@Mike M: I suggest you look up total return for S&P 1987! Another writer with not enough time.
Derf

@JohnN, Thanks for checking. BA closed near $362 on / around March 12 following the recent accident. This morning it’s at $374. That looks more like a 3% gain in price from around the time you reported buying. Not bad. Linked article talks about Boeing’s recent ups & downs (no pun intended) from an investment standpoint. https://investorplace.com/2019/04/boeing-stock-737-max/

@_hank hi sir... BA moves like a turtle up 1% since bought it... Folks told me to hold it for one two yrs... It's maybe a long term holding

"Still, history bodes well for stocks the remainder of the year. Since 1950, the S&P 500 has recorded 10 first quarters where the index gained at least 10%. On nine of those 10 occasions, the index rose for the remainder of the year, averaging a gain of 5.8%. The only year it declined was 1987, known for Black Monday, when the index fell 15% after the first quarter but still closed out the full year with a 2% gain"
If I'm reading this correctly, one should sell somewhere with the gain over 10 % ,as the yearly gain was ONLY 5.8% ?
Derf

Question 4 is completely different from 1, 2 3 -- it depends upon knowing the definition of the term "interest capitalization". I would not have been able to define the term, but I'd have answered the question correctly because of the way the answers were worded.
Which proves nothing.
In any case, I wonder how well Sallie Mae vetted it's survey before administering it.
David

How did they arrive at the 25%? I know if the percentages were say machine up time then you could say all 4 are probably only available 19.2% of the time - but how do we know that the 54% that got #2 right didn’t get the other 3 questions right?
BTW, if kids weren’t sure and they picked “not sure” did they get credit?

If they can't do their finances, can they write grammatically correct headlines?
Marketwatch is the source of this thread's subject line (fewer than 25% of grads); other sites like ZeroHedge served up a different article with a headline reading "less than 25%" of grads.

”Anyone bailing out”

@JohnN, How’s Boeing doing since you bought some back on March12?
(Your “bailing out” expression made me think of airplanes for some reason - Boeing in particular.)

FYI: The marketing and sales tactics Fidelity Investments uses with retirement savers were called out in a lawsuit involving alleged retirement-plan mismanagement by Vanderbilt University, bringing into focus the ongoing and seemingly increasing tension felt between plan sponsors, participants and their service providers, many of which are seeking out additional revenue in the face of fee compression.
Monday, Vanderbilt University reached a $14.5 million settlement with the plaintiffs, represented by attorney Jerome Schlichter — the largest settlement to date by a university.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=omy_XN2dB4G15gLg8J6wCg&q=Fidelity+sales+tactics+called+out+in+settlement+of+retirement+plan+lawsuit&btnK=Google+Search&oq=Fidelity+sales+tactics+called+out+in+settlement+of+retirement+plan+lawsuit&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2962.2962..4346...0.0..0.131.236.0j2......0....2j1..gws-wiz.....0.sM35IAlScVg

FYI: This will peak your interest.
Consumer banking firm Sallie Mae released its new “Majoring in Money” study of hundreds of current and recently graduated college students up to age 29 — and one big red flag sticks out: Even college graduates don’t know much about basic financial concepts like interest.
Indeed, Sallie Mae asked them four questions related to credit and interest, and fewer than one in four got all four of these correct. Here are the questions (the correct answers are below):
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fewer-than-1-in-4-college-grads-can-answer-these-4-simple-money-questions-correctly-2019-04-15/print

At least they're being honest! Though given their utter reluctance to adjust their holdings as the GFC was confiming itself didn't sit well with me ... they were too stubborn at the time and the fund suffered more than it probably needed to.
The Dodge & Cox International Stock Fund will reopen to new investors on May 1, 2019.
The Dodge & Cox International Stock Fund will reopen to new investors on May 1, 2019. The Fund was closed in 2015 to proactively "tap the brakes" on the Fund's growth, but remained open to existing shareholders.
Since then, we have continued to deepen our global research and shareholder services capabilities. Volatile global equity markets have also created what we believe to be many attractive long-term investment opportunities outside the United States. This volatility, industry trends, and the Fund’s recent relative results have contributed to outflows, creating ample investment capacity to accommodate reasonable growth into the foreseeable future.
All of these factors led us to conclude that this is the right time to open the Fund to new investors. Our primary objective at Dodge & Cox is to serve our existing clients and shareholders well, and we believe reopening the International Stock Fund supports this objective.

Nice 3 year run.
https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/tcw-new-america-premier-equities-fund-marks-3-year-anniversary-with-5-star-overall-morningstar-ratingtm-2019-02-07
It will be interesting to see if it continues this out-performance. Never heard of the fund before, thanks for sharing.

”I am lookin for a growth fund that is not heavily weighted on Tech, not above 50 % at least.”

