@MikeM
--- I'm inclined towards your direction, too. Leaning more towards the large cap. stuff; and for some of the reasoning provided from @msf . I continue to "feel" that the big kids will attempt to "eat" the smaller kids. 'Course some of these gathering of numerous assets did not do so well back in the 60's, 70's or 80's as the companies were going in so many directions, that they could not keep track of their "brand". I recall ITT company having a bazillion sub companies under their wing and there was others, too.
@Mark Ya, the TAXR thingy. Hope those folks know what they are doing. An interesting concept in the hands of a superior management group.
@Ted Correct at this time, as to no direct "tech" holding; but with the broad based etf's and/or funds one will discover enough tech. of some form; mostly of the large cap. type and of course, the FANG kids show up just about everywhere, except a bond fund.
A few samples of various tech. inclusions by percentage of the fund:
--- ITOT = 24%
--- VTI = 25%
--- SPY = 26%
--- FHLC = 25%
--- ACWI = 21%
--- FSPHX = 32%
--- GPROX = 21%
--- FPURX = 28%

WEALTHTRACK Episode #1429; Originally Broadcast a year ago, on January 05, 2017, unless they made a typo.
I checked; indeed the broadcast is the new one; they just written there, misleadingly, Originally Broadcast on January 05, 2017

The objective is not " how to grow a firm ". He should focus on those funds with multiple sub-advisers: like when pzena joined vsvax in 2014, many must have dropped out;and have only reasonable nos. If they are of opposing view for the same mandate, then I would prefer to go for an index fund instead. That means efficiency is important rather than further growth. ( efficiency in turnover, cap gains, tracking error etc)

"Probably a 50% chance I'm wrong though :)"
Allow me to say with 100% confidence that you are correct!
There are just too many things in this package that was rushed through without thought to make any predictions (aside from the one above). The mind reels.
Companies that are currently paying little or no taxes (due to other loopholes) can't benefit from taxes going lower. ISTM that it's the large companies with the armies of tax lawyers who are in this position. OTOH, it's those same armies that will be able to do the most with the new tax code.
20% tax break for some types of consultants. This could accelerate movement toward using contractors. Small companies may be able to make that transition more quickly (percentage-wise, at least). Maybe they'll offer to split the difference - take the same pay without benefits (healthcare, 401k match), but get a 20% discount on your income tax and a write-off for your health care.
Trump is pushing to allow small companies to band together and buy health insurance as if they were a single large company. That's a cost savings for small companies only.
Then there's the prospect of other countries cutting taxes (race to the bottom). That may help multinationals, but is less likely to help small domestic companies (except perhaps through their supply chain costs).
And on and on.

"Crazy" (Patsy Cline)
(originally by Willie Nelson)
---My rework meaning of some of the lyric.
1. I'm or I or my, being an individual investor.
2. You'd or you, the investing marketplace
Crazy
I'm crazy for feeling so lonely
I'm crazy
Crazy for feeling so blue
I knew
You'd love me as long as you wanted
And then some day
You'd leave me for somebody new
Worry
Why do I let myself worry?
Wondering
What in the world did I do?
Oh, crazy
For thinking that my love could hold you
I'm crazy for trying
And crazy for crying
And I'm crazy for loving you
Crazy
For thinking that my love could hold you
I'm crazy for trying
And crazy for crying
And I'm crazy for loving you

---The below M* link is category returns through Jan. 5 (Friday). OMG just about covers my thoughts for YTD for many sectors.
http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/
The one domestic area that is suffering and gett'in no love, and began this slide in 2017, is "Real estate".
Rough overview for this household's portfolio.......
1. will maintain FRIFX in the real estate space, it's 2017 return was +7.3%, and the fund maintains it's 50/50 equity/bond mix.
2. our portfolio mix is about 70/30, equity/bond with about 50% of the equity being healthcare sectors. Most of the healthcare arrives from direct investment into funds, but other percentages are also part of broad based U.S. equity holdings. When healthcare equity moves up an average of 3% in 4 trading days, I do pay much more attention.
Still attempting to determine if there are particular equity areas that may be more happy from the "tax package"; or if the equity market will be one big "love fest".
3. A repeat of a personal statement over the years; that the primary goal is to preserve capital with growth over the long term exceeding inflation and future taxation of the monies. Just the standard no brainer, eh? :)
Hey, have you a song lyric that somewhat describes the markets???
Okay, got to go outside "again" to move snow from one location to another near the driveway and sidewalk. More snow coming, the weather folks state. I'll use "brain freeze" as an excuse for any errors or omissions with this write, as it remains too cold here in Michigan.
Take care,
Catch

