@Shostakovich: You should be happy they didn't return your call. A peer-to-peer CEF is the last thing you need. If and when the fund ever gets off the ground, it will be only a matter of time before it appears on Ron Rowland's ETF Death List.
Regards,
Ted
SEC Filing:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1644771/000139834415003871/fp0014694_n2a.htm

A lot of investors have overweighted on healthcare. Maybe time to pare back a bit?

Healthcare REITs do not trade with healthcare and primarily follow REITs, as far as I've seen.
Personally, I'll continue to sleep well at night with healthcare. I do continue to think that some of the small, binary healthcare names (has one drug, does that drug work yes/no) are overvalued, but I think there's still a lot of healthcare (Gilead, Allergan, Abbott, Celgene, BMY/LLY, Pfizer - Pfizer probably will split at some time not far down the road) and healthcare-related (CVS, McKesson, among others) names that are still quite appealing.
Perhaps that speaks to a view that there is a lot of positives in healthcare but perhaps at this point a better way to play it is via actively managed funds vs broader etfs, especially in regards to biotech? We'll see.
The healthcare REITs are appealing and have a number of tailwinds. Ventas in particular is also spinning off its skilled nursing facilities (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-06/ventas-spinoff-may-inspire-more-health-care-reit-deals-real-m-a.)
"Ventas’s planned purchase of Ardent Medical will give it a bigger stake in the U.S. hospital market, which is set to grow amid an aging baby-boomer population and an increased number of insured Americans under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. At the same time, the company is shedding much of its slower-growing skilled-nursing and post-acute facilities, which should improve the quality of its portfolio, Omotayo Okusanya, a Jefferies analyst, wrote in a report on Monday."

FYI: At its annual conference, Morningstar rolled out the Active/Passive Barometer, a tool that compares the performance of actively managed mutual funds net of fees to comparable passive products
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20150625/FREE/150629951?template=printart
Morningstar's Active/Passive Barometer:
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=701736
WSJ Slant:
http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2015/06/25/a-new-measure-of-active-vs-passive-investing/tab/print/?mg=blogs-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.wsj.com%2Ftotalreturn%2F2015%2F06%2F25%2Fa-new-measure-of-active-vs-passive-investing%2Ftab%2Fprint

Probably not something I'd get but I'm curious enough to keep an eye on it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-25/rivernorth-starting-fund-to-invest-in-peer-to-peer-loan-market

Due to interest rates. Ventas is on the top of my list in the category and I'm increasingly interested in that at these levels.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bradthomas/2015/04/27/ventas-knows-how-to-make-dividend-magic/
Ventas recent presentation:
http://www.ventasreit.com/sites/default/files/corporate_presentations/Ventas_NAREIT REITWeek Presentation_v01.pdf

"We purchased shares of T. Rowe Price Group, the investment management company. As a significant player in our business, we have long admired T. Rowe ... Key to the franchise is the company's investment culture, which has sustainably generated commendable investment performance ... We also like that management has demonstrated good stewardship of capital through opportunistic share repurchases ..."
(Couldn't get copy/paste to work. Did my best to transcribe above accurately)
From: Oakmark Funds/ Equity and Income Fund
Semi-Annual Report, March 31, 2015
http://www.oakmark.com/Oakmark-files/semi-annual-reports/SemiAnnualReport_AllFunds.pdf

@Ted- re "Godless communism": Not any more. Putin is real tight with the Russian Orthodox fatcats.
Different subject: Shouldn't you be responding over on the "men over 85" thread? I thought that you were well over 100? :)

all the way down to 75! It is impacting all races/ethnic groups.

That sounds like the farm belt. Don't forget that in their childhood the wonders of modern living hit hard with pesticides (DDT), herbicides, processed food, plastics (and still open air burning) etc. and, yes, obesity. I have never believed that "boomers" would have the longevity people fear. My high school class seems to be losing both women and men. (The Mississippi delta.) Also many women smoked.

