Hi Guys,
I feel that I am a victim of character assassination on MFO.
I was far too generous in my initial response. I regret that. The gloves are coming off now.
I had to control my anger when I initially read Cman’s character assassination directed at me. That anger has not really subsided, especially, since in retrospect, many of you did not rally to decry his character assassination ploy. I do thank the few MFOers who did respond to this dastardly and cowardly act.
It’s somewhat disappointing that many MFOers failed to recognize that Cman brushed you guys off as not being capable of contributing to his market education, or perhaps to his financial welfare.
He said: "it wasn't a good fit". You guys were not responding differentially enough to his offered wisdom. He discharged you! You were not demonstrating enough respect.
He must have been greatly disappointed with your lack of enthusiasm for his recommendation to consider a Japanese investment as measured by exactly only 5 readers. That must have hurt more than any comments I made. To document my claim, here is the internal link to his Japan posting:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com:80/discuss/discussion/13807/japan-improving-technicalshttp://www.mutualfundobserver.com:80/discuss/discussion/13807/japan-improving-technicals
Note that I provided a Link to establish the credibility of my statement. How many Links and references did Cman provide to support his advice? My answer is “nearly zero”, and it was constantly near zero.
Cman asserted almost everything he posted. He rarely documented those assertions with data or references. Truth be told, I agreed with almost everything he said; but not everything. I never doubted nor challenged that he is an intelligent, experienced investor.
However, many of his submittals were internally inconsistent; earlier statements were contradicted by later statements. He was definitely the two-handed economist. His attack on my character serves to illustrate this proclivity. It pains me, but I will here reproduce his charges of my “mindless drivel” for fairness and completeness.
Near the middle of Cman’s closing rant he said: “if analysis like this results in people like @MJG making recommendations not to consider the family unless one were a fool, such a write up may not be libelous in legal sense but is definitely irresponsible.” That’s his opinion. He is free to express it.
Near the end of Cman’s rant he said: “But if this site wants to be taken seriously in the industry and be responsible about it, it has to be much more diligent in not leaving it open for broad and mindless inferences like the one from @MJG above. I don't think he really understands science or academic endeavors based on what he shows with his understanding of what he comments on rather than what he keeps claiming and painting himself with regarding academics and science. Like those false patriots that keep doing dumb things while wrapping themselves in the flag.”
This is a plea for censorship; a curtailment of the freedom of opinion, especially if it runs counter to his opinion. I suppose we should make him the kingmaker.
He never challenges my positions by offering evidence that I distorted or misinterpreted data or commentary.
He claims I don’t understand science, yet I graduated in the top-most tier of all my many college studies, won a National scholarship, married a scientist, contributed in the engineering and scientific community my entire work cycle that includes my military period, and finally advanced to the engineering management field where I directed research projects with heavy National implications.
What are the specific facts to backstop Cman’s claims? Again, they are wild, undocumented assertions. What is in his mysterious background that qualifies him to judge my scientific competency based on a few of my admittedly amateur investing comments?
Finally, I must address the most fundamental charge implying that I am a “false patriot”. I served in both the regular and the reserve US Army. I resolutely stand by our flag and will proudly fly it a few days from now, June 6, our Longest Day. I will shed tears that day.
Do you trust a man who makes such unsupported and uninformed allegations? He’ll resort to even attacking your patriotism. I don’t. What an overreach! You get to decide for yourself.
You guys know quite a lot about both Charles and my background, so, for brevity, I will not repeat it here. By way of contrast, what do you know about Cman? Could he be a salesman of financial services? Is that why “it wasn't a good fit"? Maybe. Perhaps it’s a coincidence, but there is a Cman Investments operation in Chandler, AZ.
All this is pure speculation, but it is faintly possible. It is something to think about, just very briefly, since it “macht nichts” in the long run. Hell it doesn’t matter in the short run either.
Thank you for reading my defense against this character assassination attempt. I’m relieved to get this off my chest. Thanks for your tolerance. I’m a happy warrior once again.
Best Regards.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/811030/000089418914002750/fundx_497e.htm
Filed Pursuant to Rule 497(e)
1933 Act File No. 033-12213
1940 Act File No. 811-05037
FundX Investment Group
FundX Upgrader Fund – FUNDX
FundX Flexible Income Fund – INCMX
FundX Conservative Upgrader Fund – RELAX
FundX Aggressive Upgrader Fund – HOTFX
FundX Tactical Upgrader Fund – TACTX
FundX Tactical Total Return Fund – TOTLX
(together, the “FundX Upgrader Funds” or the “Funds”)
(each, a series of Professionally Managed Portfolios)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplement dated June 3, 2014 to each
Summary Prospectus and the Prospectus dated January 31, 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We wish to inform you that the Board of Trustees of Professionally Managed Portfolios (the “Trust”) has voted to approve an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization whereby each of the FundX Upgrader Funds (each, a “Fund”) would reorganize out of the Trust and into a newly created corresponding series (each, a “New Fund”) of the same name of the FundX Investment Trust (the “Reorganization”). The Reorganization would be structured as a tax-free reorganization for federal tax purposes.
Each of the Funds and its corresponding New Fund will have the same investment objective, principal investment strategies and key service providers. The Funds’ and the New Funds’ investment adviser and portfolio managers will also remain the same. However, the Reorganization would result in the New Funds being under the supervision of a different Board of Trustees. The fees and expenses of the Funds are not expected to increase as a result of the Reorganization.
In the next few weeks, shareholders of record of each Fund will receive a proxy statement soliciting their vote with respect to the proposed Reorganization. If approved, the Reorganization is anticipated to take effect on or about August 1, 2014. Approval of the Reorganization, with respect to each Fund, requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the outstanding shares of such Fund. The approval of the reorganization of one Fund is not contingent on the approval of the reorganization of another Fund. When you receive your proxy statement, please review it and cast your vote as instructed in the materials so the Trust may avoid any future solicitations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please retain this Supplement with the Summary Prospectus and Prospectus.

