Here's a link referencing it for Dec 2016:
finance.yahoo.com/news/this-contrarian-indicator-says-the-sp-500-is-set-to-surge-19-193618725.html
Still looking for the source...

You DO know these guys have no more clue than you, me, or the man in the moon? As for the so called experts, one of the very best, if not best sentiment indicators out there is the venerable Bank of America sell side indicator (formerly the Merrill Lynch sell side indicator) This is a *contrary* indicator based on Wall Street strategists' percentage exposure to equities. As a primer on the futility of Wall Street/mutual fund experts to predict/forecast the markets as well as the perils of groupthink, I highly recommend David Dremen's Psychology and the Stock Market published in 1977.

FYI: Robert “Chip” Rewey was hired to turn around the Third Avenue Value Fund in 2014 after years of underperformance that was tied, in part, to a bad bet on Hong Kong real estate. The mutual fund rebounded last year after posting a loss in 2015.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-an-investor-turned-around-a-once-venerable-mutual-fund-2017-01-05/print

FYI: Investors pulled $3.2 billion from the Pimco Total Return Fund, once the world's largest bond fund, in December, bringing last year’s total cash withdrawals to $16.1 billion, Morningstar said on Friday.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/funds-pimco-outflows-idUSL1N1EW14C

http://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/mutual-funds/after-troubled-2016-ends-on-strong-note-for-mutual-funds-whats-ahead-for-2017/
Mutual fund managers and strategists name names -- including stocks they like in 2017.

FYI: I will link episode as soon as it becomes available for free, early Saturday morning.
Regards,
Ted
January 5th, 2017
Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
Ed Hyman is cautiously predicting that the U.S. economy will grow a little bit faster this year and bring inflation and interest rates up along with it. As for the likelihood of recession, he believes it is several years away. This week, in what has become an annual WEALTHTRACK tradition, Hyman joins us for an exclusive two-part interview on the outlook for the global economy.
The founder and Chairman of Evercore ISI is a financial super star, having been voted Wall Street’s number one economist for 36 out of the past 37 years. His research is a daily must read for institutional investors all over the country if not the world.
Every year on WEALTHTRACK we also ask a top investment pro to join Ed, to put his macroeconomic outlook into investment perspective. This year another WEALTHTRACK regular, First Eagle Management’s Matthew McLennan is joining us.
McLennan is Head of the Global Value Team at First Eagle Investment Management, where he is also a portfolio manager for several funds, including the flagship First Eagle Global Value fund, which he took over from legendary value investor, Jean Marie Eveillard in 2008.
Rated Five Star by Morningstar, the Global fund is in the top decile or higher in its World Allocation category for the past one, three, five and ten year periods and is known for its above average risk adjusted returns.
This week our primary focus will be the outlook for the U.S. economy and markets. Next week we will concentrate more on international conditions, although we recognize they are all interrelated.
Hyman’s team expects the U.S. economy to pick up steam this year, forecasting real GDP- that’s excluding inflation- of 2.5% in 2017 versus an estimated 2% in 2016. They expect inflation to pick up as well, with the Fed’s favored GDP deflator measure rising from 1.5% last year to 2.5%. As for the Fed Funds Rate, they are looking for a sizable increase from around 0.60% to 1.35% by year-end.
The yield on the benchmark ten-year Treasury should rise half a percentage point from 2.5% in December to 3% by December of this year. And finally they expect profits to improve, estimating that the combined earnings per share of the S&P 500 companies will rise about 10% year over year.
Hyman is the first to admit that a lot can change between now and year-end, but eight years into an economic recovery he lists the mounting evidence of improvement, including his expanding list of American cities where business in booming.
If you miss the show on air this week, you can always catch it on our website. You can also view it on our YouTube channel.
As always, we welcome your feedback on Facebook, Twitter or via the Contact Us link on our website. We read all of your comments!
Have a great weekend and make the week ahead a profitable and productive one!
Best Regards,
Consuelo
Ed Hyman Video Clip:

That's correct. FWIW, here's M*'s explanation:
http://www.morningstar.com/advisor/t/105535457/tallying-up-the-cost-of-short-interest-expenses.htm?&single=true

Thanks, Kevin, I forgot about M*'s weirdness on ERs of some funds. For QLEIX, the M* expense page shows the ER as 1.35% from the 5/1 prospectus; comparing that to the actual figures in the 5/1 prospectus, it looks like M* left out the expense categories of dividends from short sales and acquired fund fees/expenses, both of which AQR counts in their ER figure.

According to the most recent prospectus, the actual total expense ratio after fee waivers and expense reimbursements for QLEIX and QLENX are 1.89% and 2.14%, respectively. As M* has consistently bent over backwards to be friendly with mutual fund companies, neither of these figures can be found on the M* front page summaries or expense sections of the funds.
That being stated, QLEIX/QLENX is the best L/S fund out there at this time.
Kevin

Two share classes: QLEIX = TF + 1.27 ER; QLENX = NTF + 1.53 ER. Like Tony & msf said, they're available for reasonable minimums in IRAs at Fidelity -- that goes for both share classes, plus the similar but more short-biased Market Neutral, QMNIX and QMNNX.

