FYI: With prices at multiyear lows, this could be a profitable buying opportunity
As good as gold: If bullion prices rise, you could take your profits and buy a golden Ferrari.
It looked like gold-mining stocks finally bottomed out about a year ago.
After prices for the yellow metal peaked in the summer of 2011 at around $1,900 an ounce, they crashed almost 40% to around $1,200 at the start of 2014. Gold miners were brutalized, with the Market Vectors Gold Miners ETF GDX, -0.58% plummeting 65% from September 2011 through January of this year.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gold-miners-pain-could-be-investors-gain-2014-11-17/print

@JohnChisum
You noted: "With that said, do we know how bonds will react with the current situation they are in now? As others have mentioned in the past, they look at them more as a ballast."
>>>I suppose for both of us; the "length" of a downturn is the key word. For the recent blips, I would agree/suggest these would be for the traders who can get this correct; both to the bond and equity sides. I agree that most bond sectors have the odds against them going forward; versus the return patterns from early 2009. My best guess as of today, is that a sustained equity downturn of 10% that perhaps continues to move sideways, would benefit investment grade bonds.
These scenarios can be part of an argument of holding an active managed fund with a decent return record in the "balanced fund" family. 'Course these folks don't always get things correct either. A prime example is VILLX for this year. A stellar longer term record; but a fund that currently is, "I've fallen and can't get up." We don't hold this fund, and do not follow the management; but wonder what the heck happened.
Causes me to refer to this note by me, from Nov.13:
"Perhaps travel this path going forward; the other alternative investing.
So, this mix comes down to the K.I.S.S. portfolio, eh? Below are combined returns for VTI and BND (or equivalent holdings):
---2009, + 16%
---2010, + 11.8%
---2011, + 4% (equity took a hit in July of this year)
---2012, + 10.2%
---2013, + 15.7%
---2014, + 8% (YTD)
No, these combined investments didn't gather the big numbers from SPY or such in 2013; nor did they get hit hard on the head in 2011. The above numbers also have a compound growth factor from 2009 that is not factored. The simple average yearly return = 11% , more or less. I don't know anyone who would poo-poo 11% a year."
Regards,
Catch

FYI: Mutual-Fund Manager’s Bond Purchases Sometimes Align Him With Regimes Criticized by U.S., Europe.
Regards,
Ted
http://online.wsj.com/articles/michael-hasenstab-bets-big-in-controversial-places-1416195123?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

TheShadow and TheGainTrain (and others) - you are really good at getting this information! And... you are including some fund families I am not including on CapGainsValet.com (mostly due to the firm size limits I set originally). I will give a shout out to this group and MFO in my CGV News. Excellent research work! I am up to 135 firms that have posted their 2014 cap gains estimates.

Really is relative to the surprise of some.
Tis only a "technical" recession though. Don't sell your investment/treasury grade bond funds just yet. If nothing changes overnight, they'll likely have a positive Monday.
Pump the money and raise taxes; always seems to be a winning combo, eh?
225 index down about 2.6% at this time (9:45pm EST).
Japan slips into surprise recession
Happy investing.
Catch

Simpson-Bowles anyone ?
"The summit also included agreements to crack down on tax dodging, strengthen the financial system, deal with climate change and a transatlantic trade deal between the U.S. and EU.Such meetings are typically marked by grandiose promises that are seldom met, so the summit agreed on a new regime, run by the IMF and the OECD, to hold countries accountable if they do not deliver."
http://seekingalpha.com/news/2130215-g20-commits-to-grow-economy-russia-isolated-over-ukraine
OECD uses its wealth of information on a broad range of topics to help governments foster prosperity and fight poverty through economic growth and financial stability. We help ensure the environmental implications of economic and social development are taken into account.
http://www.oecd.org/about/whatwedoandhow/
I M F anyone? No selfies here!
http://www.hedgeho.com/wp-content/uploads/strauss-kahn.jpg
Elsewhere:
Tokyo shares skid as Japan slips into recession
Reuters By Lisa Twaronite
- Japanese stocks skidded on Monday, helping the yen rebound from a fresh seven-year low against the dollar touched after data showed Japan unexpectedly fell into recession in the third quarter as its economy shrank.
The shockingly downbeat report reinforced expectations Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will delay a sales tax hike, set for October next year, after a hike in the tax in April took a heavy toll on consumption.
The disappointing GDP data sent the Nikkei stock average <.N225> tumbling 2 percent