"....,.and no more than 15% of its net assets will be invested in stocks of companies in emerging markets."
I think that's a mistake.
What if they come to an environment in which they find the best bargains or most attractive opportunities are in emerging markets?
They are limiting their potential right out of the gate.......

FYI: Copy & Paste 5/3/14 Grace L. Williams: Barron's
Regards,
Ted
While many investors think U.S. stocks are fully valued, Bill Nygren of Oakmark Funds sees plenty of opportunity, particularly among financials. Moreover, Nygren says many of America's best companies can be bought at a market multiple.
The self-described "very frustrated Chicago Cubs fan" has hardly frustrated investors, delivering breathtaking long-term returns. Over the past five-, 10-, and 15-year periods, Oakmark Select (ticker: OAKLX ) has generated annual returns of 21.99%, 8.4% and 9.18% easily outpacing the S&P 500 at 18.17%, 7.7% and 4.2%. Year-to-date, the fund has returned 7.59%, compared to the index at 4.2%.
Name: William Nygren
Age: 55
Title: Co-portfolio manager
Education: B.S. in accounting, University of Minnesota; M.S. in finance, University of Wisconsin
Hobbies: Chicago Blackhawks and Cubs sports fan
Nygren, who has run the fund since 1996, can also nimbly navigate down markets. In 2001, his fund surged 26%, outpacing the S&P by a staggering 38 percentage points. Morningstar rightly named Nygren its Domestic Stock Fund Manager of the Year. Today, Morningstar rates the fund four stars and assigns it a gold rating.
As a concentrated fund, Oakmark Select may not be for the faint of heart. Its top five holdings comprise roughly 30% of the portfolio, and the fund holds just 20 stocks. Nygren's enviable track record should assuage concerns, however. His secret sauce? Nygren looks for names trading at a large discount to their intrinsic business value; a business value that grows over time; and management that is economically aligned with outside shareholders.
Barrons.com recently spoke with Nygren about his long-term outperformance and where he sees value today.
Barrons.com: What has contributed to your long-term success?
Bill Nygren: We bring a private-equity perspective to public-equity investing. By that, I mean we take the very long-term time horizon that private equity firms typically take, and try to anticipate how investors might view a company differently five years from now. We are very, very long-term investors and being able to buy a great business at an average price is just as much value investing as buying an average business at a great price.
Q: There's a guy from Nebraska who takes a similar approach. Looking at sectors, your fund is overweight in financials. Let's talk about that.
A: First up is Bank of America ( BAC ), which sells at about two-thirds of book value. We believe that within a couple of years, they should be earning at least 10% on that book value. If they do that, then the stock is selling today at about seven times earnings. Even if they can't grow organically because of the high quality of their balance sheet, (they basically are at Basel III standards already) all of the earnings can be returned to shareholders through dividends and share repurchase. So, even if you don't believe that long growth provides great opportunity for the banks, a stock like this is very cheap.
Fund Facts
(as of May 20, 2014)
Oakmark Select Fund (OAKLX)
Assets: $5.1 billion
Expense Ratio: 1.01%
Front Load: None
Annual Portfolio Turnover: 24%
Yield: 0.09%
Source: Morningstar
Q: Tell us about some other financial names.
A: I used Bank of America as an example, but really, the story for any of the financial names in our portfolio would be similar. American International Group ( AIG ) is selling at about 70% of book value, JPMorgan Chase ( JPM ) sells at a significant discount-to-book value. Capital One Financial ( COF ) is at a small discount-to-book value, but it doesn't have as many legacy-housing-cost issues as JPMorgan and Bank of America have, so it's at a little lower current P/E, but not at quite as much recovery potential as the other two have. The P/E distribution in the market today has become extremely narrow, so most stocks sell pretty close to the market multiple if you look at just a couple of years.