FYI: When you board an airplane, the one thing you don't want is a wide range of outcomes. If you're headed to Fort Lauderdale, you'd probably prefer not to land in Vladivostok. A trip that's supposed to end in New York City shouldn't end in Altoona.
Similarly, if you're choosing investments for your clients, you probably have reasonable expectations for those investments. In fact, much of the advantage of diversification is not increasing returns, but decreasing unpleasant surprises.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20170105/BLOG03/170109978?template=printart
M* Long/Short Fund Returns: (Equity)
http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/long-short-equity/$FOCA$LO.aspx

Hi Skeet,
Thank you for your contribution and your 2017 forecast. According to the article, the odds of your projection being correct slightly exceeds the likelihood that the experts have it right.
I hope you are nearly on-target. I am not substantially changing my portfolio asset allocation. Admitting it or not, that decision is a forecast by itself. We all do that when we make that asset allocation decision.
I certainly endorse a flexible strategy that permits adjustments as information is updated. As John Maynard Keynes famously said: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do,sir?" In predicting the future, he also said: "it is better to be approximately right than precisely wrong". Precision is an impossible standard when investing.
I wish you good luck, good health, and good forecasting success. We all need a little of that.

It is hard to determine the possible changes in NAV of a bond fund, but laddering does give you some hope that the results of interest rate increases will be predictable... as long as the fund is not threatened with large redemptions.
If you buying individual bonds you know what you are getting back.
Another alternative is create your own bond ladder with defined maturity ETFs like Guggenheim Bullet shares. They mature at the end of a specific year and those proceeds can be rolled over into another fund at the duration you desire. There are corporate and high yield versions available ( BSCH and BSJH for 2017, I J L on out to 2026) and ishares has muni ETFs IBMF, G H I out to 2022
As maturity approaches they are mostly cash so the NAV does not vary much, although the return then falls off too

Hi @MJG,
Thanks for posting as I found the linked article indeed good reading.
As a successful small retail investor I fall for it every year and make a forecast much like many others as to where the S&P will close at year end. This year is no different. My SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) for 2017 is 2475. It is computed by using a projected TTM Earnings for the S&P500 Index of $112.50 times the anticipated Ratio of 22. Do the math, that is about a 10.5% increase form 2016 year ending close of 2239.
Do I feel the market is currently overbought? Indeed, I do based upon my market valuation matrix. Can it stay this way? Indeed, it can for a good period of time as long as investors and market traders (Big Money) keep bidding up prices!
According to the article ... It is as good as any ... and, might be better than most.
Take care and have a Blessed New Year.
Skeet
Note: I reserve the right to change my forecast, at any time, like most analyst do as we move through the year.

Hi @hank, @MikeM and others,
For information purposes, please go back to the link on the Thournburg fund. Notice in their bond ladder they are holding as a principal step in the ladder about 13% cash with another 14% being held at the 1 year maturity step. This does a couple of things. 1) It provides them with ample cash to meet fund share redemptions should there be a run on bond funds from a rising interest rate environment. And, 2) it also provides them with the ability to do some discount buying from funds that are having to sell bonds to meet fund share redemptions. Should these purchased discounted bonds be held to maturity when redemption takes place, at face value, a profit is made.
To view this, once linked, click on the Fact Sheet to view the Ladder.
I was wondering if there were those that would have taken the time to take a look at the link (study the fund) and have noticed this even though I did not direct one to the Fact Sheet?
Again, I like to invest in bond funds where the manager has the ability, and a good chance even under duress, to hold bonds to maturity. Even though their strategy is a relative simple one I find few bond fund managers that employ it.
Again, I plan to hold most of my fixed income funds currently owned for the long term and let my fund managers use their skills and strategies during the anticipated coming rising interest rate environment we most likely will soon be facing. Hopefully, I will not get dinged too badly.
My best to all ... and, I sincerely wish all "Good Investing."
Skeet

You meant 2017, Lewis. Yes, we're all screwed, unless you're already filthy rich. "La Vie En Rose."