Your question suggests that such a fund would be an

exception to the rule or an aberration from norm. Frankly, I’m not aware of any diversified growth funds that would ever exceed 50% in technology under normal circumstances. With growth funds I think the most important thing is to buy-in for the long haul. Each will have its day - but their performances diverge sharply over shorter periods as various sectors wax and wane. Trying to always own the best performing one might be the equivalent of the proverbial elephant chasing his tail.
Lots of fine growth funds out there. Just a couple that come to mind:
TRBCX - 28% technology - per Lipper http://www.funds.reuters.wallst.com/US/funds/holdings.asp?YYY622_FomFGKRzy/Zlxw7oh/nFxhuZTH3KwZb8EX/lL+8rQLf+NFFYgOPjGud+qERLyR7v
DODGX - 15% technology - per Lipper http://www.funds.reuters.wallst.com/US/funds/holdings.asp?YYY622_ku+B2TlKptBi+tpivKaWyBuZTH3KwZb8EX/lL+8rQLf8SJRq1qRCsCbi0+hJj/WI
Different rating services and observers may define “technology” companies differently. One might include a company like Amazon under consumer retail and another might consider it a technology company. Telecommunications is sometimes listed as a separate category and at other times considered part of the broader technology area. Some of that is just games people play. But sometimes it’s because there’s considerable “gray area” when deciding where a particular company best fits.
That said, Lord help anyone who ends up in a “diversified” fund that has committed over 50% to the technology sector. It’s one of the most volatile areas in which to invest.

@hank, Dodge & Cox is most definitely not a Growth shop....

Yes, the sectors ebb and flow among all of the sector types; to the extent that pieces of the pie within a particular sector have their internal movements that shape these sectors as they move through the world of demand and being in or out of favor for reasons of a more pure technical nature.
One half of our equity exposure remains in technology.
Enjoy and good evening,
Catch
ADD/EDIT: I agree with Ted that the article is a bit clunky in properly expressing the full intent of its subject matter. An example: Although directly and/or somewhat inclusive by the nature of its holdings, etf BOTZ (listed in linked article); has a primary investment focus towards industrial robotics, globally. These devices function either directly or associated with some form of artificial or machine intelligence.
With the large number of thematic investments available today for we regular investors; the overlaps and descriptions of how much of what is included in a particular fund to make it a valid theme is going to vary and float with its investment holdings. Today, especially with active managed technology funds, as well as growth funds; one must consider and know that "x" number of the holdings will have some direct exposure to A.I. or M.L. companies.
Okay, time for the special springtime chores at this house.
ETF list

@msf - Re: SEC - “Truth in labeling”? That’s new to me. That would suggest HSGFX should have omitted the word “growth” from its name. Maybe HS#FX. :)
From your source “The rule requires a fund with a name suggesting that the fund focuses on a particular type of investment (e.g., "stocks" or "bonds") to invest at least 80% of its assets accordingly. Under Commission staff positions, these funds previously were subject to a 65% investment requirement.”
Not what I had in mind, but very interesting. PRMTX must than be legally obligated to have 80% in those 2 sectors? (Fortunately, it’s a spectacular fund).
What I had in mind was the rule referenced in a Zack’s article (cited below). The article’s so skimpy I was reluctant to post it. (And I’d previously assumed - incorrectly - that by law “diversified” funds could not concentrate heavily in one sector.)
(From Zacks) “Diversified funds cast a wide net for assets, catching bonds, cash, and stocks from many companies. Under federal law, a fund cannot tie more than 5 percent of its value in a single company's stock.” https://finance.zacks.com/difference-between-diversified-nondiversified-mutual-fund-5139.html

You're likely thinking of the 2001 SEC rule that requires 80% of a fund's holdings to be consistent with its name (e.g. sector or geographic region).
https://www.sec.gov/news/headlines/mfnames.htm (PR)
https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/ic-24828.htm (Rule)
(I've been at this too long; it seems like only yesterday ...)

”I am lookin for a growth fund that is not heavily weighted on Tech, not above 50 % at least.”

Your question suggests that such a fund would be an exception to the rule or an aberration from norm. Frankly, I’m not aware of any diversified growth funds that would ever exceed 50% in technology under normal circumstances. With growth funds I think the most important thing is to buy-in for the long haul. Each will have its day - but their performances diverge sharply over shorter periods as various sectors wax and wane. Trying to always own the best performing one might be the equivalent of the proverbial elephant chasing his tail.
Lots of fine growth funds out there. Just a couple that come to mind:
TRBCX - 28% technology - per Lipper http://www.funds.reuters.wallst.com/US/funds/holdings.asp?YYY622_FomFGKRzy/Zlxw7oh/nFxhuZTH3KwZb8EX/lL+8rQLf+NFFYgOPjGud+qERLyR7v
DODGX - 15% technology - per Lipper http://www.funds.reuters.wallst.com/US/funds/holdings.asp?YYY622_ku+B2TlKptBi+tpivKaWyBuZTH3KwZb8EX/lL+8rQLf8SJRq1qRCsCbi0+hJj/WI
Different rating services and observers may define “technology” companies differently. One might include a company like Amazon under consumer retail and another might consider it a technology company. Telecommunications is sometimes listed as a separate category and at other times considered part of the broader technology area. Some of that is just games people play. But sometimes it’s because there’s considerable “gray area” when deciding where a particular company best fits.
That said, Lord help anyone who ends up in a “diversified” fund that has committed over 50% to the technology sector. It’s one of the most volatile areas in which to invest.