Q: Another financial name you own is MasterCard ( MA ).
A: MasterCard has a tremendous tailwind because of the global conversion of cash transactions to plastic. They will have an above-average-growth rate for as far into the future as we can see, adjusted for the quality of their balance-sheet forecasting out just a couple of years. The market isn't demanding investors pay much of a premium at all for MasterCard. So rather than saying because everything is priced the same, there's nothing to do, we are taking the opportunity to buy higher-quality businesses.
Q: Your top holding is TRW Automotive ( TRW ). What's the story there?
A: If you look across the auto parts industry today, most companies are selling at about 15 times earnings. At $80, TRW is selling at about 11 times. One of the reasons is they have made large investments in plants in China. We anticipate that within about two years, the plants will become highly profitable and TRW in two to three years could be making $10 a share and selling at the same 15 times earnings which the average auto parts company is selling at.
Q: Moving to the energy space, I see you own Apache ( APA ). Tell us about your conviction here.
A: In the oil and gas industry, it's rare to find management teams that are as good at capital allocation as in the rest of the market. Most oil and gas executives reinvest all of the cash flow they generate because they are focused mostly on top-line growth. Apache is a little bit different in that they are willing to grow per-share value through shrinking the number of shares outstanding. Most analysis looking through asset by asset would suggest that Apache is at a much larger discount-to-value than the average oil and gas stock. Management has been active in selling assets that they can get 90 cents on the dollar for and using those proceeds to buy back their own stock at 60 cents on the dollar. When we find management teams that are as excited about growth through a shrinking share base, as they are through a top-line growth, we find that those companies tend to perform much better over the long term.
Top 10 Holdings
(as of March 31, 2014)
TRW Automotive Holdings (TRW)
TE Connectivity (TEL)
Bank of America (BAC)
Capital One Financial (COF)
Apache (APA)
Medtronic (MDT)
DirecTV (DTV)
American International Group (AIG)
MasterCard (MA)
JPMorgan Chase (JPM)
Source: Morningstar
Q: Two of your holdings, DirecTV ( DTV ) and Comcast ( CMCSK ), are making headlines right now on acquisition news. What do you like about the companies and where do you see them headed?
A: One of the things we've most admired about DirecTV's management team is their willingness to commit all of their excess capital to repurchasing stock when they thought it was the most value-added acquisition they could make. Over the course of the last five years, Direct TV has reduced their shares outstanding by over 50%. The recent $95 per-share deal with AT&T (T) would have been something much smaller than that had management not so aggressively reduced the number of shares outstanding.
Q: And Comcast?
A: One of the reasons we own Comcast is the management team there has also done a very good job of capital allocation, largely adding value through share repurchases. We believe the Time Warner Cable ( TWC ) acquisition will get done at a price that was even less than Comcast's own stock was selling for after we consider synergies. It's likely that the transaction gets approved by the Justice Department. They don't operate in the same communities, so it is not reducing choice for customers, in fact, approval of a deal like Comcast Time Warner is actually pro-consumer because it gives the cable supplier more ammunition in the fight against higher-programming fees.
Q: Thank you for your time.
M* Snapshot Of OAKLX: http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/oaklx/f?t=oaklx
Fund Is Ranked # 36 In The (LCB) Category By U.S. news & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-blend/oakmark-select-fund/oaklx