Not directly related to U.S. healthcare, I am sure many here are aware of the foreign health centers that have come into place in the past 10-12 years, in particular with India and Thailand.
This is a new entry that I have watched for the past two years; although there isn't any investment potential directly related the hospital, as it is private.
Acension Health/Caymans
Ascension is a full blown, very sophisticated total health care organization involved in all areas of the business from venture capital startups to insurance and is a non-profit, Catholic based group.
Regards,
Catch

Ridgeworth
https://www.ridgeworth.com/includes/files/assets/files/1415999010_2014-YearEndCapitalGainsEst1114x.pdf
Billy Blair
https://www.williamblairfunds.com/resources/docs/funds/other/Estimated Distributions 2014 I and N.pdf
Hartford Funds
https://www.hartfordfunds.com/dam/en/docs/pub/funddocuments/regulatorydocument/Tax Center/MF7139.pdf

I agree with both Mark and scott. 0bamacare is just the vehicle for healthcare. That might sound important up front but investing in healthcare focuses on the companies directly involved. Even with the news of premium increases and changes for 2015, healthcare stocks will continue to go up. The boomer access is too big.

Barrons has an interesting article on ETFs in which one of the panel suggests IUSB , a relatively new(June) ETF from i shares fund with much more than the standard bonds in the Barclay index (this includes high yield and emerging market denominated in dollars.ER is .15, duration about 5 years yield a bit high than the standard bond index

FYI: ETF investors have a plethora of ways to access international exposure in their portfolios, from single-country sector funds to broad-based global indices. From a flexibility standpoint, there has never been a better time to be an ETF investor with a global and liquid market at your fingertips.
However, with so many options at your disposal, narrowing down the field to attractive options can be daunting. To that end, a client recently asked me whether or not I felt single-country ETFs were an appropriate investment for his portfolio. My answer coincided with weighing the pros and cons that make these ETFs unique in their own right.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.thestreet.com/print/story/12955248.html

@MFO Members: Warren Buffett's latest purchase. The insurer's only new money purchase during the period was 450,000 shares of Express Scripts (ESRX) for an estimated cost of around $32 million

Thanks Ted...he also added to, reduced and sold some other stocks over the last three months:
New Purchases: ESRX,
Added Positions: DTV, CHTR, GM, WMT, DVA, IBM, V, SU, MA, PCP
Reduced Positions: COP,
Sold Out: DE,
More Q3 data:

Warren+Buffett (x-out popup to see page)

I think most of these changes were by Coombs and Wechsler who manage separate pools of money than Warren. Buffett probably was responsible for WMT, IBM, SU, and COP. The changes in those were very minor compared to portfolio size.

@MFO Members: Warren Buffett's latest purchase. The insurer's only new money purchase during the period was 450,000 shares of Express Scripts (ESRX) for an estimated cost of around $32 million

Thanks Ted...he also added to, reduced and sold some other stocks over the last three months:
New Purchases: ESRX,
Added Positions: DTV, CHTR, GM, WMT, DVA, IBM, V, SU, MA, PCP
Reduced Positions: COP,
Sold Out: DE,
More Q3 data:
Warren+Buffett (x-out popup to see page)

@ Jonathan Clements: If a 25 % drop in your portfolio makes you happy, I'm all for it, but not in mine. This column get an F
Regards,
Ted

