Hi @Willmatt72,
Yes, I use hybrid (multi-asset) income funds within my portfolio plus I have a couple of other sleeves that contain hybrid type funds as well.
In my income area I have two sleeves, one a fixed income sleeve and the other is a hybrid income sleeve which consists of the following six funds: CAPAX, CTFAX, FKINX, ISFAX, JNBAX & PGBAX.
In the growth and income area I have four sleeves, two of the sleeves contain only hybrid type funds. One is a global hybrid sleeve and the other is a domestic hybrid sleeve. My global hybrid sleeve consists of three funds: BAICX, CAIBX & TIBAX. My domestic hybrid sleeve consists of six funds: AMECX, DDIAX, FBLAX, FRINX, HWIAX, LABFX + ABALX which is held in my health savings account.
All combined, currently, my three hybrid sleeves make up about 40% of my overall portfolio. I am thinking of bringing this up to 50% through a rebalance process. There are multiple reasons that I use hybrid funds. One is that most of these hybird fund managers use somewhat of an adaptive allocation strategy to postion their funds within their allowable asset allocation ranges. This leaves the other seven sleeves (one in the income area, two in the growth & income area and four in the growth area) which make up about another 40% of the portfolio that I position as to how I am reading the markets. I am thinking of reducing this down to 30%, as hybrids are increased, by reducing the number of fund positions held within the sleeves that I use to position. The other two sleeves are found in the cash area and make up about 20% of my portfolio.
Anyway, this is how I use (multi-asset) hybrid type funds within my portfolio. I have found them, for the ones that I own, to be good income generators while at the same time positioning and adapating to varrying market conditions.

I believe the 7 day yield is neither APR nor APY, but a hybrid - the compounded yield over a seven day period, extrapolated as simple interest over a year. Not that it makes any difference at these low rates (as you'll see below), but here's the complete calculation:
0.53% 7 day SEC yield equates to 7/366 * 0.53% ~= 0.010137%
Remember that this is an election year (how could one forget?), so 366 days.
That 0.10137% is a the total return over a week, i.e. a compounded daily return.
So the daily rate is (1 + 0.010137%) ^ (1/7) - 1 ~= 0.001448%.
On $1M, that yields $14.48 per day.
The deviation from Ted's figure is virtually all due to the leap year. Redoing the calculation above with a 365 day year produces $14.519, vs. Ted's $14.521. A daily difference of just two mill.
All this is academic, not because I don't seem to have $1M in pocket change, nor because the minimum investment is $100M, but because BGIXX (Black Rock Cash Funds Institutional, Institutional Class) is closed. See summary prospectus for this share class or its SAI.

@MFO Members: The patient died caused by small AUM, high ER, and the following performance percentile of YTD 96, 1Yr. 96, 3Yr. 95, 5yr. 98 !
Regards,
Ted

@MFO Members: Using BlackRock Cash Funds Institutional 7-Day yield 0.53
One has $1,000,000 invested for 30 days at a 7-day SEC yield of 0.53 then:
(0.53 × $1,000,000 ) / 365 ~= $14.52 per day.

Currently, Fidelity's retail MMF FZDXX ($10K min in IRA) is yielding 0.45%, while the Fidelity institutional MMF listed by iMoneyNet, FIDXX, is yielding 0.44%.
These figures are as of June 30th, 2016 according to the linked pages. Price stability (no floating NAV) and higher yield. Sometimes the retail investor comes out better.
(Note that this is happening because Fidelity is waiving more of the retail fund's fees than the institutional fund's fees. Without waivers, the institutional fund would be ahead, 0.41% vs. 0.37%.)

