FYI: There are few traditions in American politics as cherished as the semi-regular panic over Social Security. There are equally few that are such utter balderdash on the economic merits.
The latest example of this time-honored practice comes to us courtesy of The New York Times. "Social Security's so-called trust funds are expected to be depleted within about 15 years," the outlet warned this week. "Benefit checks for retirees would be cut by about 20 percent across the board." The cuts could potentially rise to 25 percent in later years. About half of all seniors rely on Social Security as their primary means of income, and the program reduces the poverty rate among the elderly from 39 percent to 9 percent. If the benefit cuts do happen, that would be devastating. The question is whether the cuts, at the basic structural level, are actually necessary at all.
Regards,
Ted
https://theweek.com/articles/847000/social-securitys-looming-crisis-political-not-economic

@Mark
>> When I dig up the can [20y later] to redeem the contents ... the $100 bar of gold will most likely buy me the same suit and loaf of bread it would have when I buried it.
Well, it looks like it depends on the period, as one would suspect. I graphed FSAGX over its lifespan (started end of 1985) and it went from 10k to 43.6k, while inflation that same period went from 10k to just under 23k. But if your start point is 1996 it has just about kept pace with inflation. If your start point is much after then, looks like things are worse most of the time.
Now, I do see that GLD (started end 04) has done better than FSAGX the last 8 years, so again maybe, but GLD has declined since 2012 and mostly flat since the year after that.
So maybe over 20y what you propose is true, and you did say 'most likely', but I am wondering about the basis for what you wrote.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gold-inflation/gold-as-an-inflation-hedge-well-sort-of-idUSKCN1GD516

Perhaps we're reading too much into the statement that the sales charges were dropped. That could mean "removed", or merely "reduced", as in: the retailer dropped the price of its merchandise to give a huge boost to its sales. Or it could mean "removed but replaced":

In 1979 Fidelity removed its 8½ percent sales charges on almost all its funds and began selling its funds directly to the public with no sales charges (no load) or a low load of two to three percent

https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/economics-business-and-labor/businesses-and-occupations/fmr-corp
I don't doubt that Fidelity Fund became noload in 1979, but Magellan was given a 3% load, and Puritan got a 2% purchase/1% redemption load.
Here's a 1989 book (complete) where you can see how in the 1980s Fidelity grouped its funds into international equity, capital growth, growth and income, sector funds (then called "Select Funds"), taxable bond funds, muni funds, money market funds. Funds that carried a load then usually followed the Puritan 2%/1% model, except for a few equity funds with a 3% purchase load: Overseas FOSFX, Growth Company FDGRX, Magellan FMAGX, and OTC Portfolio FOCPX. International Growth and Income Fund (now Int'l Discovery) FIGRX was the oddball, at 1%/1%.
(Around 1990 Fidelity changed the 2%/1% loads into 3% purchase loads.)
The Investors Guide to Fidelity Funds, Winning Strategies for Mutual Fund Investing
http://www.tangotools.com/ui/fkbook.pdf

>> 1979: Fidelity Investments drops the sales charges on many of its largest mutual funds, including Fidelity Fund, Magellan, and Puritan -- giving a huge boost to the direct purchase of no-load funds by retail investors.
Zweig cites "Fidelity Investments, Mutual Fund Guide, June, 1994. (Suggested by: Robert N. Veres, editor, Inside Information.)" I too am surprised by (meaning disbelieving of) this. If it's true, and my memory tells me it's not, some of them got reinstated at some point. I believe.

Somewhere in the mid-90s, Fidelity started removing sales charges on its funds. For example, FGRIX dropped its sales charge on Oct. 20, 1995. Prior to that, it had experimented with waiving loads on some funds inside of IRAs. But it wasn't until 2003 that it permanently dropped "the sales charges on many of its largest mutual funds, including ... Magellan ..."

Fidelity Investments said Monday [June 23, 2003] it will drop the 3 percent front-end sales charge, or load, on several of its key stock funds, including the flagship Magellan fund.
Four other Fidelity funds -- including Contrafund FCNTX, ... Contrafund II FCONX, ... Low-Priced Stock FLPSX, ... and New Millennium FMILX, -- also will become available without a load ...