Here we go again. An article about fund fees presenting things that are usually true as if they were always true as a matter of law.
"The expense ratio includes ... the fee charged for managing the portfolio, which must be the same across all share classes."
"it’s worth noting that exchange-traded funds ... don’t charge a 12b-1 fee"
Wrong and wrong.
Some American Century funds charge a different management fee for retail (Investor) and institutional (Class I) shares, e.g. TWEIX (0.91%) vs. ACIIX (0.71%).
I suspect this goes back to its Twentieth Century days, when American Century charged a single all-in fee (usually 1.00%). The management took responsibility for covering marketing, administrative, and other costs. Instead of breaking out these costs as separate line items (and showing them as lesser costs on institutional shares), AC management still pays these costs. So the management fees are correspondingly lower for class I shares.
Then there are the Select Sector SPDR ETFs, e.g. XLK. 0.04% 12b-1 fee. The good news, if you want to call it that, is that these fees actually do go toward marketing, the original intent of 12b-1 fees.
Bloomberg, Feb. 2017, "Where Do SPDR Fees Go? Check the Madison Square Garden Ice"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-08/where-do-spdr-fees-go-check-the-ice-at-madison-square-garden

Also available from Schwab for no fee. I bought some RNWOX in May when it started.

I expect to hold this one for a while, yeah? Ended up buying at Vanguard. I should have kept looking for availability. After a while I just stopped thinking just like new Seafarer fund, these funds may never enter NTF platforms. Glad I checked.
Speaking of net new fund purchases, I reduced lot of funds as per plan in 2017, including completely eliminating HSGFX.
Another new purchase ARTTX at Fidelity. Hope I don't regret this. After going public, I'm very suspicious of motivations of Artisan. The only publicly trade MF company I really trust is TRP. I'm still ticked off by their excessive fawning over ARTYX. That manager has not done anything. ARTZX which can't seem to attract assets is doing as well. There is no value ARTYX manager is adding, but they are using press to tout his fund to attract assets.

FYI: The mutual fund industry has spent years trumpeting how costs have come down for investors. That’s true, but misleading. Asset managers haven’t exactly slashed their fees. Instead, the credit goes largely to investors—but some of them are being left behind.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-great-fund-fee-divide-1515214360

FYI: Are we in a rare “super” bull market? In our exclusive annual outlook for the U.S. economy and markets Ed Hyman, Wall Street’s #1 ranked economist for a record 37 years provides answers, with leading value manager Matthew McLennan.
Regards,
Ted
http://wealthtrack.com/1-economist-hyman-leading-value-manager-mclennan-discuss-economic-surges-super-bull-markets/

Hello.
Below is Old_Skeet’s market barometer report for the weekending January 5, 2018.
This week the barometer closed the week with a reading of 135 indicating that the S&P 500 Index is well into overbought territory. During the past year the Index has risen in valuation from 2239 to 2674 for about a 19.4% valuation increase while earnings have risen by about 13%. With this, investors are now willing to pay more for a dollars worth of earnings over what they paid a year ago. During the month of December short interest in SPY has moved from 2.5 days to cover down to 1.7 days. Indeed, stocks have become very bullish and with the new tax reform package becoming law they will perhaps become even more pricey. How high will valuations trend is anybody’s guess: but, for me stocks are currently very richly priced.
So what is Old_Skeet doing in this richly valued stock market? I am building cash and trading around the edges utilizing spiffs (special investment positions). This brings up my two market compasses. One follows the sectors of the S&P 500 Index while the other follows world regions along with a few other choices.
From my compass I pick the three best performance leaders, also known as the pack, for each compass. From the pack I pick the lead hound and open a position. As long as the lead hound can stay a member of the pack I leave money on it. When the hound falters and falls form the pack I pick another lead hound and repeat the process. Naturally, if stocks begin to pull back and the momentum is lost across the board I close the position(s).
For the S&P 500 Compass the pack consist of XLE (energy), XLK (technology) & XLY (consumer discretionary) with XLY currently being the lead & money hound. In my Global Compass the pack consist of GSP (commodities), EEM (emerging markets) & EWJ (Japan) with GSP being the lead & money hound.
Yes, stocks are richly priced (from my perspective) and looking to become even more so as we move through 2018 and even though earnings are improving stock prices are on an upper move much faster than their earnings growth.
Thanks for stopping by and reading.
I wish all … “Good Investing.”
Old_Skeet

Not sure how good the data are, but M* shows that VWENX with a start point of 10/25/29 (a few days before the so-called crash) took till Feb 1936 to get back to the inception amount.
CENSX, another oldy (widely touted in the 1980s and after (insurance-heavy)), took much much longer, till 1949.
There are a few others to look at starting summer 1929 but I did not delve.