Sort of. You can find the SEC formulas as instructions to Item 26 in this form:
https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formn-1a.pdf
The 7 day yield is the actual income (excluding cap gains) earned on an investment in a MMF over a period of seven days (i.e. after expenses are subtracted), multiplied by 365/7. So it is more or less a simple interest rate calculated over a year - what a bank would call APR.
Not quite a true annualized figure, because an actual investment would have compounded yield - what a bank would call APY. The second equation in the form gives this value; it defines effective yield.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1026977/000139834416015459/fp0020382_497.htm
497 1 fp0020382_497.htm
City National Rochdale Funds
Multi-Asset Fund
Servicing Class (CNIIX)
Class N (CNIAX)
Supplement dated July 22, 2016, to the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of
Additional Information dated January 31, 2016, as supplemented
The Board of Trustees of City National Rochdale Funds (the “Trust”) has decided to liquidate the Multi-Asset Fund (the “Fund”) on or about September 29, 2016 (the “Liquidation Date”). In connection with the closing of the Fund, the Board of Trustees has directed City National Rochdale, LLC, the Fund’s investment adviser, to liquidate the Fund’s portfolio holdings in an orderly manner and to invest the proceeds in money market and other short term instruments. Accordingly, the Fund has ceased to invest its assets in accordance with its stated investment policies.
Effective immediately, the Fund will no longer sell shares to new investors or existing shareholders (except through reinvested dividends), including through exchanges into the Fund from other funds of the Trust. Investors may continue to redeem shares of the Fund.
Shareholders of the Fund may redeem their shares at any time before the Fund closes. Existing shareholders of the Fund may continue to exchange their Fund shares for shares of the same Class of other series of City National Rochdale Funds pursuant to procedures set forth in the Prospectus. On the Liquidation Date, any remaining assets of the Fund will be paid to shareholders who have not redeemed their Fund shares by that date. Shareholders should consult their tax advisers regarding the tax treatment of the liquidation.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
CNR-SK-023-0100

AndyJ is essentially correct; the Zack's information is outdated.
I'm a strong advocate of going to the source. However, the "rule" was no rule at all, but a proposed IRS regulation - having no force of law, just providing clues as to how the IRS would treat your rollovers. Here's one of the clearest discussions of proposed regs vs. final regs vs tax code (statutues) I've seen. It's from CCH and was written for accountants, not lawyers, so it does a good job at clarifying the law.
Tax Research: Understanding Sources of Tax Law
Subtitled: Why my IRC [statutes] beat your Rev Proc [IRS regs]!
In this case, the underlying statute (IRC 408(d)(3)(B)) was clear: if you have done a 60 day rollover within a year, you can't do another tax-free 60 day rollover of money from any IRA. The court ruling picked up on this wording. The IRS has put its own erroneous spin on the statue for years. It's been writing this into Pub 590 and letting people get away with it.
I'm wondering if there is still a loophole. The new IRS regs (and existing statutes) allow any number of rollover conversions, i.e. taking money from traditional IRAs, holding the money for up to 60 days, and then depositing it into Roth IRAs as conversions. All these serial Roth conversion could be recharacterized to traditional IRAs (and thus avoid taxes) so long as they were recharacterized prior to the tax filing deadline (including extensions).
So it seems you can do multiple 60 day rollover conversions, and ultimately get the money back where it came from. This isn't quite as flexible as the old 60 day bucket brigade (rolling over the same money from IRA to IRA), but it still have the effect of getting you access to some amount of money for an indefinite period of time (rather than 60 days per year).
As to extensions of the 60 day restriction, here's the IRS FAQ page on waivers (doesn't seem to help Gary):
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-faqs-relating-to-waivers-of-the-60-day-rollover-requirement

Hi @Ted,
Thanks for posting these daily blurbs. I enjoy reading them form time-to-time along with their spin.
Under reading the above US take ... it seems to me ... if stocks were to return to their winning ways then their rolling twelve month earnings number would be rising year over year and ahead of last years. All in reported earnings (TTM) for the S&P 500 Index closed out this past June at about $90.02 according to my Standard & Poors tracking. At the first of this year all in reported earnings (TTM) were projected to come in at $109.82 but actually came in as reported at $90.02 through June. This is a considerable miss in my book for a year ago as they came in at $94.90; and, with this, they fell short of their previously year's number by about $4.88.
I truly love the way some authors (and even Wall Street), at times, can put spin on things.
There might be some that are hyped up about the recent maket surge in it's price; but, if one looks at fundamentals we are currently back of where we were a year ago from an earnings perspective. As a seasoned retail investor I buy more from an earnings perspective and not as much from a price perspective. Stocks are indeed richly priced and not as a good of a buy today as they were a year ago.
Well let us just say, I did not drink their kool-aid on this one.

The 60d rollover rule changed in 2015: it's now one per year, period, no matter how many accounts you own.
For the OP, if you're beyond the 60 days or have already done a rollover within the last year, I'm not familiar with what you can do, but nothing beats getting to know the IRA rules directly from the source.
The relevant publication, Pub 590 on all things IRA, has been split into 590-A, Contributions, and 590-B, Distributions, which you can download from the IRS site or request as paper copies by mail.

