@Charles: Thanks for sharing your (relative) pain, I too am way behind the S&P this year after a few years outperforming. Fairholme hit me hard, and great performance from Primecap and decent performance from Bridgeway (my other two big positions) weren't enough to compensate. My foreign funds (ARTKX, SFGIX, GPIOX) outpeformed their benchmarks but underperformed, of course, the S&P.
Getting back to this general topic, I intend to remain close to fully invested in equities. The economy seems to be picking up speed, not slowing down, so I don't see any reason for a bear market any time soon. And as to the inevitable 5-10% corrections, I've learned that I'm not smart enough to time those, though I do have a little dry powder just in case some bargains appear.

SPY 10, 50, 200 day averages all positive.
SP500 up 14.5% YTD. How many of us can claim that? Not me, I'm up YTD only 2-3%.
Although, volume seems a little skittish...

Hi @kevindow
I have followed the Barchart opinions, too.
Per your link, do you give more attention to any particular indicator(s) or just to the overall "buy, sell, hold" ratings?
I also use Stockcharts for 10 & 39, and 50, 100 and 200 moving averages; and related RSI 14 values.
I, too; agree relative to the U.S. equity areas.
Thank you for your input and time here.
Catch

Hi Skeet,
I follow the 20/50/100EMAs, and the charts for the following continue to be strong and I would not fight the trend: SPY, IJH, IWM, XLK, VHT, IBB, FBT, XLU and VNQ. Foreign developed and EM equities continue to lag, and I would avoid investing in these spaces.
Also, I follow the Barchart Opinion for these ETFs. Again, positive on the previously listed ETFs.
Finally, take a look at the Fear & Greed Index, which currently indicates a bullish "Fear."
My plan is to stay fully invested until the charts of my holdings break down.
Kevin

"Govtrack.us estimates that Meeks' bill has a
two percent chance of getting out of committee and a one
percent chance of actually becoming law."

Excellent news !!
We are currently invested in a 2/1 ratio in the TSP C (S&P 500) and S (VIEIX/FSEVX) funds, respectively. There is nothing wrong with the TSP that the politically motivated representatives need to fix. With an average expense ratio of 0.029%, the TSP is an awesome deal. However, it would be nice if the TSP offered extremely low cost exposure to foreign SC/MC equities, EM equities and foreign/EM fixed income.
Kevin

At least for a nomial percentate of folks here, in or near retirement and with a presumption of a rollover of a 401 or 403 plan into an IRA, the following:
---Okay, we'll throw out the pension (assuming one exists) and social security monies and focus on the "drawdown" question. Regardless of studies as noted here and others I have read (I did not read the one linked here), the fact remains that for those attaining the magic 70.5 age, the IRS is going to force these folks to "drawdown", whether they choose to or not. Current calculations require about 3.66% for year 1 and increases thereafter.
As to asset mix. Well, we all have our own risks and rewards machine in place, eh?
To repeat; the simple 50/50 of VTI and BND provides the following averages:
---5 year = 9.9%
---3 year = 12.5%
---1 year = 10.6
---YTD = 9.35%
Yup. Not very diversified. Just a good place to have been and be right now, IMO; for a simple portfolio. If one is ahead of the above numbers, you're doing well with your money management.
Regards,
Catch

FWIW, a relative took the injections about 5 years ago for Hep C. Super lucky to have very few side effects. All new oral drugs are much better. If patient is not suitable for Abbvie, doctor can request Harvoni. Best wishes for the uncle.