FYI: (While we work to eventually free the Cuban people from the grip of Godless communism let's speed up the process by the use of a little capitalism.)
Regards,
Ted
How To Invest In Cuba:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/121914/how-invest-cuba.asp?view=print
Hank Greenberg:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/2015/06/24/exclusive-maurice-hank-greenberg-cues-up-for-cuba-biz/print
M* Snapshot CUBA: http://www.morningstar.com/cefs/XNAS/CUBA/quote.html

Likely for 18-24 months.
Grantham's argument is two-fold: asset class bubbles occur when valuations exceed their historic norms by two standard deviations but high valuations alone don't cause bubbles to pop; you need a trigger. Right now, US stocks are about 1.6 standard deviations high, measured by either Tobin's Q or Schiller CAPE. If you chart the rising valuations, the inflation is pretty steady. It likely won't cross over the "two sigma" line until around the time of the Presidential election. At that point, we'd be set up for a 60% repricing of stocks. In the interim, don't discount your run-of-the-mill 10-15% hiccups.
He is not, he argues, pessimistic. It's just that the rest of us are irrationally optimistic.
The most interesting element of his talk centered on the distortions introduced by the Fed. Publicly traded corporations are posting record profit margins; rather than reinvesting that cash (capital expenditures / capex are at historic low levels), they're buying back overpriced company shares to reward current shareholders. The buybacks are also being funded by low interest debt issuance. Private firms are continuing to commit large amounts of money to capex. That's contributing to the high profit margins, since firms aren't trying to arbitrage their competitors' high profits away by competing for business in those sectors (which would require capex). They're luxuriating in their own cash flows and distributing it straight to executives and other shareholders. The fund managers who are heavily exposed to the energy sector point to a collapsing E&P infrastructure as old rigs retire but few new ones (and few new ships and pipelines and refineries) are funded.
David

I agree on FB. As for Google, I think there is a great deal of potential in a lot of what Google is doing and the Google of 5-10 years from now I think may look very different than the Google of today (nothing against the Google of today, which is a very solid company.) That said, I do think there's a point here where Wall Street is losing patience with Google and the calls for returning money to shareholders via an Apple-like dividend have grown louder.
The other point of interest about Google is that the spread between GOOG (no vote) and GOOGL (voting rights) shares has widened noticeably since the company paid out the price for the spread between the two share classes that was agreed upon after the C class shares were distributed. It was generally around $5, then started widening as the date approached. Now the spread is $20-25 +/-. Kinda interesting.

FYI: My last two articles (Who Wins ‘Passive vs. Active’ Institutional Debate? Pt. 1: U.S. Large Cap Blend, and Who Wins ‘Passive vs. Active’ Institutional Debate? Pt. 2: U.S. Large Cap Growth) hit on two of the three asset classes in the U.S. large cap arena – blend and growth.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2015/06/24/who-wins-passive-vs-active-institutional-debate-pt?t=mutual-funds&page_all=1

@Junkster Good to hear there are so many women in your area living past 85; that will keep you busy! :) However, several decades from now, that trend won't be lasting. How would you guess middle-aged women are doing? A research note from CDC plopped into my inbox several months ago, regarding an unexpected finding from analyzing 2010 census data. My memory could be a bit off on this, but starting in the Appalachian Mtns in eastern KY and TENN, extending down slightly into ALA and MISS, and the swiggling across all of ARK, lower part of OKLA and into W. Texas, something is happening to middle-aged women--- they're dieing in appalling numbers. How appalling? Enough to drive the life expectancy for all women living within that bounded area all the way down to 75! It is impacting all races/ethnic groups. This hasn't happened before. Needless to say, a good chunk of the mini-census (2015) will be devoted to getting a handle on this; they really don't know.

These funds have their plusses and minuses.
On the plus side, they make donating assets much easier than donating directly to your favorite charity (especially if the charity is small and not set up to handle donations other than cash).
The main benefit IMHO is the ability to time-shift, i.e. donate one year and get the money to your designated charity (or charities) in later years. Good if you want extra deductions up front but want to spread out the actual donations, or if you don't know right now exactly where you want your contributions to go.
A minus is the cost. Typically 60 basis points (T. Rowe Price is 50 basis points). Many people complain about VA wrapper fees, which with these same providers (T. Rowe Price, Fidelity, Vanguard) are well below 60 basis points. So a 60 basis point cost for DAFs is not insignificant.
Another minus is the limited investment options offered for the money in the DAF before it is disbursed to your designated charities.
Disclosure: I have contributed to a DAF.
I liked one of the comments - about donating NUA stock. A similar idea I've been toying with is donating insurance stock obtained via demutualization. (That's when a formerly mutual insurance company converts to a stock company, and as part of that conversion grants stock to its policy holders).
The IRS still claims that the cost basis of this stock is zero. So donating this stock is "better" than donating other stock that you purchased (since that other stock will have a non-zero cost basis and thus less unrealized capital gains to give away). Court rulings are all over the map, ranging from saying that the gain is the full value of the stock to recognizing no gain, to points in between. This muddle is another good reason to consider donating this stock.