Here's some related links:
Some comments on Harry Browne by William Bernstein:
http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/0adhoc/harry.htm
There's even a Permanent Portfolio Discussion Forum/Message Board:
http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=2439d3662da02c1e36418ebb3d5460bd
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/InvestmentRules.htm
A variation, called The Juicy Permanent Portfolio
http://www.tightwadweb.com/customportfolio.html

Late Evening Takes From Around the World June 1st/2nd
Forecasts for a rebound in U.S. growth in the second quarter and stimulus from central banks in Japan, Europe and China, along with higher-than-estimated corporate earnings, helped send the value of global shares to a record $64 trillion last week.
The Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index, a gauge of options prices known as VIX, slipped 1.5 percent to 11.40 on May 30. The measure closed for a fifth straight day below 12, the longest stretch since February 2007, data compiled by Bloomberg show.
The S&P 500 traded at 16.3 times estimated earnings, compared with 13 on the MSCI Asia Pacific Index and 15.4 on the Europe Stoxx 600 Index, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
China’s Communist Party has stepped up the pace of stimulus measures, including faster spending from government budgets and increased railway investment, to help meet an official growth target of about 7.5 percent this year. Asia’s biggest economy is projected by analysts to grow 7.3 percent in 2014, which would be the weakest pace since 1990.
“Policy fine-tuning announcements in China continue to mount up, adding to confidence that growth will be supported around 7.5 percent this year,” said Shane Oliver, Sydney-based head of investment strategy at AMP Capital Investors Ltd., which oversees about $133 billion. “More easing measures are likely.”
Economists forecast European Central Bank President Mario Draghi and policy makers will cut the deposit rate when they meet on June 5, with a euro-area factory report today estimated to hold steady at the lowest level since November. Equity markets in China, Hong Kong and New Zealand are closed today for holidays.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-01/copper-climbs-as-japan-stock-index-futures-rise-after-china-data.html
“The so-called mini-stimulus is helping to stabilize the economy,” said Liu Li-Gang, chief Greater China economist at Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. in Hong Kong. At the same time, the rebound in PMI isn’t as strong compared with the same period in previous years, and the “central government needs to make a bigger move,” he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-02/china-manufacturing-gauge-rises-to-five-month-high.html
Are China Funds a Bargain? Most are Down Y T D
http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/china-region/$FOCA$CH.aspx
China News
Alibaba’s Listing Date Greatly Anticipated
E-Commerce Feeds China Online Banking Growth
China’s Provinces and Cities to Issue First Muni Bonds
China Takes Bold Steps to Develop Renewable Energy
Another Chinese City to Surpass Hong Kong in Growth
http://kraneshares.com/resources/kraneshares_capitalvue_may20.pdf?utm_source=KraneShares+Weekly+-+General&utm_campaign=0293c09488-KraneShares_Weekly_Email10_17_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6d32ba24ce-0293c09488-27509461
Thai Army Rulers Prepare Emergency Economic Measures
The military junta running Thailand has drawn up a list of emergency measures such as price caps on fuel and loan guarantees for small firms to kick-start an economy threatened by recession after months of political turmoil.
The plans, outlined by Air Chief Marshal Prajin Juntong late on Sunday after a meeting with officials at economic ministries, take in longer-term measures such as the development of special economic zones on the borders with Myanmar, Laos and Malaysia.
The military toppled the remnants of former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's administration on May 22 after months of protests that had forced government ministries to close, hurt business confidence and caused the economy to shrink.
In a televised address on Friday, Prayuth said the military would need time to reconcile Thailand's antagonistic political forces and push through reforms, indicating there would be no general election for 15 months at least.
The United States, European Union countries and others have called for the military to restore democracy quickly, release political detainees and end censorship.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/02/us-thailand-politics-idUSKBN0ED06C20140602?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
Government vs Governance
Joshua M Brown June 1st, 2014http://www.thereformedbroker.com/2014/06/01/government-vs-governance/
Eric Peters via wkndnotes:
Overall: “The focus should be on minimum government but maximum governance,” announced Narenda Modi, a fierce Hindu Nationalist, born the low-caste son of a tea stall owner. India’s 15th Prime Minister presides over the 1st parliamentary majority in 25yrs, paving the way for red-tape reform. Of course, India is the great hope for a planet starved of growth. For the next decade, 1mm Indians will join the workforce each and every month. Peacefully harnessing that potential requires good governance, education, investment, innovation, infrastructure. And as Modi replaced his hopeless predecessor’s 71 ministers with a team of 45, speaking of India’s “Glorious Future,” Premier Li promised a mind-numbing series of macro-prudential policies to stimulate growth. You see, for the next decade, 100k Chinese will leave the workforce each and every month. Not even the most nimble Shanghai Acrobat, perched perilously upon earth’s most bodacious bubble, can keep so many overpriced assets spinning atop long wobbly poles. Facing such a fierce demographic headwind. Without robust growth, inflation. Or a bit of nationalist fervor. So Chinese ships sank a fishing boat. Inside Vietnam’s territorial waters. As Japan’s nationalist Abe re-armed.
Anyhow, Modi wasn’t the only nationalist elected. French and British nationalists trounced centrist opponents. Thailand’s King backed the coup. Egypt’s military dictator won a stunning 93% landslide (the remaining 7 voters posted Facebook selfies with 700 virgins). Poroshenko crushed the opposition, promising to “end the war, end chaos, and bring peace to a united Ukraine.” Then popped a bunch of Russian commandos disguised as Novorossiya nationalists. Moscow’s nationalist-in-chief declared, “Strictly speaking it was impossible to hold elections.” Assad prepared for his June 3rd landslide. And Obama rambled on about new terrorist threats now emanating from the Syrian power vacuum that he himself created. As across the globe, nationalism creeps into the cracks. Left by maximum government and minimum governance.
***
Brilliant, as always.
http://www.wkndnotes.com/