My husband takes a on-patent name brand drug. The generic in-class alternative is a drug with dangerous metabolites and requires restricted diet. No plan should be able to substitute a generic (or cheaper) alternative when the active ingredient is a different chemical even if it is in-class. Express Scripts under my plan allowed for the safer drug.
Because I am currently using Express Scripts (go to Caremark in a few days) I searched for Harvoni under my plan. It said that it was covered but might require a coverage review. It said that Harvoni was not the preferred drug but when I asked for a "generic alternative' it said there was none.
My plan pays 90% of the cost of a name brand and has a limit on my cost. I've never seen the "coverage review" message but it might just be related to a new prescription of this sort going in a few days before the account moves to a competitor. I was unable to get it to show me the preferred alternatives.
Here is the price Express Scripts gave me for a 30 day supply:

Total cost: $30,423.75
Your cost for this medication: $116.66
What your plan pays for this medication*: $30,307.09
Your plan pays approximately 100% of the cost for this medication.
*The cost to your plan does not include any rebates or other incentives your plan may receive from your use of this medication. Express Scripts may retain or share some rebates with your plan. The cost your plan pays is an approximation and is subject to change.
Coverage alert
Coverage Review is required for Harvoni 90-400 Mg Tablet.
For Participating Retail Pharmacy: This drug requires Coverage Review before you can receive it.
For Home Delivery Pharmacy: This drug requires Coverage Review before you can receive it.
More about coverage reviews:
To receive coverage for this medication, you must obtain approval through a coverage review. If you do not do this, you may be responsible for the entire cost of the medication.
Coverage notes
For Harvoni 90-400 Mg Tablet when using your home delivery pharmacy benefit:Please wait ...
This medication is covered under your plan; however, it is a non-preferred product.
Please note that the coverage terms of this prescription benefit are subject to change.

Hi Guys,
Charles’ recent “Irrational Markets - Proof Positive” post prompted me to initiate this topic. That discussion highlighted the discordant opinions and recommendations made by supposedly financial and investment experts. The cacophony is loud, endless, and often much less than useful. Chaotic investing is a likely outcome.
The Charles post emphasized the mind-bending character of old wisdom saws like “Out of the mouths of babes comes wise insights, yet, only with age comes wisdom”.
If the latter is true, I have accumulated much wisdom. I guess you should seek investment advice from either young Wharton business school graduates or perhaps from older, more senior graduates. I listen to both, but weight them differently.
For many years, an industry agreement seemed to have been reached with regard to an acceptable retirement portfolio drawdown rate. Portfolio survival for an extended retirement period is the obvious goal.
These earlier studies mostly suggested something approaching a 50/50 mix of equity and fixed income holdings. High portfolio survival rates were estimated when withdrawal rates were limited to roughly 4% per year adjusted for inflation. The original work in this arena was done at Trinity University in 1998 and has been frequently updated.
Here is a Link to one readable update written by Wade Pfau in 2010:
http://wpfau.blogspot.com/2010/10/trinity-study-retirement-withdrawal.html
The Pfau analysis didn’t much change the earlier study findings. However, some concern over the current overpriced marketplace, coupled with a very low interest rate environment, has persuaded a few gurus to shorten the recommended drawdown schedule from the standard 4% rule-of-thumb to an even lower 3% annually.
Now for the controversial analysis and recommendation that wants to upset this comfortable apple cart. It will surely add to Charles’ distress over conflicting and competing financial advice. That’ll never change.
It is a retirement study from the Director of Research at the Putnam Institute. Here is the Link to this cart upsetting 16-page, 2011 release:
https://www.putnam.com/literature/pdf/PI001.pdf
Please give it a road test. It merges portfolio returns uncertainty with life expectancy probabilities for both men and women separately. The methodology deploys a novel Retirement Present Value (RPV) model to project portfolio survival likelihoods.
The RPV’s surprising and controversial output is that the retirement portfolio that offers the best survival prospects includes a much smaller fraction of equity holdings than does the original Trinity study and other follow-up Monte Carlo analyses. Check it out; controversy is good.
Personally, I’m not comfortable with the Putnam work product. The manner in which the “optimum” portfolio equity/fixed income mix was determined escapes me. Certainly a portfolio with only a single Index-like equity position is retirement dangerous because of its volatility (standard deviation). But fixed income is likely more dangerous because of muted annual returns.
The standing answer has been broad portfolio diversification that trades off a little annual return for a major decrease in overall volatility. Outcomes are definitely timeframe dependent, but I still trust this generic and time-tested approach.
You get to choose your own poison. My head spins off-axis as often as Charles’ does. Let MFO members know your thinking on this matter.
Best Regards and Happy Holidays.