Craig Israelsen made a convincing case for cash as a beneficial asset class in a diversified portfolio in this 2007 Article.
In our household, we have an emergency cash fund which earns very little but is very liquid. In our taxable and retirement investment accounts, I try my best to keep a low cash balance, at most 5-10% at any given time, as I am about 20 years from retirement and I want to maximize our wealth creation despite increased volatility. If I have extra cash with no specific target, I dump the funds in my PRWCX position.
As for the question of how many funds to own, we own a total of 9 funds/stocks, but I see no problem with folks who own more funds, as long as they are excellent, relatively low cost and outperform their respective indices. Live and let live. As I will likely die before my fetching wife (not "partner"), I am focused on wealth creation, and I continually remind my wife that there is only one thing worse than being old, and that is being old and poor.
Kevin

Hi Catch: What I was implying was that "dry powder" in the form of cash allows you to put the money back to work later when prices are lower. If a stock (or fund NAV) drops 50% while you're waiting in cash, when you redeploy the cash you buy 2 shares for what 1 would have cost. By sitting in cash you have doubled your wealth. That's the leverage.
You can pick a lot of holes in that argument if you want. In fact, I'll do so myself. First, it assumes that one can be successful in timing the market (not a given). Second, it ignores the likelihood (but not a certainty) that bonds may actually appreciate substantially while stocks are falling - and so, in a sense, would provide even greater leverage.
I don't have a dog in this fight. Ted had said earlier that cash is trash - and I was simply pointing out that under some circumstances it can be quite valuable. Gotta run. Take care.

Hi @Dex and @hank
Dex, you noted: "Cash flow ... think about it. It isn't sexy but it is overlooked and needed for financial longevity"
>>>I will presume, because of the nature of this web site; that cash in an investment portfolio would also have a money market component available.
Any MM that I can directly access at Fidelity as a parking area for money is at a negative value. This circumstance is from the .01 or .02% yield and expenses for many of these at various investment houses to be at about .46%. Fidelity Cash Reserves indicates an e.r. range of .27-.37. If one looks through returns for these type of "investments", the returns will be negative.
If this is what is being discussed regarding "cash" within an investment portfolio, then I still have no need for such an item. The exception would be another market melt.
If one has 5 major areas for investment as has been noted in this thread, what is the value of the cash portion.......no yield, e.r.'s that eat the principal and top this off with inflation destroying more principal.
Being that "income" is one of the 5 areas noted previous; why not keep the monies in this and move monies from this area into another, if needed?
hank, you noted: "I understand where Ted is coming from. But in more volatile markets than we've witnessed recently, cash can also be leverage.
>>>I fully agree that cash can have its place during nasty periods, but I don't call this leverage.
I'm trying to understand the need to keep any cash inside of an investment portfolio, with the exceptions that I noted previously. When we think we have a more valuable investment, we sell all or part of something else that isn't doing as well and move the money, period. We sold quite a bunch of bonds last year and moved the monies elsewhere, but not to cash.
I surely don't knock anyone's plans; as I know we all travel different money paths.
Fidelity Cash Reserves values
Okay, time for a large bowl of ice cream with fresh Michigan strawberries.
Take care,
Catch

Cash is an invest few talk about.

After nearly 35 years of declining interest rates, is it any wonder?
I guess we're all a product of our times. My first mutual fund was a money market fund. A nice cool 20% a year nearly risk free. What's not to like?
I understand where Ted is coming from. But in more volatile markets than we've witnessed recently, cash can also = leverage.

I'm 60, and have been using 85 as my check out date. I think sitting on your butt is the thing that will kill you the fastest. Financially, I think after a point (excluding high inflation) expenses will remain constant. As you slow down, discretionary expenses will decline while other expenses increase.

The "risk of ruin" is diminished due to spreading the allocation among managers and geography. And the fees are no more than aggregating into one fund of average cost.

But then isn't the opposite also true? You are hoping the average of all those funds is better then say your best pick over time. I am not a fan of duplicate funds in the same category but I understand others feel like it reduces risk. But lower risk is lower return. I don't think it works the other way around. To me you extend the risk of negating your manager's effort.
Just trying to argue the other side. Always comes down to comfort level. But you do pay a price for comfort.

Mike, your point is very true. On the dice table, if I knew 5-5 would be thrown, I would bet the house on a hard ten. Unfortunately, I am not adept at picking the specific fund which will do the best for the next 12 months or for any given time period. As such, I spread my wagers.
In my specific case used as example, while my funds are all international in scope, I try my best to make sure they do not occupy the same footprint. I accept less than "best possible case", and aim for above average.
press