Hi Guys,
I just spent the better part of Sunday afternoon cleaning up my investment book library. In that process, I rediscovered Harry Browne’s book “Fail-Safe Investing”. It’s a small thing and had slipped behind the bookcase.
The book promises “lifelong financial security in 30 minutes”. That’s a tad presumptuous or just might be correct for a speed reader. The book extols the virtues of 17 simple rules. They are rather generic and commonsensical. That dovetails with Browne’s personality perfectly. In the text, Browne acknowledges that these rules reveal no secrets from the worlds most successful speculators, but nothing else would do that either. That too is classic Harry Browne.
He wrote numerous, very detailed investment books. I own several of them. Here is a Link to a nice short summary of his 17 rules that you likely can read in 30 minutes or less:
http://thetaoofwealth.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/harry-brownes-17-golden-rules-of-financial-safety/
Enjoy. There are no shocking revelations here. Again, that was typical of Harry Brown.
Harry Browne was a humble and honest man. He passed away in 2006. He was a presidential candidate on the Libertarian ticket in both 1996 and 2000. I always made a point to attend his Las Vegas MoneyShow lectures.
Elaborate viewgraph material is the order of the day for these selling presentations. It was not Harry’s standard, however. He made his remarks from a single densely annotated 3 X 5 note-card that was tattered from overuse. I fondly remember joking with him about it in a cordial way.
Good memories about a fine gentleman.
Best Regards.

Ugh. Front-load. Load, load, load. Load! Nope. VEIPX looks good, though. Except that its top 5 positions are in companies that suck. Good for shareholders, not for customers nor humans in general. Just about as bad as Comcast. And Comcast sucks my toe-jam. After that, it goes out in the street to suck germs off dead rats.

