I've switched out of WAFMX to MFMPX.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=MFMPX&region=usa&culture=en-US
From MFMPX Manager's 2nd Quarter Commentary
The Middle East and North Africa continue to present political
risk for the region, although conflicts in countries including
Egypt and Syria have created opportunities for markets like
such as the U.A.E. as locals look for safety and stability. The
classification of the U.A.E. to Emerging Markets status was
largely an additional tailwind for the market. In Saudi Arabia,
where roughly 50% of the population is under the age of 30,
the monarchy’s development programs appeared to be
constructive including “Saudization,” the program focused on
integrating local Saudis into the workforce. We believe higher
Saudi employment will benefit the economy particularly in
consumer discretionary spending and financials. We are more
constructive on Kuwait following a recent visit as we think there
is potential for the non-oil GDP growth to turn positive, we see
more stability in the political environment of the economy and
the Non-Performing Loan (NPL) cycle appears to have passed
its peak.
We see positive implications for equity markets in countries
new leaders have come to office within previously troubled
countries, particularly Pakistan, where Nawaz Sharif became
Prime Minister in June of 2013. He has pledged to change the
reputation of the country known for extremism and poverty to
one known for good governance and prosperity. So far, he has
shown to be effective and investors are responding in kind
More on manager's background.
http://citywireglobal.com/news/former-aa-rated-drinkall-leaves-gustavia/a288116
Morgan Stanley Home Page (a little hoop jumping !)
http://www.morganstanley.com/msim/portal/site/US/template.PAGE/?msimPageTitle=productdetail&u=86bb14f4dc87daf33d3afb1051a9e009&fund=34211&src=vap

Weekly ETF Gainers / Losers
Sep 12 2014, 16:13 ET | By: Jignesh Mehta, SA News Editor
Brazil largest weekly loser.(Commodities?)
Gainers: VXX +4.23%. GAZ +1.26%. UNG +1.01%. UUP +0.58%. TAN +0.12%.
Losers: EWZ -10.12%. BRF -8.96%. ILF -7.29%. REMX -5.31%. VNQ -5.21%.
Overbought market slips as Fed fears set the tone
Sep 12 2014, 16:20 ET | By: Carl Surran, SA News Editor
Investors also may have been unnerved by the prospect of next week’s Fed rate meeting, with speculation the Fed may signal the arrival of interest rate increases sooner than expected.
Much of the damage again came from the energy sector (-1.5%), which tumbled out of the gate and pulled the broader market down with it; Nymex crude slid 1% for the week, and has fallen for 10 of the past 12 weeks.
Today's session saw better than usual participation with 675M-plus shares changing hands at the NYSE floor.
The yield on the 10-year Treasury note jumped to 2.61% after beginning the week at 2.42%.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/1981165-overbought-market-slips-as-fed-fears-set-the-tone
No Rebound In Sight For Sliding Oil Prices
By Nick Cunningham | Thu, 11 September 2014 21:33
U.S. oil production also continues to rise. In June, the U.S. produced 8.5 million bpd, an increase of 500,000 bpd since the beginning of the year. Higher production continues to cut into imports, leaving greater supplies on the global market.
Perhaps most importantly, global demand has been surprisingly lackluster. The latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) shows that refined product (gasoline, for example) inventories are increasing – an indication that production is overwhelming consumption.
A slowing Chinese economy is also putting a damper on crude oil prices. Weak economic data published by the Chinese government showed that China’s import growth slowed for a second straight month, suggesting the economy continues to cool.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/No-Rebound-In-Sight-For-Sliding-Oil-Prices.html
US Picks up Pace in LNG Race
This week in energy, the prospect of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports gains momentum in Washington with final federal approval for two more projects in Louisiana and Florida thanks to a tweaking of legislation.
The pressure on Washington is indeed growing because the race to the finish for LNG exports is a tight one and will have a major impact on long-term contracts.
Australian projects in particular are warily eyeing the two new LNG export approvals in the US and Russian progress towards the same, because it may force them to renegotiate long-term contracts already in play due to a future LNG glut.
This week we also look at Canada’s LNG prospects, and what Keith Schaefer depicts as the countdown to get massive projects off the ground.
There are at least 14 proposals to export LNG off Canada's west coast, and another one to export Canadian gas down to Oregon and ship it to Asia from there.
In this heated race, the general consensus is that Washington will have to speed things up a bit more. But the good news is that the ranks of the Democrats are growing with those who believe in US LNG exports, and the general consensus is that we will see an up-tick in the momentum to approve these languishing projects—soon.
http://oilprice.com/newsletters/free/opintel120914

The funds have been in swoon mode for about a week. Mine is down 1.5% for today's market.

