RE: "Turn off the tube!": It would be my guess that very few if any of us still have a "tube" to turn off. A flat screen, surely.

All I know is that AT&T (which owns DirectTV) hits me up for $100+ monthly. Love NASA TV - which has gotten much better since Bridenstine took over NASA. Bloomberg is noise, but some of the gals are attractive and occasionally they’ll interview one of my fund managers. (Volume is mostly set to zero.)
Nights are for reading.

It was reported,(for example, picking up shares in beleaguered General Electric at various times in 2018. I wonder how this has worked out so far ?!
Derf

Hi guys,
I found all of your comments of good value.
This has been a good discussion which I chose to step back from an observe until I felt that it was about to conclude. I'll say this about my all weather asset allocation its purpose is to provide sufficient income, maximizes diversification, minimizes volatility, and provides long-term returns. Thus far from running a back test of the portfolio it seems to accomplish these goals.
Should my portfolio begin to trail the Lipper Balanced Index by a reasonable amount (let's say 10 % to 15% range) then I plan to revisit my allocation and my needs to see if any adjustment might be wise. Just because it is this way now ... does not mean that it will always be this way.
One of the things I now plan to do after monitoring this discussion is to trim the amount of cash now held within my demand cash sleeve down to a sum equal to about one fourth of my portfolio's annual income generation. I'll most likely split position this sum between my Income and Growth & Income Areas as Hank made a good point about opportunity loss by not being more fully invested.
Old_Skeet

@hank; Wouldn't it be nice to have some dry powder to throw at the market, say with a drop of 20,25, or 30 % ? Maybe a spiff play or two as Old_Skeet does from time to time.
Good topic.
Derf

Agree @Derf. But what you suggest is easier said than done. One’s phychology (as well as that of our “news/ information” sources) gets distorted during bear markets. (Would take a Stephen Hawkins to explain it well).
But, yes - Ol’Skeet has a very definitive concrete plan. That’s what one needs. I used to do that (add during declines). The hardest thing was knowing when to “hold fire” and when to begin committing the dry powder. Tough because when markets start to fall you don’t know how far or for how long.
BTW - John Templeton used to say - “It’s very rare” for a market to fall by more than 50% (peak to bottom) and remain there for long (but it is certainly possible). If I recall correctly he was alluding in particular to some of the emerging markets of the day. I’ve always taken that to heart. So, for a long term investor, when you come across a market you’d like to own that has sustained a 50% or greater loss from its peak it isn’t a bad time IMHO to stake out a hold. Doesn’t always work. Example - Oil peaked at over $100 in 2015 and than fell to as low as $26. However, today at $60-$70 it’s getting back nearer to its all time highs.

The joke is that the yield curve predicted 10 out of the last 8 recessions. But, it is true that there were 2 false positives.

Agree @Old_Joe, we sometimes have to pay for a restful sleep :) Yes, Hank always makes good points.
I mentioned the 50-40-10 mix in my earlier note, but that was just a random choice to present my point. Another good reason to hold that 2, 3 or 4 year safe-bucket, I think, is that the rest of the portfolio can be more aggressive since you have given yourself time to recover any market-drop loss.

After December 31, there was a message that it would be no longer available. There would be a modified version available to online subscribers, but not to the general masses.

But you’re farther ahead during up markets by having 100% invested (includes allocations to cash / bonds).

@Hank, I don't disagree with that statement. Just some thoughts: buckets for me are really just a frame of mind, a way to delineate. The cash bucket is still part of the total portfolio. If you are say 50% equity funds (which may include some cash, but not bucket cash), 40% bonds and 10% "cash (CDs, MM, and maybe some low risk equivalents) and you call that 10% your cash bucket that you use to withdraw from, your still "fully invested". Right? Fully invested meaning to your appropriate age, needs and risk tolerance.
I agree you need to stay invested, as you said, while the stock market is rising, but also I see advantages to be able to not pull from those equity funds in a bear, when you are cashing in on a loss. The equity drop is just on paper unless you have to withdraw low.
Good discussion. I enjoy this topic.

