0.9
- Beta = low
I get AB Corporate Income (ACISX), not AB High Income (AGDKX, AGDYX). But ACISX has an above average beta also. That suggests a flaky screener.
I do get Oppenheimer Rochester AMT Free NY Muni (ONYYX) which is in your list, but not any other Oppenheimer fund, not RMUYX and not ORNYX

@PopTart
You may choose to mix and match then, eh? As I noted, both funds are running similar returns to one another during the past 5 years or so. Of course, everyone must determine their own comfort level with any of this; and in particular, what percentage of a sector holding is of value to be meaningful to an overall portfolio. Our measure here has been that anything less than a 10% holding may not provide enough "bump". 'Course, the same thought applies to the downside, too.
Dollar cost averaging, which most encounter during a working career determines a method for attaining a percentage goal for any holding.
But, you're investing while young; and that is the overwhelming wonderful.
Take care,
Catch

This says it all...

Equity Funds w/ HC
POAGX - 29% HC
VHCOX - 29% HC
BCSIX - 27% HC (also 61% is in Tech)...both in the SC space.
PRNHX - 17% HC
SFGIX - 11% HC (5x higher than its category)
Allocation Funds w/ HC
PRWCX (68% Equity) - 22% in HC
VWINX (38% Equity) - 13% in HC
BRUFX (45% Equity) - 19% in HC
Equity Index Funds w/ HC
VFINX (S&P 500 index) - 13% HC
NASDX (Nasdqx 100 Index) - 11% HC

My 2 cents; I think if you play in and out of any sector, even HC, it is not worth guessing whether to or when to increase or decrease the overall percentage in your portfolio. Heck, that is what your fund manager is doing. Why second guess and counter his actions? Buying and holding a HC fund may be a different story since past results show HC funds have returned significantly more than say the S&P 500 over long periods of time. Of course, if you buy and hold a fund, that is your guess that sector will continue it's higher return over long periods versus the S&P 500. Now what percentage do you hold to make a meaningful contribution to the overall return? If you hold a HC fund at say 1% of your total portfolio and it's history suggests a 6% higher return, you have increased your overall return a whopping 0.06%. In a $100,000 portfolio you added $60 to the cause. Make the sector bet 10% and now maybe you are adding value to your overall return, though at increased volatility.
So @Art, to answer your question, I don't think a HC fund (or any sector fund) is needed and I think trying to time when to increase or decrease any sector could be a negative for returns. You certainly can make a case for buy and holding HC though. But significant increase to overall portfolio returns may end up being insignificant at best, depending on your percentage bet.
Which, to go off-tangent a little bit, is why the fund DSENX is so appealing to me. I like the funds method of investing in sectors with the most value at any specific time. Value investing just seems like a tried-and-true investment method to me. But I know I am not disciplined or knowledgeable enough to do it myself. Right now DSENX has about 11% in HC. Sounds good to me.

Hi @Art
I just posted this into PopTart's thread. It may provide a few more trinkets for thought.
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/86459/#Comment_86459
Take care,
Catch

Hi @PopTart
Hoping all is well at the A-squared household. Sure you're teaching the children well...as in, an equity is, a bond is......the markets fluctuate, but.........
Okay, I'll provide a few "are you sh*t'in me data points for broad healthcare.
>>>FSPHX and PRHSX from 1-4-99 thru 1-4-2008 (9 months before the full equity market melt)
---FSPHX return = 61% annualized with all distributions = 7.6%
---PRHSX return =161% annualized with all distributions = 20%
NOTE: from the end of December, 2007 thru March of 2008 healthcare had a hit of about -20% and then moved sideways until the full market melt in mid-Sept. of 2008
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?FSPHX,PRHSX&l=0&r=2262&O=111000
>>>FSPHX and PRHSX, 1-4-2008 thru 3-4-2009 (market melt equity bottom, eh?)
Both down about 40% during this time period. Healthcare was already moving to the downside long before the Sept. 2008 blowup.
>>>FSPHX and PRHSX from 3-9-2009 (end of equity market melt) thru 3-3-2017 (now)
---FSPHX return = +431% annualized with all distributions = 54%
---PRHSX return = +508% annualized with all distributions = 63.5%
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?FSPHX,PRHSX&n=2010&O=111000
>>>Last five years via M*, including the Ms. Clinton comments about taking healthcare/pharma "down". Click onto the 5 year to sort return list. Five year health category average = 17.6%
http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/health/$FOCA$SH.aspx
As to the future directions....well, forces are pushing from many directions and there will likely be the continued swings in this equity sector. As to the challenges for the political faces portion, is part of this "lobby" link. One might presume that the big monies will continue to "talk", eh?
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=i
Now on the personal and sometimes scary side for this house, is at this time 67% of all invested assets are in equity with 80% U.S. and the other 20% mostly in Europe. Direct healthcare invests are FSPHX, PRHSX (before closed to us) and FHLC (Fido etf). With the other mutual funds, etf's or index funds; a M* snapshot indicates that 41% of our equity is in U.S./global healthcare. The majority of the monies being in the direct investments. These holdings placed a damper on our 2016 returns, but has us at 6%k YTD, thanks to the recovery in this sector. Keeping the faith at this time for this sector. Active traders are having even more fun; but this house doesn't play in the short time areas very much anymore; but attempt to watch for signs of sector "sickness".
Lastly @PopTart , I do believe PRHSX is available to those within some retirement plans or direct investors with the company, but as you know, not via Fido. Also, the better of these two mutual funds was PRHSX. Within the past several years, even prior to the manager change at PRHSX, FSPHX was traveling a very similar path for returns. Your having direct access to FSPHX should more than cover this area. You may also choose to review some of Fido's other health/medical related select funds. And keep in mind that you likely already have a decent amount of healthcare inside of broad based mutual funds or indexes.
I've tried my best to recall and submit everything I thought about earlier today to reference your post. I'm going to take another check of links and data to help eliminate any mistakes. Questions?
Take care,
Catch