FYI: Set and forget? Before you do, consider these factors.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-reasons-to-think-twice-about-your-target-date-fund-2016-07-21/print

Hi Guys,
The three Ps work wonders. From long gone famous motivational speaker and writer Napoleon Hill: “Patience, persistence, and perspiration make an unbeatable combination for success”.
The referenced article makes a case for a patient fund manager who allows his stock buys to perform over time using a low turnover ratio portfolio approach. These days, many fund managers demonstrate their impatience with average holding periods of less than one year. That increases trading costs with uncertain impacts on bottom-line performance. Often these same funds have high expense ratios to support the necessary research to make frequent buy/sell decisions.
That’s a double whammy for fund clients. SPIVA studies persistently demonstrate that active funds often fall short when compared to Index benchmarks, These excessive costs contribute to the shortfalls, Here is a Link to a recent 2015 SPIVA study that shows the persistence of that shortfall:
http://us.spindices.com:80/documents/spiva/spiva-us-midyear-2015.pdf
The annual numbers change but the conclusions are invariant over time. And they become more conclusive as the timeframe expands.
But the double whammy converts to a triple whammy when the impatience and the fickleness of private investors encourage them to abandon their fund selections far too early. Morningstar data show that investors do not receive the returns of the actively managed funds that they choose. Their timing is horrible. Here is the Link to the Morningstar Fact Sheet that describes their methodology::
http://corporate.morningstar.com/us/documents/PR/Investorreturnsfactsheet.pdf
All these findings support a primary argument for an Indexing portfolio construction. But exceptions do exist, and a few active fund managers have shown discipline with lower turnover ratios and superior stock selections to overcome the cost drags. That’s why my portfolio has a mix of both Index and actively managed mutual funds and ETFs.
And going the Indexing route also lowers the perspiration aspects of portfolio construction and maintenance, Worry is reduced since return volatility will be somewhat reduced and outcomes will tend to converge towards market rewards. Remember that the overall actively managed fund return distribution curves are very much asymmetrical with a measurable heavier weighting in the below average direction.
One frightful thought here: I believe I’m thinking and writing like a slightly younger John Bogle. On second thought, maybe that’s not too bad, especially the age factor.
Patience is forever a positive, principal virtue, an especially fruitful one in the investing world.
Best Wishes.

Hi @MJG , @Junkster , @Old_Joe
MJG, you noted:
1. "Your suggestion that “This Time is Different” rests on shaky grounds. Anyone who plays that investment style better have deep pockets and some evil desire to commit investing hari-kari. Deep pockets because it doesn’t happen all that often, and in the long run it is a Loser’s Game." and
2. "Perhaps it is different this time and outstanding bond returns will continue to challenge equities as your post suggests that as a possibility. I consider those long odds, and I do not accept that likelihood. Taking that position is dangerous; it’s a very long shot. Anyone who does accept that shot will be either a hero or a clown."
Not sure readers here will find clarity with the two bolds above, eh? I suppose the risk is the clarity. MJG, not picking on you; only referencing what you stated.
As I write this, I consider a new thread might be appropriate just for "this time is different, eh?"
I've noted the "TTID" thought here several times since the market melt. I am not trained in any formal fashion to speak or write about this thought to be taken as serious or that I could fully prove what I sense.
NOTE: We subject our investing to include, among other criteria, a reliance on memory(s). My retained or at least surface memory seems elusive too many times. I'm not one who can name a book and a page within which contains a particular quote. My brain plainly doesn't work this way. As long as this house remains active investors, I/we have to have our brains "into" the market places and outside influences, at a minimum of weekly observations, to help define pricing trends of the short, mid and longer terms. When the passion for this ebbs, VWINX or a similar fund will likely have all of the monies.
Rolling through my thoughts at this time are several item areas relative to investing at this house.
---technology
---central bank policy(s)
---demographics (baby boomers and the young with low education and low paying jobs)
---jobs/wage growth (being jobs of consequence, monetary)
---ongoing affects upon personal budgets since the market melt
---societal unrest
---pension funds, life insurance companies (many underfunded and scratching for returns.....as in hedge funds, alt. investments, etc.)
I'll comment only about technology, as related to labor force in the U.S. Technology will continue to negatively pressure the labor force in the U.S. relative to higher wages on a broad scale. As the U.S. currently remains a consumer driven economy, this will likely have a continued affect on GDP and many of the other measures used by the economic folks. This in turn may cause central banks to maintain an easy money policy longer than they choose. This may continue to affect those who don't trust or are not invested in the markets otherwise (boomers and their CD's).
I suspect Ms. Yellen and associated folks just shake their heads on some days. Some of these folks are also relying on past charts, graphs and trends. This isn't necessary bad, but I hope they are also flexible and adaptable and not locked into past habits. 'Course there are a whole bunch of folks who haven't a clue to what may be taking place with their invested money. This same group will likely only be able to rely upon some of this money for their retirement future. If a "this time is different" lasts for 5 or 10 years or; investment returns will be affected. K. I'm too hot from outside work in a steamy Michigan environment right now. I'm going to quit this for now to cool the brain cells, as they may not be allowing me to express here properly. Not my best day for attempting to write concise thoughts.
Thank you to everyone for prior comments.
Our current investment mix: IG bonds = 52%, Equity = 48%
Bonds
---all investment grade U.S., corp. and gov't.
Equity sector breakdown
---direct healthcare related 44.6%
---U.S. centered 24.4% (blend)
---European 17.2%
---real estate 13.8%
Regards,
Catch