"I think you're also looking at a smaller pool of retail investors as a % of the broad population than you had 5-10 years ago."
That might be a good thing, suggesting that the smaller pool is perhaps a little more seasoned, and maybe a little less inclined to cut and run. But, who really knows?

I think they're going to cut and run, it's just human nature (shrugs.) 1. There should be far more financial education in this country, but I doubt that will ever happen. 2. I actually do ponder whether investors who own individual names are less prone to cut and run, because if they have a set of individual names that they have a significant interest and attachment to, are they less likely to dump those shares then a diversified fund whose holdings they probably haven't researched? I dunno.
It does fascinate me when fund managers are surprised and upset at retail investors who run for the exits during a downturn - again, there should be better financial education in this country, but again, it's an element of human nature. It wouldn't surprise me to see more large fund managers open funds in London (see the Pershing Square IPO in London later this year) or start reinsurance vehicles in the US (Greenlight Reinsurance, Third Point Reinsurance) in a search for permanent capital.
I *do* think that along with a smaller pool of investors than 5-10 years ago, you are also seeing alongside that significant buybacks at major companies and a smaller pool of shares outstanding, which those that are invested are benefiting from.
I am concerned by the mass of IPOs hitting the market. Not so much Alibaba (which I actually think is interesting, I'm rather fascinated by Alibaba and similar co Tencent), but things like Dave and Busters (which I think failed in plans to come to market once or twice before.)
As for Alibaba, I am concerned that the media isn't really discussing the fact that you aren't going to be investing directly in Alibaba with next week's giant IPO, but in a Cayman holding co. ("“You may face difficulties in protecting your interests, and your ability to protect your rights through the U.S. federal courts may be limited because we are incorporated under Cayman Islands law, we conduct substantially all of our operations in China and most of our directors and all of our executive officers reside outside the U.S.,” Alibaba said in its filing - http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/09/08/alibaba-aims-for-record-24-billion-stock-ipo.)
The roundabout way of investing in Alibaba via Yahoo or Japanese co Softbank is actually investing directly.

"I think you're also looking at a smaller pool of retail investors as a % of the broad population than you had 5-10 years ago."
That might be a good thing, suggesting that the smaller pool is perhaps a little more seasoned, and maybe a little less inclined to cut and run. But, who really knows?

I think there's worry and there's a significant amount of investor psychology that is still damaged. I do think that things aren't as rosy as the media would like to make them out to be, but I think if you're looking at broad retail sentiment, it's not euphoric (nor do I think it will be for a long time - again, I still think there are individuals who don't want anything to do with the market. Young people aren't investing.) Time is what it will take and I think another 2008 or even a milder crisis will just reinforce people's opinions who are staying away from the market. In the meantime, those who are in the market will be protected to some degree against inflation and asset wealth in this country will be consolidated within a smaller and smaller portion of the population.
Long story short: I think that there's a lot of things that aren't good broadly, but some sectors of the economy are doing well or very well. I don't think investor sentiment is too optimistic, but I think you're also looking at a smaller pool of retail investors as a % of the broad population than you had 5-10 years ago.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-stock-futures-pause-ahead-of-data-1410524535#printMode
Markets At A Glance: http://markets.wsj.com/us

I think one lesson of the bond market hiccup of recent days is that, despite the many months now that the Fed has clearly signaled gradual tightening, it's so NOT priced into the market that a rumor of a relatively minor shift in language produces a quick uptick in T rates. So, there could be a period of Rate Rage ahead, probably in 2015, something like the Taper Tantrum of 2013, despite the usual expectation of security markets as being forward looking.

I think everyone is obsessing of what the Fed *might* eliminate ("for a considerable period of time") in their wording at next week's meeting. I think after that regardless of what they say, the market will rally. But since the market doesn't care what I think, will sell a very small percentage of my open end junk munis funds today even though one was at YTD highs yesterday (ABTYX) and the other (EIHYX) 3 cents off YTD highs.