@old_skeet, separate out the benchmark issue from the use of a single fund.
Regarding a benchmark, typically it is an index IF one is available. For example, if you were focusing entirely on domestic, you would use either S&P 500 for large caps or total market for multi cap, etc. The index is like a fund not an average of some or all funds in that category. Averages are very bad metrics to use statistically unless used carefully paying attention to variance. The bad example is the use of average across all funds from indexologists to make a case against all active funds. Lipper index suffers from this, not to mention the bias in its allocation given its composition based on size.
The right benchmark for an active fund with a flexible allocation is an index if it exists that covers ALL asset classes used in the fund not the primary category because the fund manager can easily cheat and regularly do. But that is how the industry is where managers are trying to generate AUM in a competitive space. A personal benchmark is different. There is no need to hoodwink anybody or delude oneself, so one can be more honest about it.
The broader the mandate, more difficult it is to find a suitable candidate of course.
Active fund managers have always tried to justify "alpha" using a benchmark and in most cases, you can trace the performance to reaching outside the benchmark either in risk or in allocation. Using midcaps in large cap funds for example. Your arguments are exactly this as if you were hypothetically running a fund of funds.
Problem is that they can be really underperforming relative to the allocation they have chosen and yet look good. If your allocation is really like LABFX, then this is a case in point. LABFX is a terrible fund in generating average returns but taking higher than average risk according to M* data. So, if your portfolio is representative of that you are actually underperforming for the risk taken and the benchmark you are using is masking that.
The reason I picked GBLAX is because it is not taking outsized bets in any one area like LABFX in junk bonds, has low volatility and a consistent performance so far and can use any of the asset classes if and when justified. IF I had to pick just one fund, something like that would be my choice and so makes a good performance benchmark if I were to do otherwise. But if I were to use a benchmark like active managers to convince others of my performance, I would pick one I can beat. :-)
Assuming your goal is to measure your own performance for your sake rather than use it to trumpet one's might, that should be of concern to you. But I am not sure how much thought you have given it as to what would be a good benchmark since you keep flipping rationale between averages, yields, portfolio x-ray, etc. If your goal is just to look good on a forum and derive pleasure from it, then it doesn't really matter whether the benchmark is a good one or not just as it isn't for an active manager that needs to look good in the competitive market.
Playing around the edges is a self-delusional tool. Have talked about this in earlier conversation with @davidrmoran. Use my play money portfolio for that purpose but have no illusions that it makes any meaningful difference to overall performance unless it is significant enough to make a meaningful loss if one were wrong about it. That is just math.
Hence, either one is just "playing" to look/feel good or one has committed enough to the idea that one is risking overall performance. In the latter case, one has to worry about the rationale for that commitment.
Your linking to strategies such as Ron Rowland for this purpose is misleading as I have said which is my main concern than what you do with your own portfolio. At some point in the past, you said you use his top few categories to adjust your allocation. Then you said recently that you used his bottom category as a contrarian indicator. These kinds of things work until they don't.
The problem is that you would not likely be the one to be writing about how they didn't work and your portfolio suffered when they don't in your frequent self-promotional posts. The latter is fine with me, not my place to say how you should derive satisfaction for yourself but pointing out that it is misleading others with selective bias. If you were to also post on how an idea didn't work when it didn't work, it would be useful and meaningful.
As to using just one fund, like I said, it is to set a contrast to using 50+ funds. I wouldn't do either for many practical reasons not just performance but if I had to pick between them I would pick the single fund any time than 50+.
I suspect the optimal would fall somewhere around 10-12 funds for most circumstances with some variance for sector bets or brokerage reasons.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/volume-vix-and-yields-are-stock-markets-bogeymen-2014-06-01/print?guid=43AFC936-E849-11E3-9527-00212803FAD6

Thus far I have not reduced my allocation to equities as I have sometimes done in the past usually around March, April and/or May. However, I am watching the technicals that I follow and I do plan a reduction of up to about five percent and hopefully no more than ten percent should I vision a break down in the S&P 500 Index. I'll probally use an average out method and sell down one percent for every 25 point pull back once my thresh hole decline has been reached. Thus to get to the full ten percent reduction there would have to be better than a 250 point pull back in the S&P 500 Index from its current level. Now you know my thresh hole is about a 2.5% drop before I would start a sell down process or about a fifty point drop from where we are currently at.
This will automatically build cash during the pull back for later deployment once the new investment trade winds are detected.
Steady as she goes as I keep on keeping-on and staying my investment course.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

Hi Crash ... Old_Skeet here:
Look at the retail offering of TIBIX which is TIBAX which has a lower entry at $5,000 in a taxable account and $2,000 in an IRA. In addition, you might wish to look at SVAAX as it too boast a good yield at about 4.75% and pays out monthly.
If you wish to look at some other type of funds that I call distribution funds and they do offer a good yield and pay out monthly then look at FKINX (about a five percent yield), IGPAX (about a six percent yield), AZNAX (Disburses a fixed rate at 8.75 cents per month for about a 8.2% distribution yield WITH Not All COMING from income and dividends as some is paid out from capital gains.) and finally PGBAX which pays out monthly and has a yield of about 4.75%. The yields I noted are based upon TTM and current valuation.
I own all that I have noted above including TIBAX; and, you should do your own research to better determine if these funds that I noted might be right for you.
Steady as she goes as I keep on keeping-on and staying my investment course.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/05/30/so-much-for-sell-in-may/tab/print/

@old_skeet, I am confused by your use of yield to evaluate a world allocation fund for a fit. What does this have to do with benchmarking?
The idea of a benchmark is to see how your portfolio is doing relative to the benchmark as a relevant proxy for your portfolio and whether what you are doing is working or hurting and whether it is time/cost efficient.
You use the Lipper balanced index for this purpose not because this index has a good yield but you see it as a goal of a benchmark to compare your portfolio against. No doubt, it gives you great joy to beat it as you keep mentioning it.
But as I have expressed before, that is a flawed benchmark for your portfolio and gives a false sense of achievement, in my opinion. The risk of the latter is legitimizing an approach (market timing activity around the edges in your case) that can blow up in some market conditions at worst and just waste time actively managing the portfolio (not to be confused with using active funds) at best. It is dangerous to associate this "success" with strategies such as the Leadership strategy you keep linking to or using it as a contrary indicator and will mislead people. It is the latter that prompted me to write my response.
The alpha as @MikeM suggests may exist only because of the benchmark chosen or actually negative compared to the suggested benchmarks. This is not very different from the numerous articles on lazy portfolios all of which try to establish legitimacy by stating how they beat S&P 500 which is the wrong benchmark for them. Using Lipper balanced index is not as bad but also flawed for the type of diversification you have. In the same way, use of the average over all active funds is flawed for its use to make assertions about active funds in general.
The number of funds has nothing to do with it other than the amount of time and attention one has to spend tending it for dubious advantage.
Your portfolio is behaving like a good world allocation fund because of its diversification and your playing with it may even be helping in making up somewhat for the disadvantages of over-diversification.
You have mentioned using AC Capital Income builder as one of your funds which I had mentioned as another candidate for a benchmark. It is the same thing as saying your entire portfolio is behaving the same way as just this one fund. It doesn't really matter much which one of the suggested benchmark you choose for that purpose. The differences between them in total return is not practically significant given the market variability. But all of them point to the same thing regarding the behavior of your portfolio.
As to using just one fund in practice, it is the extreme opposite of using some 50+ funds and was suggested as a contrast.
@expatsp has the correct observation regarding idiosyncratic fund risk... to some extent. However, not as much of a concern in funds like the AC ones suggested because of the large team structure but if one were concerned, one could diversify between the couple of funds suggested. But there is no free lunch. It is at the cost of lowering the performance to somewhere between their individual performances just to get rid of a small idiosyncratic risk unless you were betting on volatile and eccentric managers. This may be a reasonable compromise in "small doses" but hard to rationalize 50+ funds for that reason.
Actively managing the portfolio can lower volatility by smart allocation choices primarily in prolonged bear markets. But this has nothing to do with the number of funds used. You can do this with a few funds as with a multitude. It is actually easier in the former to avoid upsetting the overall balance. Consider the extreme of selling part of a single fund portfolio to reduce beta exposure as opposed to which and how many of your funds you want to cut down without losing balance.

It would have been worth the price of admission just to see the reactions to this sermon from the Financial Planners in attendance at this trade conference. :-)
Since probably at least 50% of the people in attendance at such a trade confetence, pride themselves on carefully researched portfolios of both index and actively managed funds appropriate for their clients. Clients whom they don't consider and look down on as the caricature painted here with every imaginable human failing. Clients that are recognized as fairly educated and informed and increasingly getting involved in the planning process and don't tolerate their FPs treating them as people with peanut brains in financial matters.
The same 50% that think the other 50% FPs who treat their clients otherwise are on their way to extinction.
@BobC, were you at this conference?

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.learnbonds.com/weeks-top-bond-market-stories-may-31st-edition/

The number-of-funds question on this site seems like a matter of bedrock belief; I don't think anyone will convince anyone else.
But let me put a thought experiment out there. Obviously, your best possible strategy is to find the single best fund out there and put all your money in it, but step one, finding the single best fund, is hard to execute.
Yet there are a lot of funds that have consistently outperformed over the long run -- 528 great owls according to this site, including 58 that have outperformed over a twenty year period. If one were to choose 10 or 20 or 52 of those funds, might not one have a good chance of outperforming with lesser volatility? You aren't going to knock the ball out of the park with so many funds, but if you can get, say, an extra 1% a year, that would really add up over 20 years, and your risk from a single manager flaming out becomes minimal.
That seems to me to be what Skeet is doing: choosing a whole bunch of excellent funds and getting slight but steady outperformance with lower volatility. Am I right, Skeet?
I don't have the math to back this up, so cman or anyone else who wants to correct me, I will listen respectfully if you gently tell me why I'm off my rocker.
FWIW, I have 15 funds. Although 2/3 of my fund assets are in three (Bridgeway, Fairholme, and Primecap), so the others are kind of a hobby, I do think I have too many funds for my purposes. I intend to concentrate further as I go forward, but big capital gains are a pleasant reason for why that's tricky.

Seems people like to pick at Skeeter's portfolio of 50+ funds. I have even commented that that many funds becomes index-like. But what is most important in his defense is his consistent comment, "it has worked well for me". I think, most likely the multiple sleeve and fund system has a comforting, familiar, controlled aspect to it for old skeet. When you are comfortable steering your boat, you can take smaller controlled risks "around the edges" and keep that important sleep-at-night feeling.
My take is skeeter gets his alpha with his "buying around the edges" and moving within his equity weighting range (40-60% I believe) based on his consistent monitoring of market valuations. I always tune in to what he is thinking.
Can it be done with 5, 10 or 20 funds? Maybe 1 fund? Most likely, in fact very likely. But 50+ funds works well for skeet.
Just another point to add; 50 funds without some diversification method would probably be a disaster. That portfolio would have no benchmark. But obviously Skeeter has a well defined system that "works well for him."
Keep the thoughts coming Skeeter. You are in balance with Feng shui :)

Hi Cman,
In revisiting your suggestion to use American Funds Global Balanced Fund (GBLAX) I have again reviewed the fund and I am again responding to you as to why I feel it was/and is not a good fit. In the Growth & Income Area of my portfolio in its Global Hybrid sleeve I have three funds one of them being American Funds Capital Income Builder (CAIBX). It has close to a four percent yield and over the past three year performance period it has out performed Global Balanced. Again, CAIBX has about a 4% yield vs. GBLAX’s yield of about 1.6%. The sleeve itself generates a yield of about 4.5% on current valuation and well above that on amount invested at about 5.5%.
If I were to use only one fund it would not be any of the above but it would be LABFX which is a Lord Abbett fund. It has a yield of about four and one half percent and it style box distribution is more in line with that of my portfolio along with its asset allocation. Plus, my portfolio’s yield matches up better with it than the others as it kick off better than five percent yield on amount invested and a little above 4% on valuation. Again, your GBLAX form a yield stand point falls way short at only about 1.6%.
In relation to my portfolio … If it looks Biblical ... Well it is as it has four major areas of asset holdings just as there are four seasons usually found in most places on Earth (There are exceptions). They are the Cash Area, the Income Area, the Growth & Income Area, and the Growth Area. In keeping with there being twelve months in the year there are also twelve sleeves within my portfolio … and, in keeping with there being fifty two weeks in the year there are about that number of mutual fund position also within the portfolio. Thus far it has worked well for me and I plan to keep it configured as it is.
In my using of technical analysis … I do use it, but I have my codes set to proportion numbers that are found in the great cathedrals that have been constructed through time. These numbers are readily available to those that wish to do the research.
Again, Cman, I reject your candidate GBLAX to be used as an Index to benchmark my portfolio.
Respectfully,
Old_Skeet