OK - I guess I was wrong about market timing.
2 Timothy 3:1-5 ESV
But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.
2 Corinthians 11:14 ESV
And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light

I know this site is dedicated to funds/etf's, but the captioned story affects many due to the high institutional ownership of biotech companies such as AbbVie and Gilead Sciences.
An uncle of mine was due to start using Gilead Sciences Harvoni regimen to cure his Hepatitis C beginning January 5, 2015. Because Express Scripts is his pharmacy benefit provider, my uncle now must change his prescription from the 1 pill a day Harvoni to AbbVie's drug cocktail to cure his Hep. C. This is what his doctor has told him. My uncle has yet to receive any reply from Express Scripts to his many inquiries!!!!!
I understand the high cost issue of using Gilead's Harvoni, although AbbVie's new Hep. C cocktail is still very costly. Nonetheless I (and my family) feel that my uncle's physician should be the person determining my uncle's medication, not the pharmacy benefit provider (Express Scripts). It's not fair to any human being that their medication is determined by a pharmacy benefit provider instead of a capable physician as we want only the best health care for my uncle.
I see that neither Gilead nor AbbVie's pps are up today, although Gilead really took a hit while Express Scripts is up on this news. I don't directly own any of these equities but do own them through some funds, and am simply angry at Express Scripts on my uncle's behalf.
Just needed to get this off of my chest.
~ PT

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mfwire.com/common/artprint2007.asp?storyID=50408&wireid=2

I trust that you don't advise Monument (Jeff Nat) policy holders to annuitize. That would convert the segregated account assets into general liabilities of the insurance company ("subject to the claims-paying ability of the insurer"), currently rated B+ by A.M. Best, C by Weiss, and unrated by anyone else. Not to mention its heritage (Conseco), and the fact that the product is not offered in NY State.
Aside from Conseco being one of the largest bankruptcies ever, it let hedge funds use the Monument VA for market timing from around 1999-2002. Then it sold off its annuity unit to Jefferson National, who continued the market timing practices (fraudulently stating in its prospectus that the annuity was not intended for market timing). That ran from Oct 2002 (when Jefferson National acquired the unit) through Sept 2003. Here's the SEC settlement.
None of this is intended to imply that I would not personally consider the Monument Annuity - but that I would know exactly what I was getting into - mostly in terms of insurer risk.
I am glad to see you list other low cost VAs, which can (in limited circumstances, for the right customers) serve a role. To the others you'd mentioned, I would add TIAA-CREF (the only low cost annuity I know of sold in NYS without fudging via a separate subsidiary), and Fidelity.

I have no issue with people who have all manner of strategies. I'm a believer in "do what works for you."
Personally, I've turned into much more of a "buy and hold" investor in the last few years from the standpoint of it's just not very enjoyable to me to have to frequently rebalance and tweak.
There may be some variation in the desired holding periods for me, ranging from multi-decade (railroads fall within this, as well as some other things including Archer Daniels, International Flavors and Fragrances and Jardine Matheson), to 5-10 year (Ecolab, Visa, WP Carey as examples) and a lot that I have a 3-5 view on.
Things change, absolutely, but I think the Buffett quote of "Buy what you would feel comfortable with if the market closed for 10 years" is a good filter in the decision making process.

MINDX has performed well over this year, but as @JohnChisum mentioned India funds have had a history of providing a roller coaster of a ride. This past year, MINDX has exhibited very little volatility as well as consistent upward momentum. As @Junkster has mentioned of his investment choices, MINDX has exhibited a movement over the past year that I believe he would call "strong upward momentum with very little volatility".
I like to use MAPIX as my "safe harbor" (diversified fund for Asia exposure) so I chart MINDX against MAPIX to determine MINDX relative volatility. Over the last year MAPIX has moved sideways while MINDX provided a 60% gain.

I am watching shorter charts of 1 & 3 months for higher volatility signals again using MAPIX as my indicator. The most recent 1 month chart indicates pretty similar movement compared to MAPIX.