Source:https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fidelity-drops-sales-charges-on-some-funds
 

Fidelity Investments said it eliminated the sales charge on five funds, including its flagship Fidelity Magellan (FMAGX).
In addition to Magellan, the largest actively managed U.S. stock fund, Fidelity dropped the 3% front-end sales commission, or load, on Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX), Fidelity’s second-largest fund; Fidelity Contrafund II (FCONX); Fidelity Low Priced Stock (FLPSX); and Fidelity New Millennium (FMILX).

Source: https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2003/06/24/fidelity-drops-sales-charge-on-magellan-fund/
Of course many of Fidelity's largest funds in 2003 didn't even exist in 1979.

I'll never buy a PM or miners fund again. Way to volatile for me. I remember my early days here on the fundalarm site (2006-7 'ish). PM and commodity funds were the rage topic and I took the bait. Group-think funds as Junkster coined the phrase. I learned my lesson on that type of stuff.
I'll play a gold ETF, IAU, but no more PMs, or any commodity fund for that matter.
Thanks for the chart @catch22. Speaks volumes against buy and hold. Add one of the PIMCO commodity funds to the mix. PCRIX for example has negative returns for 15, 10, 5, 3 and 1 years.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
June 15:
1995: Less than a year-and-a-half after breaking the 800 barrier, the NASDAQ Composite Index closes above 900 for the first time, finishing the day at 902.68.
1979: Fidelity Investments drops the sales charges on many of its largest mutual funds, including Fidelity Fund, Magellan, and Puritan -- giving a huge boost to the direct purchase of no-load funds by retail investors.
Source: Jason Zweig's Blog

Hi @MikeM
Being curious, a Chart-O-Matic of 2 gold funds, 2 gold miner funds and a compare against FBALX. The backward look is limited to Nov., 2009 based upon inception of GDXJ.
Chart
Nothing against precious metals, and we have played in the past with Fido funds; and their day may arrive again with meaningful gains.
I note this from our perspective of having our faces in this area back in the crazy days of the late 1970's-early 1980's; when we were one of those tables set up in a mall buying and selling coins, etc. Fun and interesting times.
ADD: during the 2008-2009 market melt, precious metals didn't do much to protect assets for any meaningful time frame.

Wow, I read through this post again. I remember it. A blast from the past. Thanks cristinaperry for bringing it back.
As for gold in 2019, I'm sure opinions would be similiar. I see gold as a play, not a buy and hold investment. I started a "play" in December. Hasn't made much yet but still think over the next year or two it could work out.

FYI: Jeffrey Gundlach has a nickname for the Democratic presidential front-runner: “Jurassic Joe.”
The billionaire investor took aim at Joe Biden on Thursday, saying the candidate won’t win his party’s nomination.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2019/06/14/gundlach-biden-will-not-win-the-democratic-nomination

I owned it for a while and was happy with it. Sold out of the position +1 year ago, not because of any issue with PARWX, but because I wanted to severely limit exposure to risk-assets.
That said, per M*, its +40% in tech. And they will always be overweight in tech, as the manager (Parnassus) is a pioneer in ESG investing. As such, they tend to screen OUT the energy sector. It appears they own no energy, materials or utes, at last report (per M*) -- By disqualifying some sectors, they must, out of simple arithmetic necessity, overweight what is left. Any investor considering PARWX -- or any ESG type fund-- should be mentally comfortable with that fact.

To avoid random noise, or more likely selective time frames, the government requires funds advertising performance to use standardized periods ending on calendar quarters. 17 CFR 230.482(d)(3)(ii).
So I took a look at the link Ted provided, and clicked on the "quarterly" tab. It seems that PARWX, as of the most recently completed quarter, has outperformed the S&P 500 over the past 3, 5, and 10 years.
The fact that these numbers have shifted in the past two months is reflective of little more than the fund's poor performance over the past handful of weeks. To put it another way, this change isn't so much about long term performance as it is about "what have you done for me lately?"
Over the past three months (through June 13), the fund has underperformed by 7%. In the first quarter of 2019 it outperformed by 4¾%. In the fourth quarter of 2018, it underperformed by 3⅔%. Sure it's volatile. To paraphrase Mark Twain, if you don't like the performance, wait a few months.