"Snowball’s “publisher’s letter” shares a hard truth: despite everything you’ve heard in the past year, things are getting better."
I found David's post a necessary tonic and I applaud that, but I think if we are talking big picture as he does, we also have to look at the even bigger picture of this globalization jigsaw puzzle. There is no question that the level of extreme poverty has decreased worldwide because of industrialization and globalization. But that has had consequences environmentally, economically and politically for more developed nations where people are accustomed to living on far more than $1.90 a day. One of the best pieces I've read on the recent election is this one: newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/31/hillary-clinton-and-the-populist-revolt
In it the author states:
"Earlier this year, an economist named Branko Milanović published a book called “Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization.” It’s a progress report on the “system” that Friedman heralded. Milanović analyzes global economic data from the past quarter century and concludes that the world has become more equal—poor countries catching up with rich ones—but that Western democracies have become less equal. Globalization’s biggest winners are the new Asian middle and upper classes, and the one-per-centers of the West: these groups have almost doubled their real incomes since the late eighties. The biggest losers are the American and European working and middle classes—until very recently, their incomes hardly budged.
During these years, resistance to globalization has migrated from anarchists disrupting trade conferences to members of the vast middle classes of the West. Many of them have become Trump supporters, Brexit voters, constituents of Marine Le Pen and other European proto-fascists. After a generation of globalization, they’re trying to derail the train."
So there has been a trade-off that has occurred between the world's wealthiest nations and the world's poorest and that has caused political upheaval. I cannot view that political upheaval as things getting better. Nationalism--a particularly virulent strain of nationalism in my view--is on the rise in several countries as a result. That has led to a level of geopolitical uncertainty we haven't seen in a long time. And yes the world has always been uncertain--this is a fact of life--but the stakes are higher than they've ever been. That's what's different--the stakes. The world is far more interconnected economically than it's ever been and the weaponry far more powerful than it has been prior to the advent of the nuclear age. Having unstable political leaders like Trump and Putin with such weaponry at their fingertips is not things getting better in my view. I reject notions to normalize these leaders. There is ample evidence they are not.
Then there is a larger question David touched upon of climate change. That is also part of the jigsaw puzzle because the economic growth that has lifted so many out of extreme poverty as David rightly points out is a primary cause of carbon emissions and climate change. While the poor in emerging countries have every right to have dreams of living middle class American lives, there is a realistic question as to whether the climate can take more than one giant economy where people live like Americans do. In other words, the world's addiction to economic growth has environmental consequences. This seems to me to be the primary challenge of the generations to come so long as we don't end up in a terrible war before then.
So no, I can't see things as getting better in 2017, not with a climate science denying, nuclear missile embracing jingoist in charge. But then I'm a journalist--a glass half empty guy on such issues--as David rightly points out most of the media is. Perhaps somewhere between the pessimists and the rose colored glasses is the truth.

"People never complain about funds outperforming when they veer from their stated investment philosophy."
Since we're talking about legal liability, note that in order to sue for damages, there need to be damages. Seems sort of obvious. So it really doesn't matter whether people complain or not if they haven't suffered monetary damages.
Unfortunately, you're probably right that the courts won't recognize misrepresentation unless huge losses are involved. See, e.g. Morgan Keegan:
http://www.zimmreed.com/case/morgan-keegan-lawsuit/
http://www.reuters.com/article/regionsfinancial-settlement-mutualfunds-idUSL1N0V211420150123
From the Reuter's article:

[T]he U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators [charged] that Morgan Keegan fraudulently misled investors about the risks of several funds. ... The SEC claimed that Morgan Keegan hid the falling value of some funds ...

Not to worry. "Do your due diligence and you won't have those problems." Yup.

Hi Guys,
I am an engineer by temperament, training, and experience. I like smart folks, especially those that develop sophisticated investment prediction models. In his "The Money Game" book, Adam Smith concurs that an investor should seek advice from smart people. Of course, one issue is how to identify smart market participants.
One might suspect that carefully trained economists, who are hired by financial organizations, would nicely fit that framework. Maybe, but it's not that easy.
In the early 1990s I counted Elaine Garzarelli as one such market-wise forecasting hero. She had an elaborate macroeconomic computer model that accurately forecasted the 1987 equity meltdown. Since that famous forecast, her record has suffered somewhat. According to one scorecard, she is correct about one-third of the time. Anyone for a fair coin toss projection?
Equity returns forecasts for 2017 are presently dominating the media and investor exchanges. It's great sport, but it is highly likely that the projections are in serious error. The record, even for the most well informed cohort of professionals, is dismal. How dismal? Here is a Link to some research that was completed a year ago:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/02/25/the-blind-forecaster.aspx
The findings are consistent with similar studies. Predicting returns is a challenging assignment, and most fail the task. A blind forecaster just might equal the accuracy of these highly paid experts. The author claims that emotional factors control the outcome, and these are impossible to forecast. I guess that means we should all keep a heavy reserve to protect against the uncertainty of the markets, regardless of professional opinion.
Best Regards.

Bezos Got the Message Before the Tweet ?
DEALS | Wed Jan 4, 2017 | 4:43pm EST
Exclusive: Amazon, Forever 21 vying for bankrupt American Apparel - sources
Reuters sources interest out of Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN), Forever 21 and others ahead of a deadline to submit offers for the bankrupt Los Angeles-based company set for this Friday.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/3233531-reuters-amazon-among-possible-american-apparel-bidders
By Jessica DiNapoli and Lauren Hirsch REUTERS
The bankruptcy auction of Los Angeles-based American Apparel, which made its branding theme "Made in the U.S.A", will determine the future of a major clothing manufacturing plant in California, one of the most expensive U.S. states in terms of labor costs.
Keeping jobs in the United States has become a hot button political issue since the presidential election. Ford Motor Co on Tuesday reversed plans for a $1.6 billion factory in Mexico and said it would add 700 jobs in Michigan after receiving criticism from President-elect Donald Trump.
Amazon and Forever 21, as well as California-based apparel maker Next Level Apparel and brand licensor Authentic Brands Group LLC, are in talks with American Apparel and its financial advisers about submitting offers ahead of a deadline on Friday, the people said
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-americanapparel-m-a-idUSKBN14O281