Fortunately a very tongue-in-cheek essay. Quite clever, actually.
We have had a number of clients who come to us with existing variable annuity contracts. If they are lucky, they have held them long enough to be free of deferred sales charges. Some have come in with 10-year surrender/deferred charges, some owned by folks who are in their 70s and 80s (yeah, real ethical salespersons). If there is no net gain, the contracts can be surrendered. If there is a gain of any size, at least they can be 1035-exchanged to a no-load product (like Jefferson National, Vanguard, or Schwab). Sadly, most are sold by bank salespersons, who know almost nothing about the products they sell, except that they are told to push them. The annual expenses can really be awful, not to mention the salespersons almost never disclose that owners can only access 10% of the principal in the first year. All who have been sold these products think otherwise.
There may be honest, ethical variable annuity salespersons out there somewhere.

GENIX has been open less than 2 years (since May 31, 2013). Classic pattern for many of these boutique funds with high fees. Tailor a hot combination of investments (in this case 99.5% equities) and ride the wave. Watch the money pour in (already over 1.5 BL). Pump that new money into the currently hot sectors. A year (or two or three) later, the market climate changes and the fund starts to swoon. The money pours out as fast as it came in and everybody is convinced the fund's losses are attributable to "bloat" (missing the larger issue).
As usual, those who were last in and last to leave suffer the losses.
Seen this over and over with these funds.

Most have struggled this year, as the article mentions...one of my favorites WBMIX is off 3.5% YTD. Honestly, hard to beat the pure index in this market.
I don't think the article mentioned a different kind of long/short strategy that is doing well lately...Gotham Absolute Return Fund (GARIX)...up 9% YTD, or Gotham Enhanced Return Fund (GENIX)...up 16.7% YTD. I'm actually reluctant to call attention to Gotham's Funds, despite my admiration for Mr. Greenblatt...hard for me to get past the 2.25% er. But, in this case, so far anyway, must give these funds credit.

Note:
For some reason, Ted's link to his original article disappeared or became inoperative after I wrote a response. Not good. Here's the original article to which I was responding:
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/target-date-funds-twice-as-popular-vs-15-years-ago-cm425440
The comparison is with 1998. That was an extraordinarily "euphoric" period for retail investors for many reasons. So, the rise in popularity of balanced funds in subsequent years doesn't surprise me.
If I'm reading this article correctly, it's really about balanced funds "which include target-date funds" (quoting from article). I find this presentation a bit suspicious.
That aside, it's unfortunate so called "target date" funds get lumped together at all by financial commentators like this one. They vary greatly in their approach to investing. If you want a good one, look to the fund family first. That's where it all starts with these things.

FYI: The exchange-traded fund (ETF) industry saw one of its largest monthly gains in November, with data compiled by ETF.com showing that U.S.-listed ETFs witnessed $42 billion in net inflows for the month. [1] The strong performance for the extremely popular investment channel helped asset managers rake in more than $192 billion in net new money across their ETF offerings for the eleven-month period this year – comfortably surpassing the $188 billion record figure for full-year 2013. U.S.-listed ETFs are just shy of $2 trillion in total assets – a threshold they are very likely to cross by the end of the year thanks to the record run for the equity market over recent weeks.
,BlackRock (NYSE:BLK) gained the most over the year, with the financial institution capitalizing on its position as the world’s largest asset manager as well as world’s largest ETF provider to report net inflows of $71.4 billion in the U.S. and almost $90 billion worldwide. [2] Vanguard, which saw an exceptionally strong start to the year (see Vanguard Trumps BlackRock, State Street To Record Highest ETF Inflows In Q1), comes in a close second with $63.5 billion in U.S. inflows and $75 billion in global inflows. This has brought Vanguard within striking distance of State Street (NYSE:STT) for the position of the second largest U.S.-listed ETF provider.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.trefis.com/stock/blk/articles/271067/blackrock-continues-to-make-the-most-of-the-etf-growth-story/2014-12-19