FYI: Global stocks dipped on Friday as rising tensions in the Middle East added to concerns over global growth and trade, driving investors to haven assets.
In Europe, the Stoxx 600 fell 0.4% in opening trade. That followed a downbeat session in Asia, with indexes in China, Korea and Hong Kong all lower, though Japan’s Nikkei managed a 0.4% climb.
Late Thursday, the U.S. said Iran was behind an attack that day on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman that sent oil prices soaring. That added to an already tense situation in the crucial shipping channel after an attack on four other tankers last month.
Investors Friday were buying government bonds, gold and the Japanese yen, all assets generally considered havens when risks are growing.
The yield on 10-year U.S. Treasurys, which falls as the price rises, slipped to 2.059% on Friday from 2.096% on Thursday. Yields on Germany’s equivalent government bond fell deeper into negative territory and were last at -0.260%.
Gold prices hit a 14-month high amid the rising tensions. Spot gold was last up 1% at $1,356.70 a troy ounce. The yen also rose 0.1% against both the euro and U.S. dollar.
European stocks most exposed to oil prices and global trade were registering the biggest drops on Friday. The Stoxx Europe 600’s technology subindex was down 1.1% while its autos & parts subindex was 0.6% lower.
In Asia, the Shanghai Composite was down 1%, while the Shenzhen index was 1.8% lower. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng was down 0.7% amid protests in the city against an unpopular extradition bill. Data later in the day showed China’s industrial output slowed, adding to fears the country’s economic growth was faltering.
U.S. retail sales data due later Friday will be closely watched by investors as they look for clues on the nation’s largely consumer-driven economic growth, analysts said.
The release is also the last major U.S. economic report before a meeting of the Fed’s policy-making committee next week.
Regards,
Ted
MarketWatch:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stocks-open-lower-friday-as-broadcoms-weak-outlook-reminds-wall-street-of-us-china-trade-battle-2019-06-14/print
WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/stocks-slip-as-middle-east-tensions-boost-haven-assets-11560499874
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-13/asia-stocks-head-for-mixed-start-yields-retreat-markets-wrap
Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-markets/bond-yields-slip-stocks-suffer-on-cooling-china-data-idUSKCN1TF03P
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/dow-jones-futures-broadcom-warning-apple-stock-market-rally-amd-stock/
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/stock-market-middle-east-tensions-weigh-china-data-in-focus.html
U.K.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-stocks/heavyweight-financials-exporter-stocks-drag-ftse-100-lower-idUKKCN1TF0OK
Europe:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-stocks/chipmakers-drive-european-shares-lower-after-broadcom-shock-idUSKCN1TF0OD
Asia:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/asian-markets-mixed-as-global-tensions-rise-on-apparent-oil-tanker-attacks-2019-06-13/print
Bonds:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/us-treasury-yields-continue-to-slide-as-middle-east-tensions-escalate.html
Currencies:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/forex-market-federal-reserve-meeting-us-china-trade-war-in-focus.html
Oil:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/oil-market-middle-east-tanker-attacks-us-iran-tensions-in-focus.html
Gold:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/gold-market-fed-rate-cut-expectations-middle-east-tensions-in-focus.html
Cuirrent Futures:
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

hmgodwin: For your information I've linked the performance of PARWX, check it out.
Regards,
Ted
YTD-5yrs. No
10yrs. Yes
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=PARWX&region=usa&culture=en_US

I would sell but not based on the 10 year performance, which it did in fact beat the S&P 500. Not sure what Ted was looking at. Personally I like BIAWX for my LG exposure.

@Carefree: Has had difficulty beating it's benchmark the S&P 500 Index over the last ten years, I'd sell.
Regards,
Ted

In what ways has it had difficulty beating the S&P 500? It seems to have beaten it cleanly over the past 3, 5, and 10 year time frames.

A not so brief followup. I sent Merrill a set of questions given all the processing in my accounts. It took a week, but I did get a response which was more a reiteration of what happened than an explanation. Whatever. Here are some excerpts:
(Merrill online counts TTTXX MMF as cash available to trade online even though they don't automatically redeem the fund; what happens if you actually place a trade w/o selling the fund):

For fund held in TTTXX, this amount may still show as available to invest ... online due to this fund being considered a cash equivalent. However, if you place a trade using the funds held in TTTXX, it would be necessary to deposit funds into the account or liquidate shares of TTTXX to make funds available before the trade settlement date.