A very good fund on a great run ... it doesn't have many years as high in the pecking order as this one, though, and the trailing P/E has creeped up to ~ 25, so I wouldn't empty the piggy bank at this point. I'm holding the shares I've had for a year-plus, but not tempted to add at this price.

So says the the guru that proclaimed junk bonds were in extreme valuation back in February. A *lot* of upside since February and all time highs nearly everyday this month. Like all gurus and experts, Mr Fridson will be proven correct at some point and the market will react accordingly. But exactly when in the distant future will this occur?? As an aside, have been posting over at Bogleheads lately. It is a little more heavily policed over there. Makes you appreciate David's more tolerant handling of the postings here at MFO. But overall, I enjoy the Bogelhead forum, especially all the discussions on retirement.
http://blogs.barrons.com/incomeinvesting/2016/07/19/fridson-post-brexit-high-yield-overvaluation-is-staggering/?mod=BOL_hp_blog_ii
Veteran high yield analyst Marty Fridson, chief investment officer of Lehmann Livian Fridson Advisors, used the word “staggering” in his analysis of high yield overvaluation Tuesday.
http://wolfstreet.com/2015/04/23/strategy-will-succeed-until-it-fails-junk-bond-guru-marty-fridson/
“The extreme overvaluation of the high-yield market, initially observed in February, persisted in March,” Martin Fridson, Chief Investment Officer of Lehmann Livian Fridson Advisors, wrote in his column on S&P Capital IQ/LCD. Based on the firm’s econometric modeling methodology, junk bonds have been overvalued, though not at this extreme level, since mid-2012:

FYI: If you want to dial back risk while maintaining exposure to the stock market, consider the $5 billion Jensen Quality Growth fund (ticker: JENSX ). During the stock market’s last collapse, in 2008, the fund fell 29% while the average large-cap growth fund tumbled more than 40%. Over the past three years, the fund has returned 12% annually, edging out the Standard & Poor’s 500 and beating 84% of large-growth fund peers. The fund has been on a tear more recently, returning 10.8% year-to-date, beating the S&P 500’s 7.3% gain while outperforming 99% of its large-growth fund peers.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.barrons.com/articles/todays-top-5-stock-picks-fund-beating-99-of-peers-1469009156#printMode
M* Snapshot JENSX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/JENSX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot JENSX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/JENSX
JENSX Is Ranked #13 In The (LCG) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-growth/jensen-quality-growth-fund/jensx

FYI: Spencer Jakab has put his experience—first as a stock analyst, and now as investment columnist for the Wall Street Journal—into a new how-to book called Heads I Win, Tails I Win that helps investors figure out what they are doing wrong, and how they could “tilt the odds” in their favor.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/spencer-jakab-qa?nopaging=1
Order Throught Amazon.Com And Help MFO:
https://www.amazon.com/Heads-Win-Tails-Smart-Investors/dp/0399563202/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1469098348&sr=8-1&keywords=heads+i+win+tails+i+win+by+spencer+jakab

MJG I think you missed my point. This has nothing to do with the *performance* of stocks vs. bonds. Just the unthinkable and this time it really was different as 1958 was a watershed event in that for the first time ever bonds yielded more than stocks.