Chevron needs partner, contracts before moving on Kitimat LNG, CEO says
Sep 12 2014, 12:34 ET Seeking Alpha
“We have an advantaged resource in the Horn River basin, but the costs are very high. You have to have good alignment with partners," Watson says, so the company is working with aboriginal groups in the area and performing initial work on the site.British Columbia is closer to Asian markets than some competing parts of the world including the U.S. Gulf Coast, but the latter area's projects that are moving ahead because existing infrastructure makes them easier to develop, the CEO says.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/1980685-chevron-needs-partner-contracts-before-moving-on-kitimat-lng-ceo-says
Oil and gas company debt soars to danger levels to cover shortfall in cash
Energy businesses are selling assets and took on $106bn in net debt in the year to March
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard The Telegraph
6:10AM BST 11 Aug 2014
The net debt of 127 oil companies from around the world rose by $106bn in the year to March
The EIA said revenues from oil and gas sales have reached a plateau since 2011, stagnating at $568bn over the last year as oil hovers near $100 a barrel. Yet costs have continued to rise relentlessly. Companies have exhausted the low-hanging fruit and are being forced to explore fields in ever more difficult regions.
The EIA said the shortfall between cash earnings from operations and expenditure -- mostly CAPEX and dividends -- has widened from $18bn in 2010 to $110bn during the past three years. Companies appear to have been borrowing heavily both to keep dividends steady and to buy back their own shares, spending an average of $39bn on repurchases since 2011.
The agency, a branch of the US Energy Department, said the increase in debt is “not necessarily a negative indicator” and may make sense for some if interest rates are low. Cheap capital has been a key reason why US companies have been able to boost output of shale gas and oil at an explosive rate, helping to lift the US economy out of the Great Recession.
Steven Kopits from Douglas-Westwood said the productivity of new capital spending has fallen by a factor of five since 2000. “The vast majority of public oil and gas companies require oil prices of over $100 to achieve positive free cash flow under current capex and dividend programmes. Nearly half of the industry needs more than $120,” he said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11024845/Oil-and-gas-company-debt-soars-to-danger-levels-to-cover-shortfall-in-cash.html

I know David would love for us to get into a heated debate about the upcoming elections. :)
OK - Just kidding. But I think so much depends on which way the political currents blow in coming months. The party in power has great influence over Fed leadership, court appointments, budget, industry regulations, tax policies. etc. Unfortunately, our fiscal and other national policies often are short sighted as a consequence. Price we pay, I guess, for self government.
Tom Gallagher of ISS on the old Wall Street Week was the best I can remember at analyzing national & Washington undercurrents and translating those perceptions into actionable advice for investors.
Made many great calls over the years. He retired and than resurfaced again elsewhere. If anybody has anything by Gallagher in recent months I'd love to see it. For old-time's sake, here's a list of frequent cast members on the old Wall Street Week program. Best free investment advice under the sun. http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/wall-street-week/cast/205345

My equity exposure remains relatively low for many reasons - mostly personal factors. I'm however very curious about commodities because I feel they may represent a profitable short term trading opportunity (also one fraught with peril). Pundits like to cite $40 oil 10-15 years ago. Humm ... Do these guys seriously think $1.50 - $2.00 gas at the pump would be a sustainable price for very long?
FWIW

I think if oil goes much below $80 a lot of production will go offline and you will cause a sizable upset in a lot of the debt-ridden junior oil companies.
I mentioned this a few months back, but it is worth repeating:
"The U.S. drive for energy independence is backed by a surge in junk-rated borrowing that’s been as vital as the technological breakthroughs that enabled the drilling spree. While the high-yield debt market has doubled in size since the end of 2004, the amount issued by exploration and production companies has grown nine-fold, according to Barclays Plc. That’s what keeps the shale revolution going even as companies spend money faster than they make it." (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-30/shale-drillers-feast-on-junk-debt-to-say-on-treadmill.html)
One of Rice Energy's PRs ends with this: "Certain of our wells are named after superheroes and monster trucks, some of which may be trademarked. Despite their size and strength, our wells are in no manner affiliated with such superheroes or monster trucks." (http://www.bloomberg.com/article/2014-06-02/aHEbwYkhOK5s.html)
Is shale real? Absolutely. However, I think there's a line where production is no longer economical and, if crossed for a while, I'm curious how heavily indebted companies will fare.

@Ted, thanks, it's a reasonable choice and one I've added to my analysis. I'm not much of an indexer in most cases but this might be a reasonable exception. It worries me a little to read that IJH is 96% correlated with the S&P 500 and 98% correlated with M*'s small cap index over the last decade and maybe that adds a new question to the thought process.

I think one lesson of the bond market hiccup of recent days is that, despite the many months now that the Fed has clearly signaled gradual tightening, it's so NOT priced into the market that a rumor of a relatively minor shift in language produces a quick uptick in T rates. So, there could be a period of Rate Rage ahead, probably in 2015, something like the Taper Tantrum of 2013, despite the usual expectation of security markets as being forward looking.

XX beats XY.
St. John Bogle says Social Security is your bond fund.
...
I do like the EM bonds, tho, but most of your bond funds are for geriatrics. We pay 20 to 40% of our return in expenses for security, which you don't need unless you will really pull the trigger and sell them all and buy stocks at the next correction, if you recognize it in time. Those funds are for fifty-somethings.
High yield with a low ER is probably OK, but they act like stocks in the crash, but recovered faster last time. (Of course, if you are in them, you might have trouble making yourself sell after a loss to buy stocks.)
...
15 to 20 years from retirement, I'd start looking at bonds in moderation, but you might be so rich by then that it wouldn't matter.
Be sure you marry the girl.