Some history, courtesy Edward Luce, Financial Times:
In 1832, the British aristocracy saved itself by agreeing to loosen its grip on power. … The [passed] bill widened Britain’s electorate and diluted the political stranglehold of its landed elites. This was a key reason why Britain escaped Europe’s wave of 1848 revolutions. …
Much the same thing happened again in 1911 …. Once again, the Lords … opted for compromise over the threat of extinction … [voting] in favour of the Parliament act, which deprived the aristocracy ever again of the power to block fiscal legislation. This was how British welfare state was born. Meanwhile, the country’s peers continued to enjoy their status at the top of the ladder. It seemed like a reasonable trade-off. The working classes received social insurance; their social betters got to complain ad nauseam about “Le weekend”.
I was reminded of these key turning points — and indeed of the New Deal … — a few days ago when Ray Dalio, the hedge fund billionaire, wrote a plea to reform American capitalism…. few people have benefited more from today’s capitalism …. The system will never change unless more people like Dalio come round to his way of thinking. One or two others, including JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon, are also making similar noises, which is good news. But too many still belong in the camp of Steve Schwarzman, the private equity billionaire, and Howard Schultz, the former Starbucks chief executive, both of whom have likened the idea of a wealth tax to Venezuela. A few years ago, Schwarzman compared the proposed — but still unenacted — closure of the “carried interest” loophole to Hitler’s invasion of Poland. I wish I were making that up. Alas, he really did.
As long as the bulk of America’s superwealthy continue to equate progressive taxation with fascism, or communism, they will hasten into being what they most fear. History tells us that elites who do not share power are ultimately doomed (see French revolution). Those with the wisdom and foresight to bend find they are far less likely to eventually break. The question America’s financial and tech elites must ask is “what price social peace?” I would say social peace is worth several carried interest loopholes.

These bonds completely disconnect the use of the proceeds from source of revenue to pay for them.
These are revenue bonds, backed and paid for exclusively from, as you speculated, riverboat gambling. Okay, not exactly something that colorful, but pretty close. However, the money goes to something more productive - infrastructure.
I'm guessing these are the bonds the fund is invested in:

In October 2015, the State issued $200,000,000 in Gaming Tax Revenue Bonds (Series 2015E). The proceeds from this sale will be used for the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) to construct an over-the-railroad bridge in Vicksburg, the Local System Bridge Program within State Aid Road Fund, and for deficient bridges on state highways. The debt service revenues are derived solely from gaming tax revenue collections from casinos located along the Mississippi River and the Gulf Coast.

https://www.treasurerlynnfitch.ms.gov/Programs/Documents/Bonds/Debt Affordability Study 2017.pdf

“I do know that I have bettered the returns of some of my hybrid funds over the past ten years ... “
“How others have faired I have no idea.”

The validity of your first assumption rests largely on your belief that your overall market risk exposure during those 10 years corresponded closely with that of the funds you’ve chosen to benchmark against. How one goes about that type of comparison is beyond my expertise and that of the vast majority of investors. But if you were running incrementally greater risk over the period than those funds were exposed to (in aggregate), than the assumption you’re attempting to demonstrate would be faulty. If, on the other hand, your overall risk exposure (to market fluctuations) was identical to or lower than those hybrid funds assumed, than you did indeed beat those fund managers at their own game. Since the decade was generally favorable for both equities and bonds, an accurate assessment of comparative risk (you vs the hybrid funds) becomes problematic.
Your follow-up statement (or question) is easier to address: Provided the risk level in your investments remained essentially the same as or lower than that of the hybrid funds you selected as benchmarks, than investors in those funds did fair more poorly than you over that 10-year period. Importantly, their lower returns were due in some small measure to the fact that you successfully gamed the system to your advantage by side-stepping the market losses they sustained - while at the same time not having to assume a higher level of risk in your portfolio.
One problem comparing oneself to mutual funds is that they possess both structural advantages and disadvantages which individual investors don’t have. One advantage for funds is having access to lower fee institutional class shares. Another is (sometimes) having access to funds created solely for in-house use. Reduced brokerage fees buying / selling in lots reflects another advantage. And, to the extent that fund managers can better afford, and are better afforded, access to company data and management, it’s a structural advantage that should serve to lower risk compared to individual investors. One big structural disadvantage however, is that they have little control over “hot money” entering and leaving their funds - especially money running away during downturns. This may force them to sell assets at temporarily distressed levels. Also, their ability to short-term “market time” is greatly constrained; though, as I’ve argued, that may well constitute a longer term advantage.