But what happens if I don't place an order to sell TTTXX? Not answered. No explanation as to why this MMF shows up as cash while others don't.
(BPTXX MMF divs reinvested in fund even after I closed the position:)

if there were pending dividends set to be paid, the dividend received would be paid based on your previous reinvestment options selected for that fund

It goes on to say that I could change my reinvestment options to prevent this from happening. At other brokerages, when I close out a position, the trailing divs go to cash (if position liquidated) or follow shares (if transferred in kind).
(Reinvesting dividends in MMFs and bank sweep accounts:)

money market mutual funds will typically reinvest fractional amounts while bank deposits or money funds like TTTXX or the ML Direct Deposit Program are only able to reinvest in whole dollar amounts.

OMG. "Money market mutual funds" get all their divs reinvested, but "money funds" like the money market fund TTTXX only reinvest whole dollar amounts?
ML Direct Depost Program (MLDPP) is the BofA sweep account for taxable Merrill accounts. Apparently bank accounts like the MLDPP credit only whole dollars of interest. What real bank refuses to credit pennies of interest back to your account? Is BofA a real bank?
The response goes on to say that for IRAs, the equivalent sweep program is called "Bank of America NA RASP". The problem is that in my IRA, my one penny of interest was credited to the bank account. So what is different between the two BofA sweep accounts? Is this RASP program not like MLDPP?
(Wrong cost basis as described in previous post:)

when transferring securities from another firm, this information is updated based on the information provided by the other firm.

Blame the other guy. Who do you think got the cost basis wrong, Merrill or Schwab (the other firm)?
(Roth conversion form was submitted 5/29; still not processed):

due to high volume of requests it has not yet been reviewed.

I submitted a substantially identical form on 12/18/2018 and it was processed in two days. Who knew that the run up to Flag Day was a busier season than end of year for Roth conversions?
Almost needless to say, once I get the cost basis corrected (if I can) and receive my bonus for transferring in the taxable account, I'll be transferring it out. I expect to convert my full T-IRA account at Merrill to a Roth where I will let it sit. I plan on no activity, no other accounts remaining.

https://m.nasdaq.com/article/exposed-the-6-dividend-the-irs-doesnt-want-you-to-buy-cm1163455
This levitating market just might have you thinking there are no more cheap 6%+ dividends out there.
Mfl
Mub

Thanks @msf for your (typically) well reasoned and precisely detailed analysis. I’d preface my comments by saying things always look rosier late in a decade-long bull market cycle in equities. I’m confident that if this bull lasts another 3 or 4 years the than prevailing “expert” advice will be to pile 100% into aggressive equity funds because fixed income is tantamount to rubbish.
- Easy to overlook is investor risk tolerance. No matter what one’s rationale may be for “loading up” on equities, there’s nothing like a 40-50% drubbing over a couple miserable years to bring us to our knees and shock us back to our Puritan sensibilities. In too many cases those equities piled into during sunnier days get unloaded by investors at discounted prices late in the bear cycle.
- Also overlooked by the article’s underlying assumption is that although investors might well possess a pension, SS, or annuity assets that would allow some level of subsistence, their portfolio of equities, bonds, etc. is not without some immediate purpose. In many cases (speaking from personal experience) those assets are withdrawn regularly for major expenses like travel, new vehicles and upgrades / maintenance on their principal dwelling. It’s also an emergency fund for unexpected medical costs and provides needed “insurance” against having the carpet pulled out from underneath by a reduction in SS or pension benefits (though the assumption is these benefits will remain intact).
- Further, the invested portfolio provides needed growth to compensate for inflation - arguably better than those (somewhat fixed) pension, annuity, SS benefits can. Point being: Treat those invested assets with the same care & due diligence you would if you had none of those added “insurance” products.
The article seems related to an argument advanced by John Bogle around 2013 when he said investors should treat SS as a “bond” in their allocation decisions. It was part of a wider ranging interview, so I’m posting only one commentary from a secondary source. (But the actual full interview is linked within the commentary). I’m also posting a lengthy mfo discussion from around the same time in which a number of members from various tiers shared their (somewhat divergent) thoughts on the question.
Bogle’s position: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-save-for-retirement-vanguard-john-bogle-2017-1
MFO discussion (September 2013) : https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/7814/count-social-security-as-part-of-portfolio