Food for thought - I’ve never subscribed to this popular notion of maintaining a separate “bucket” of cash to “tide you over” during temporary declines. My approach has been to create a (1) reasonably stable portfolio with growth potential and to (2) take small enough distributions so as not to deplete significantly the overall portfolio. Yes - you lose some ground by taking distributions from the investment pot during bear markets. But you’re farther ahead during up markets by having 100% invested (includes allocations to cash / bonds). Decision making related to how much cash to hold and trying to time when to dip into that bucket are substantially reduced. Albeit - you may also lose ground during bull markets as well because you’re not as aggressively invested as you might be (having a sizable bucket of cash in reserve). Since Ms Dizubinski and a number of smarter people here than me favor this bucket approach, I’ll defer to their judgement. No intent to give investment advice. Not an expert (Only “C“ s in math).
Proponents of the approach Dizubinski advocates often point to the duration (in month’s) of a bear market. However, a more accurate way to examine this is to look at the number of months from market peak to full recovery. Since the bull market always begins at the bottom of a bear market, the climb back up to the earlier high can be long. I suppose the proponents of the cash bucket approach intend to rely on the bucket during the full recovery period?

Just estimating here -
- Looks like it took about 10 years for the S&P to fully recover from its high reached in 1906 (Dividends / compounding aren’t included* / A world war transpired).
- About 25 years elapsed before full recovery from the 1929 S&P peak (A world war intervened).
- After the 1968 peak, nearly 20 years elapsed before all the S&P losses were recovered.
- The S&P partially recovered from the 2000 sell-off (in 7 years) by around 2007. Than the “big fall” we’re most familiar with occurred.
- From that interim high in 2007, the market recovered in just 5 years. To some extent, that rapid recovery may have taught us the wrong lesson.
- Full S&P recovery, however, from its 2000 high took something in the vacinity of 15 years.
Admittedly, the above analysis is at least partially flawed: *(1) It doesn’t account for compounded dividends paid investors along the way, (2) It assumes (suggests) that investors dipped into their cash bucket immediately after a significant decline from “peak” occurred and relied on it until full market recovery, (3) It fails to acknowledge most investors are diversified into domestic equities, international holdings and debt instruments in addition to the S&P. To this last point ... If you own an actively managed fund of just about any sort you’re automatically exposed to some fixed income (typically cash) held by the manager for liquidity purposes.
Here’s the source of the chart and some accompanying analysis:
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2019/04/01/a-perspective-on-secular-bull-and-bear-markets

FYI: Investors are prone to two opposing but equally debilitating fears: the fear of missing out when times are good, and the fear of loss when markets are volatile. These two fears have a zero-sum relationship with rational decisions. The more you are dominated by these fears, the less rational you are.
So what can we do, as investors, to move toward maximum rationality? Here’s one piece of advice: Turn off the TV.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2019/04/01/why-investors-shouldnt-watch-business-tv

1-2y true cash may be a little scant, though I just commenced moves to result in 5y cash or bonds and that seems excessive, some days

@davidrmoran, I've gone back and forth with myself what that 'number of years' cash bucket should be also. I was initially pretty conservative with a plan to hold 4 years living expenses in cash. I've reduced that # in my plans. The object for me is make sure I don't have to sell equity funds in a bear market. I think from what I've read the typical bear lasts about 14 months. Average recovery about 5 months. So given that, a 2-3 year bucket should be more than efficient.
The other part of that safety bucket I'd like to incorporate is that all dividends earned in my portfolio would continuously go into that safety-cash bucket. That would safely stretch out that 2-3 years need for replenishment even longer.
Good luck with your planning.