I think everyone is kind of agreeing that it is going to be a tough deal to get 4.8%.
My vote would be something really simple. Keep about 50K in cash (money market for half and 1 yr CD for the other half). The rest of it could be basically on auto-pilot. I'd use Vanguard or Schwab index funds and do a straight 60-40 stock/bond split with a rebalance once a year when taking out the next year's living expenses.
If you wanted to get a little more creative, read Paul Merriman's website. He has a more elaborate breakdown of the investments (introducing some foreign stocks and bonds and adding a small cap value tilt), but still using index funds.

You've identified another problem I had with the column. Definitions weren't clear.
"Recent high-water mark" could be the most recent local maximum, or it could be the last global high-water mark.
Think hills and valleys. A local high water mark would be the last hill you traversed.
But suppose all you cared about was "highest so far" (global maximum), and you traversed hills of 500', 1000' and 800'. The 500' hill would be your highest up to that point (a global high water mark). Then the 1000' hill would be a new high water mark (and the most recent one). When you got to the 800' hill, it wouldn't be a new high water mark. The 1000' hill would still be the most recent high water mark, with the 500' being an older high water mark.
FWIW, that's the way "high water mark" is used with hedge funds, and in Boston, where it was literal.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/highwatermark.asp
http://whdh.com/weather-blog/historic-storm-to-historic-cold/
("major coastal flooding including in Boston. It was high enough to challenge the high level water mark of the Blizzard of ’78!")
Similar problem with his own term "happy day", that he defined as a day that "represented a new high-water mark." He noted that this is something "That works out to 5.4% of all days." Yet in his discussion he said that happy days occurred 36.3% of the time. He meant "benign" or "happy" days (0-5% below high water mark), but confused his own terminology.
He's provided food for thought. Though each of us may need to think it through from our own perspective.

"Likelihood of legislative changes to bring the tax rates back up after 2-4 years seems high."
Conversely, if one assumes there won't be any legislative changes, the tax rates will still revert in eight years (after 2025). So prognostications aside, it seems like a good idea to take advantage of the changes while one can.
If you are in a higher bracket, another change that makes larger conversions more feasible now is the virtual elimination of the AMT. (It hasn't been eliminated, but it now kicks in at such a high level that it's all but gone.)
Normally I consider Roth conversions somewhat of a wash if one uses some of the IRA money to pay the taxes on converting, but now may be an exception. Assuming you're over 59.5 (so that withdrawals are not penalized), the benefit is that you could be paying a lower rate on your pre-tax money now than if you wait and withdraw it later.
For example, suppose you're in the 22% bracket, but were and will be in the 25% bracket. If you've got $1000 in the IRA, you convert $780 and use the remaining $220 to pay taxes. If you wait until your tax rate reverts to 25%, then you'll get a net $750 after-tax.
Of course, paying for the conversion with non-IRA is always better, even now.
You do have to watch for side effects of increasing AGI, as bee noted.
One other gotcha - if you were itemizing deductions before but will be taking a standard deduction now, then your marginal rate just went up on the state level, even if it dropped on the federal level. For example, you might be somewhere like Calif. or NYC where your local income tax rate is around 10%. Previously, that cost you only 7.5% (because you got to deduct it against your 25% federal rate). Now, if you don't itemize, you pay the full 10%. So you're paying around 2.5% more at the local level, essentially wiping out any reduction in your federal marginal rate.
Finally, remember that you can no longer recharacterize if you change your mind.