I'd be interested to hear what are your list of less geriatric bond funds to check out, In my musings since posting this I noted PONDX, but I'm not sure if that fits your criteria. I'm comfortable with and aware of the SS argument of Bogle, but am not investing here for income, just mild diversification. As you suggest I've been thinking of staying 85-90% equities - currently in a 3:2:1 ratio in US:Developed:EM - until I'm 45-50 or so.
As for DNA sequencing I have some family involved in the business so it's been done. I'm a bit special, but not enough to worry about an early death.
And yes, I shall marry the hell out of the girl.
@AndyJ Agreed about ARTFX and high yield in general, makes an EM bond fund seem maybe a better play for diversity.
@Junkster Hiking in the Sierras is one of our favorite weekend past times. Thank you for the good wishes.

Paul McCully of PIMCO made a curious statement late Thursday (CNBC) that may help answer Catch's question. Essentially, he believes the Fed is concerned that by withdrawing the "foreseeable future" clause they will: "... likely initiate a sizable stock market correction."
I think Fed watching is way overdone and don't pay any more attention to McCully than the other blow-dry pundits. Most of the time in recent years markets have simply "gagged" for a few hours or days following changes in Fed language and than resumed their prior trend.
The recent uptick in long term rates is however very significant and probably a big factor in the commodities slide. Many media pundits grossly oversimplify the relationship between the Fed and longer term rates. While the two are intertwined, markets in the end set long term rates. The Fed's authority to "set" rates is at the very very short end. What "QE" did was give them some badly needed (and artificially induced) leverage at the longer end. With QE coming to an end, I guess it's natural for longer rates to react more to economic conditions.
My equity exposure remains relatively low for many reasons - mostly personal factors. I'm however very curious about commodities because I feel they may represent a profitable short term trading opportunity (also one fraught with peril). Pundits like to cite $40 oil 10-15 years ago. Humm ... Do these guys seriously think $1.50 - $2.00 gas at the pump would be a sustainable price for very long?
FWIW
PS: OK - Bit the bullet today and made a small speculative wager in the commodities pond - which is in addition to my typical static weighting in that area. Left some room to add a little more if they go lower. I expect that the next time the thermometer hits -40 in Minneapolis, should be be to unload these positions for a small gain:-).

Markets still have that sucking sound as of 10am, September 12.
VWO 44.41 -1.03%
ITOT 91.24 -0.30%
EMB 113.94 -0.32%
IBB 271.53 -0.67%
TIP 112.84 -0.24%
LQD 117.93 -0.23%
IEF 102.91 -0.20%
IWM 116.14 -0.38%
IYR 72.25 -1.50%
HYG 92.65 -0.15%

What do you guys think of TEI (Hasenstab's CEF) as opposed to DBLEX for a buy, hold, and forget about it EM debt fund? It's got terrible momentum but a great long-term record and is trading at an usually large discount for it (-7.5% vs. 3 year avg of +0.55%, according to M*.)

I believe the reason it's trading at such a large discount is that TEI cut its monthly yield 20% ($.25 to .20 p/s) a couple months back. GIM cut its yield even further. Long term you're probably fine, but you might want to dig around Franklin's site first.

The indexes keep going up and up but the fear and worry of most investors is still low. Should we worry?
This is an original preface.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101991855

Conversant (CNVR), formerly Valueclick, largest SCMFX holding as of 6-30, +31.45% pre-market agrees to be acquired by Alliance Data. Yes, I do own SCMFX.

VF: You now have won this title for your constant use of low class, uneducated, toliet language.
https://www.google.com/search?q=potty+mouth+image&newwindow=1&biw=1600&bih=731&tbm=isch&imgil=Tl4X4P9hJi-B8M%3A%3BmcmwCCl7LbUsDM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.petco.com%252Fproduct%252F105487%252FFour-Paws-Potty-Mouth-Tablets.aspx&source=iu&pf=m&fir=Tl4X4P9hJi-B8M%3A%2CmcmwCCl7LbUsDM%2C_&usg=__POetfwYzi-6twYOZLIs9YIiLn40=&ved=0CDkQyjc&ei=dOkSVIXPB4uoyATDnID4Ag#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=Tl4X4P9hJi-B8M%3A;mcmwCCl7LbUsDM;http%3A%2F%2Fwww.petco.com%2Fassets%2Fproduct_images%2F0%2F045663150624C.jpg;http%3A%2F%2Fwww.petco.com%2Fproduct%2F105487%2FFour-Paws-Potty-Mouth-Tablets.aspx;350;350