@Old_Joe, FWIW, this article was posted a few days ago. An ETF convertible bond fund. I looked at it quickly but not interested at this time.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-bond-etf-with-an-equity-feel-2019-03-29-1246451/print

@Old_Joe: Some convertible funds have a higher yield than others. For the two that I noted that were open PACIX has a yield of 1.94% while LACFX has a yield of 3.75%. Some may favor a higher yield over a higher total return. I know I look a good bit at yield, being retired and seeking income, with some growth of principal to offset inflation. Both of these two funds should also pay out year end capital gain distributions. I consider that bonus money.

ADD, relative to market melt: both funds chosen for the chart had their high price near May, 2008 and both found their lows near Nov. 2008, with the Franklin fund dropping about -45% and Fidelity about -57% in this time frame.
During the fall, 2018 mini-melt, convertibles dropped about 11.5% versus about 20% for SPY..........the period for this measure is Sept. 20 - Dec. 24
K. Good evening.

@Old_Joe: At one time I use to own a complete sleeve of convertible securities funds. The three that it held were FISCX, PACIX & LACFX. My second choice that I feel is noteworthy is ANZAX but it has a soft close on it as does FISCX so both of these funds are not crrently taking new investors.
I have enclosed a link below that will take you to Morningstar's category of funds currently set for convertibles. You might search through it. Notice you can sort by 1 month, ytd, 1 year, 3 year and 5 year returns plus their tickers.
A good monthly distribution fund that I own that holds about a third in convertibles is AZNAX. It is open and pays a monthly distribution of $0.0775 which equals an annual distribution yield of better than 8%. You might check it out as well as it has good total returns. It is held in my hybrid income sleeve along with my convertible securities fund FISCX. Another fund held in this sleeve that genrates good income is my commodity strategy fund PCLAX with a TTM yield of better than 11%. And, yet another good income producer is my real estate income fund FRINX with a yied of about 4%. It has some convertibles and perferreds in it as well.
http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/convertibles/$FOCA$CV.aspx

Hi @Old_Joe
This is Morningstar's convertibles funds list.
Numerous duplicates among fund families due to the "R" type for dedicated retirement accounts and some institutional that may not be available to us regular folks.
You can sort the return list with a click upon the "year".
Course, I don't know what you may have access to via Schwab. I've not used their web site for a long time; but wondering what they show for a search list or investment style list.
Being a Fidelity acct. I chose their similar fund to chart against The Franklin fund, which appears to have the edge over other similar funds for the past several years......
Chart here
If you find something available at Schwab, use this active chart and add a comma and the ticker and click GO. The time frame should remain the same if the new add has long enough time frame.

Quick note on Parnussuses. There are 18 socially-conscious Great Owl funds (inception to date). Only one of those is from Parnassus. If I modify the criteria, for example a 5-year rating of "5" without the GO requirement, that pops to three funds: Midcap, Core and Endeavor. That said, they're an exceptionally solid family. I do worry about the consequence of Mr. Dodson's (eventual) departure but investors - ESG and otherwise - really have little to complain about.

@MFO Members: From Mairs & Power Website:
Regards,
Ted
https://www.mairsandpower.com/news-and-updates/271-growth-fund-small-cap-fund-portfolio-manager-changes

Here's the info from the SEC filing yesterday:
Andrew R. Adams has been named lead portfolio manager of the Growth Fund and Allen D. Steinkopf has been named lead portfolio manager of the Small Cap Fund, effective April 1, 2019.
Mark L. Henneman, currently the lead portfolio manager of the Growth Fund, will serve as co-manager of the Growth Fund. Andrew R. Adams, currently the lead portfolio manager of the Small Cap Fund, will serve as co-manager of the Small Cap Fund.
Mr. Adams has been co-manager of the Growth Fund since January 1, 2015 and Mr. Steinkopf has been co-manager of the Small Cap Fund since January 1, 2015.
In addition, Peter J. Johnson has been named co-manager of the Growth Fund effective April 1, 2019.

@johnN: "I checked don't think article is posted" sorry but your wrong !
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/48715/active-mutual-fund-outperformance-rarely-lasts-study-says#latest