This leaves me with the impression of numeric legerdemain. Start by bringing up that old chestnut - decades to recover from the 1929 stock market crash to scare you, and then palm it - don't use that crash when looking at market returns. We don't want you to get too scared.
How long did it really take to recover, considering deflation (in the 30s) and dividends? Mark Hulbert wrote this article in the NYTimes, entitled: "25 Years to Bounce Back? Try 4½"
Even using raw stock prices, that's 25 years for the Dow (Nov 23, 1954) per Hulbert, or about 30 years inflation adjusted, or 25 years for the S&P 500 (Shiller data) or 26 years inflation adjusted. It looks like the 28 year figure was pulled out of a hat.

He says that "Starting in 1941 still encompasses a large part of those dark days in the market, and World War II". But by starting in 1941 (so that the initial high water mark is Jan 2, 1941), many of those "dark days", especially between 1943 and 1946 appear to be "happy" or "benign" days (new high water mark or within 5% of the most recent high).
Watch him turn dark nights into bright days.
Taking days at random strikes me as dubious. What's the chance that a day will be within 5% of the most recent high? Very good if the previous day was. Likewise, if yesterday the market was down 40%+ from its high, then the chances are much better that it will be down 40%+ tomorrow than if the market just hit a new high (it has never fallen 40% in a single day). While each day's movement may be random, one day's price is usually pretty close to the previous day's.
Certain things are obvious. Since the market has an upward bias, it will spend more time near highs than near lows. Just as obvious is that new highs will bunch - you're not going to hit a new high unless you're currently at or near a high. 2017 was a good example.
What are the odds of falling into a bear market if the market is already in a correction? Better than if it's hitting new highs. That's also obvious because it has a lot less to fall (a bear must begin as a correction). Conversely, if you're already in a bear market, what are the odds of entering a "second" bear market (i.e. falling 20% more)? Pretty small, because rarely does the market drop 40% or more.
So making use of any of this is tricky - too slow a trigger and you may smooth things out (miss the very bottom) but risk missing the rebound; too fast a trigger and you may get faked out and miss a rising market because it dipped for a week or a month.

A great shortened trading week for bonds - lead by emerging markets, high yield corporates, and world. Added to my existing positions there and sold half of my lagging bank loan. That puts me at 70% in the three strongest and 15% bank loan with 15% in cash which I hope to deploy next week. Junk corporates historically have been especially strong in Januaries so not sure what to expect after this strong opening week. We have heard ad nauseum about the tightness in credit spreads and junk not offering much value. I am not enamored of junk but open to being surprised. I thought I was going to be less aggressive than I was this week in Bondland. Old habits are hard to break.
Not a popular opinion but not a fan of PIMIX/PONDX - at least if you are looking for open end bond outperformance in 2018. Otherwise with the best bond manager on the planet an excellent fund for contented retirees. A bit too staid the past many months and wondering if asset bloat is finally catching up. Non agencies have hit a wall and that may have contributed to its lack of oomph recently. I actually hope though I am wrong and it is a another great year like 2016 and 2017 for PIMIX. That would mean like in the aforementioned years double digit gains in other areas of Bondland for 2018. That would sure be a pleasant surprise.
Edit: I would also include PTIAX having an uninspired 2018.

Considering the tax-law changes, I am wondering what experts here think about the advantages of rolling over IRAs/legacy 401ks into Roth-IRAs. Likelihood of legislative changes to bring the tax rates back up after 2-4 years seems high.

@msf, you mentioned:
"$5/order once you have a position at Fidelity"
How is it possible to buy mutual funds for $5 for each trade?

... use their automated investment system and live with a lag of a day or so in getting your order filled. ($5/order once you have a position at Fidelity).
https://www.fidelity.com/cash-management/automatic-investments
From that page: "After the initial investment, a $5 fee is charged per automatic investment into a FundsNetwork transaction fee fund."
You can set up a schedule of automatic investments and cancel after the first one is executed. The system used to be called "Automatic Account Builder."
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/t/346014.aspx

Good stuff bee. I used to use these probability calculations to figure out the risk in my portfolio. So, given the info in your post, a 60:40 portfolio (equity 50:50 split between US and Int) you would expect your yearly returns to fall in the range of +26.9% and -15.9%, 95 times out of 100. That seems safe, but the problem is that damn 5% on the down side of the curve. Like seen in 2008, that can be a whole lot worst then losing -15.9%. I believe 60:40 portfolios lost more like -30%+ on average.

More than anything else, investing is about managing downside risk

Article provides a thorough look at the implications and impact of MAXDD & DD levels on Investor's decision making.
a-simple-calculation-that-could-change-the-way-you-invest