The reason for the change in 1958 is being missed. There was a recession, stocks were coming off the effects of the Korean war AND European and Japanese companies were coming up. Don't forget that JFK faced a small recession and strikes for higher wages. Then bond yields went up in the 60s because of the Vietnam war and the beginning of the Great Society.
Then add in the Brenton Wood agreement - called the gold standard - that required countries to use fiscal and monetary policies to manage exchange rate.
Nixon wet off the gold standard - inflation, oil crisis and the 60s spending caused the 80's peak in bond interest rates.
The reason for the decline in the treasury interest rates in the 80/90s was in part due to the good economy that caused the worry to decrease. Now it is down because of it is a safe haven and deflation being more of a worry then inflation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1958
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1960–61

Hi Guys,
Thank you all for this stimulating exchange of ideas. I still fail to get excited about the potential long term penetration of the stock and 10-year Treasury dividend yield curves which hasn’t happened since 1957. Even if it does happen over an extended period, so what? Will it generate an apocalyptic market event?
I doubt it given the large array of other potential market disruptive elements that would have more direct first order impacts. I worry more about the unstable foreign situations, inflation rates, GDP growth rates, EPS statistics, and unemployment numbers. There are always a host of potential damaging factors that could operate to destroy our current and aging Bull market. So I agree with Old Joe; it is a time to be prudent and watchful.
One frequently applied statistical procedure to measure any impacts caused by any signal event is to test performance immediately before that event and performance after that event. In sports and in the marketplace, that’s easily accomplished since a ton of data is accessible.
The earlier referenced Stern school data summaries provide some imprecise comparisons. From that summary data, not much has changed since 1966. From 1926-2015, the S&P 500 returned 11.41% annually whereas the 10-year Treasury bond delivered 5.23% annually on average. From 1966-2015 those numbers have been recorded at the 11.01% and 7.12% annual average return, respectively. The relative rewards remain intact over the very long haul after the signal 1957 dividend penetration.
A more precise comparison can be accessed at the Research Affiliates website. Here is the Link to their more appropriate data sets:
http://www.researchaffiliates.com/Production content library/IWM_Jan_Feb_2012_Expected_Return.pdf
In the 10-year 1951-1960 time period, equities delivered 16.3% annually while bonds produced a 2.1% annual return. Following the salient event, in the 1961-1970 timeframe, stocks returned 8.1% and bonds generated a 3.2% return. In the following 1971-1980 decade, stocks again outdistanced bonds by an 8.4% to 4.0% annual average margin. The specific numbers change, but stocks always bettered bonds in total returns. The 1957 event did not alter that general outcome. If it had an impact, it was minor in nature.
Why worry over the 1957 dividend penetration historical happening when more pressing current worldwide events are much more likely to influence near term market returns? Why worry the unlikely small stuff while ignoring the potential bigger stuff?
Once again, I thank all participants for this polite, well informed exchange. It was certainly worthwhile for me. Hopefully it served you well also.
Best Wishes.

FYI: U.S. stocks on Wednesday maintained their recent rally toward new closing highs, buoyed by a surge in tech stocks after a flurry of corporate earnings beat the market’s lowered expectations.
Notably, Morgan Stanley , and Microsoft Corp. , released better-than-feared earnings, boosting the broader benchmarks after disappointing quarterly results from Netflix Inc. on Tuesday led both the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq to finish lower.
Regards,
Ted
WSJ:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/european-stocks-cautiously-higher-ahead-of-ecb-meeting-thursday-1469000791
Bloomberg:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-19/asia-stocks-set-for-mixed-start-after-u-s-europe-rallies-pause
Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-idUSKCN1001AT
MarketWatch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dow-average-set-for-7th-straight-record-as-microsoft-rallies-after-earnings-2016-07-20/print
USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/07/20/dow-opens-higher-boosted-microsoft-profit/87332338/
IBD:
http://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/nasdaq-thrusts-1-6-stocks-that-are-breaking-out-now/
WSJ Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
Current Futures: Positive
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx