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

I'm pleased to report that the bull market keeps on charging ... Read All About It In The Link Below!
http://www.crossingwallstreet.com/archives/2014/05/cws-market-review-may-30-2014.html

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2014/05/norcal-fpa-this-is-your-brain-on-stocks/print/

FYI;
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bespokeinvest.com/thinkbig/2014/5/30/wild-swings.html?printerFriendly=true

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-chart-may-make-you-less-worried-about-us-stocks-2014-05-30/print?guid=6789FD64-E825-11E3-81A1-00212803FAD6

Scott, like you I have been "sort of sitting on my hands" the last few months. I have been adding a little to existing positions, albeit mostly international. I still have about 9% cash that I would like to put to work, but I'm waiting for an "entry point", that really hasn't come, yet.
I feel like i'm "market-timing" by waiting for a "correction", BUT am I really, or is it just prudent to keep some dry powder ready WHEN (not if) a down-draft comes to the equity markets???
I like your long-term outlook of 5-10 years, it is a very reasonable timeframe and DOES help you to sleep at night.
Matt

@Old_skeet, your portfolio performance seems to be tracking the global balanced fund GBLAX, I suggested a while ago as the right benchmark for your extensive fund collection. Couldn't you just replace your 50+ funds and constant monitoring and buying with just one fund? Granted, it won't be as much fun to talk about... :-)

Anybody building-up cash??
Isn't this slow-bleed upward a little unwarranted? I'm not looking for a 10%-20% correction, but shouldn't we be at a point of a mid-level "correction"? Has the economic data and company profits been that good, looking forward, that a meaningful pull-back isn't in the near future?
Have we as investors become so immune (or complacient) that any bad data is "good" because maybe the "FED" will keep rates low across the board or world banks will follow suit or ????
Just some random thoughts!
Matt

I have been trimming a bit and adding a little to a couple of current positions, but net net I'm raising a little cash.
I have been doing less and less, not only from the standpoint of valuations on some things, but really lack of appealing new ideas and the idea that I don't really want to even add much more to some favorites/best ideas.
I'm just sort of sitting on my hands.
I think there is definitely complacency and you get pullbacks and people freak out and act like "Uh, what's this, isn't the market just supposed to go up only?"
Personally, I focus on what I can view potentially owning for 5-10 years, which makes the day-to-day easier.

Emerging markets are one of the sectors that I have been buying around the edges since this past summer, not quite a year now. My total return thus far has been a little better than seven percent since I opened the position and with my continued buying in baby steps as I averaged in. I am now one step away from building out the position. In addition, this is one of my low p/e ratio ventures. Thus far ... so good.
I give a good bit of credit for me opening this position to Ron Rowland's Invest With An Edge weekly newsletter. Emerging markets were at the bottom of the Global Edge for a good while and I took this as a contrian (out of favor and low p/e) move when I ventured into it.
In addition, my thinking is this is one way the small retail investor can succeed by not swimming with the sharks (High Frequency Trading Crowd) and that is to find out of favor themes, follow them, and then invest in them while they are out of favor and on the rebound.
I have provided a link to Mr. Rowland's site where you can view historical issues of the newsletter by clicking on the newsletter archives tab. Perhaps, you might discover some out of favor themes to follow and invest in should there be a fit for same within your own portfolio. You also might wish to view the Leadership Strategy tab as I have found this strategy to be of benefit too.
http://investwithanedge.com/
Year-to-date my portfolio is up 5.04% while the Lipper Balanced Index is up 3.89% and a fifty/fifty portfolio (stocks and bonds) is up, by my math, 4.82%.
I wish all ... "Good Investing".
Old_Skeet

And if anyone has been wondering what the Smart Money crowd has been doing--- as opposed to what they are blathering--- this probably won't surprise you (or maybe it will):
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-29/primary-dealers-and-banks-bash-treasurys-here-what-they-are-really-doing

I did find a summary sheet:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1311981/000116204414000519/adiron497ad201405.pdf
which was filed prior to the other link I posted above.
I am posting a link below to all of the Adirondack filings (hopefully, it works). Look for the recent 497AD (I think most are PDFs) and 497 filings for additional information.
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?CIK=0001311981&action=getcompany

Found this recent filing which may be of some interest about the fund:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1311981/000116204414000552/adiron497ad201405.pdf

Hi Cman,
Thank you for replying.
You are absolutely correct that I erroneously concluded that the Sharpe paper said “Nowhere does Sharpe argue that active fund managers must purchase only Index stocks.” He made no such assertion.
When I wrote that line I was thinking of the global aspects of his analysis; hence I immediately followed with “His analysis addresses the global market.”. I should have said “My interpretation addresses the global market.”
As you, and many others point out, it depends on where boundaries are drawn. I draw the boundaries with regard to this specific topic around the entire equity marketplace. Neither passive or active investors can be perfectly assigned to each category. Today, even Vanguard’s S&P 500 Index fund does not precisely duplicate its benchmark. At last count, it held 504 positions.
My extremely simple position is best represented by my conservation of returns argument. Any costs and fees are leakage from an individual investors rewards. The cut of the equity annual return’s pie is reduced by the cost drainage.
The integrated excess profits from successful active fund managers, who do exist, are swamped by the integrated below market returns from unsuccessful active managers. The differential is the moneys that active managers and other Wall Street entities expropriate.
That is a summary of the main theme of my post. I choose to draw my conservation circle around all large and small cap holdings.
I am still experiencing difficulties posting and have shortened my comments to secure access.
Best Wishes.

If I remember correctly, Hartman flip-flopped twice within a month or so, right?

Lol, he flip flops constantly. He's also always talking about how he's long commodities in other currencies and the currency seems to be changing every other day. The best is when he's on "Fast Money" and he says something and the people on that show look like they really, really want to say something or question him but they never do.
Gartman has also had three ETFs delisted in two different countries and yet no one says squat. That's what I hate about the financial media - bad performance is never, ever questioned. You just get a cushy gig spouting nonsense every other day.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2187533-lights-going-out-for-off-and-onn

FYI:
Regards,
http://online.wsj.com/articles/stock-futures-inch-higher-ahead-of-gdp-data-1401365716#printMode
Markets At A Glance: http://markets.wsj.com/us
Leading Sectors; http://finviz.com/groups.ashx

http://www.stanford.edu/~wfsharpe/art/active/active.htm
Nowhere does Sharpe argue that active fund managers must purchase only Index stocks. His analysis addresses the global market.

Wrong. From his own definition at the very beginning in the linked paper.

Of course, certain definitions of the key terms are necessary. First a market must be selected -- the stocks in the S&P 500, for example, or a set of "small" stocks. Then each investor who holds securities from the market must be classified as either active or passive.
A passive investor always holds every security from the market, with each represented in the same manner as in the market.

He doesn't care what the market is or how big it is as long it is a closed system as defined in his framework above. The mathematical result is valid only relative to a passive investor (you can call it an index) that holds every stock in the "defined market".
Which means the active investor can only buy from that defined universe that is held by the passive investor
In addition, as shown by a simple example, in the thread you are responding to, the condition " each represented by the same manner as in the market", it is valid only with an unstated interpretation - that the aggregate composition of holdings of all the participants together of the market are in proportion to the market cap. This is not true in reality, obviously.
Appeal to authority is not good argumentation as opposed to showing a real understanding of the actual paper and addressing the actual points. Even Nobel laureates have made errors or as in this case actual theoretical results over-generalized for reality by supporters.

While it's not described as such (and oddly, not in that category on M*), this would appear to be simply a managed futures fund and not a real great one. The last few years have not been that great for managed futures as a strategy, but - as I've discussed in past threads - I really don't think managed futures works in the mutual fund format.
Really just sort of an "it is what it is".

PQTIX has been working well so far.

It actually has. I'll have to take a look at the holdings when it is released.
"IIRC, Andrew Low said that almost all portfolios should have 5-20% of the assets in managed futures. [He might have said liquid alternatives, but my recollection is that he said managed futures]."
I have nothing against managed futures, which is often some degree of trend following long or short, but 20% is insane, especially the kind of managed futures MFs, most of which update maybe once a month and then are consistently whipsawed. While I recommend alternatives, I really don't think there's a need for managed futures for mutual fund holders. There are some good managed futures hedge funds that have far more infrastructure and can be far more nimble.
Take a look at RYMFX, the first managed futures fund. It was one of the few things that was up in 2008, then afterwards - aside from a little comeback lately - has just been drifting lower.
The AQR fund has certainly done better, but overall is down slightly since inception in 2010.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=RYMFX+Interactive#symbol=RYMFX;range=my
The new Pimco fund has certainly had a good start, but I just think the strategy is going to have periods when it works and periods when it doesn't.

That chart is one for the ages.
I think I'm recalling right that Consuelo Mack never asked Andrew L. about his record on the alt strategy he was touting during the May 2 WealthTrack program.

+++++
I saw the Consuelo Mack interview, and no, I don't recall him being asked his record. I should say though, I'm a big fan of Consuelo Mack.....
But he was asked something that Consuelo Mack asks all her guests: Something to the effect of
'What is the one investment you would recommend for nearly all portfolios?'
IIRC, Andrew Low said that almost all portfolios should have 5-20% of the assets in managed futures. [He might have said liquid alternatives, but my recollection is that he said managed futures].
I was stunned by that recommendation. Later I spent a few minutes reading about his fund and about managed futures. How could you possibly put 20% of your portfolio in an investment that you couldn't explain in simple, understandable terms? Like investing in a black box, shrouded in mystery.

The ER is a little too high, but otherwise, what's not to like? I cannot help but to let you see one of my own small-cap funds: MSCFX. I'm pleased with it. Lower ER. (The other small-cap fund we own is NAESX, an Index fund from Vanguard. It's in wife's 403b.)......
As far as annual pay-out, ADKSX wins, hands-down, for 2013. It paid a LOT more than MSCFX and NAESX in '13. But I don't think that can be sustained, year after year. PRSVX is a TRP offering with quite low ER for an actively managed fund. But I think its performance is sub-par. And all of the ones I've just mentioned are listed by Morningstar as small-BLEND. But ADKSX is categorized as small-VALUE. And ADKSX does not have big bets in its top 5 holdings--- less than 10% of holdings are there..... You just introduced me to a fund I did not know about, before. Thanks.