I agree with the first commenter on the WSJ page - this is not a particularly well reasoned column. Rather it comes across as a compendium of half-thought out rationales, perhaps hoping one will stick.
He seems to put forth an argument (one of the many rationales offered) that (assuming) profits grow no faster than GDP, profits will grow slower than in the past because GDP will grow slower. This is a production-based perspective (as in gross domestic product).
In discussing two major inputs of GDP growth, he ignores underutilization presently affecting each. Simply making better use of available resources would generate greater production growth rates than he presents.
Productivity - an unstated assumption is that productivity will rise at a constant rate. Assuming (my assumption) that companies' production is significantly below capacity, growth could be achieved without further investment - boosting the productivity growth rate above this constant (average) rate.
Labor force growth - He correctly cites the Bureau of Labor Statistics figure of 0.5% total (employed + unemployed) labor force growth, but IMHO that's not the right figure to use. Rather, only the employed are responsible for what's produced, not the total labor force.
Unemployment, even at 5.8%, remains high; reducing unemployment would increase production even with zero growth in the labor force.
He subsequently cuts the legs out from under both of his arguments, by pointing out how a large number of people are unemployed (so employed labor could grow faster than total labor), and how large a number are underemployed (so productivity could grow faster than average).
I'm not disagreeing with everything in the column. But the writing doesn't make the case for most of the conclusions.

Sounds like JC's portfolio is not very diversified. Using FINVIZ as a stock screening tool I played around with the stock performance setting in the "technical" tab.
Of 6951 stocks listed (I'm assuming JC and I are looking at similar markets):
1204 stocks are down YTD 20% or more in price (that's a little over 17%)
1554 stocks are up YTD 20% or more in price (that's a little over 22%)
This seems like a bell curve (normal) set of results. Maybe slightly positive.
From the peak of the bell 3947 (about 57% of the total screen) are positive for the year. Of this, 2400 are up at least 10%. This fact is to my point.
Of all 6951 stocks, 2400 or about a third performed at or above the market's long term average of 10%. I believe I've seen this fact somewhere related to active and passive funds...66% of all stocks perform at or below the markets long term average.
This year has been pretty...average.
source screening tool:
finviz.com/screener.ashx?v=111&f=ta_perf_ytd10u&ft=3

FYI: More investors are hopping on the index-fund trend, and not just with stocks.
More money is flowing into mutual funds and exchange-traded funds that track bond indexes, lured by low expenses. It's been a relatively slow migration, but investors got a big jolt in September with the sudden departure of famed bond guru Bill Gross from PIMCO.
Investors yanked $17.9 billion out of PIMCO's flagship bond fund that month and roughly $800 million from other actively managed bond funds across the industry, according to Morningstar. They poured $2.9 billion into bond index funds. The movement means 21 cents of every $1 in taxable bond funds are invested in an index fund. For U.S. stock funds, it's 37 cents.
Before jumping into a bond index fund, though, keep in mind that they come in many flavors and have their own strengths and weaknesses:
Regards,
Ted
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/8b9dff1055fa47709ccbafeb7aec08ae/bond-index-funds-are-gaining-converts

FYI: In early October, as share prices wobbled, I had high hopes that U.S. stocks would plummet to attractive levels. Instead, shares have shot higher, adding to the rip-roaring bull market that has seen stocks triple since March 20.
The long rally has done wonders for my portfolio’s value. But it also means stocks are now more richly valued—and expected returns are lower. Unless you never again plan to add to your stock portfolio, you should have mixed feelings about the market’s heady gains.
Regards,
Ted
http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-we-need-stock-prices-to-fall-25-1416100637?KEYWORDS=jonathan+clements

I maintain FAIRX as one of my largest holdings.

This fund is not for the faint of heart.
It swings for the fences and quite often circles the bases. There are, what feel like, long stretches of strikeout seasons as well. To buy this fund during these long stretches of under performance take a certain type of discipline or trust.
I fully understand the love/hate relationship...it's actually more of a comfortable/uncomfortable dynamic for me and I have to remind myself that it will all work out over the long term.

A 15 year view with my "best fit" high and low trend lines:

Missed VGHCX +25.3 ytd (Morningstar).... any others?