Congress Asset Management:
congressasset.com/funds/mf_downloads/Congress_Funds_Cap_Gains_Estimates_10.16.pdf

Ron Rowland has started coverage of factor positioning in his weekly newsletter.
A link to the newsletter is below for those interested in reading more on factor investing.
http://investwithanedge.com/newsletter-archives/102616-introducing-the-factor-edge

I posted this same newsletter a couple days back and just discovered it got moved to the bullpen after 80 viewings.
See below limk.
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/29955/mutual-fund-etf-research-newsletter-november-2016-edition#latest
I sincerly hope this one put up by JonhN will stay up for discussion and possible comment longer than mine did as this newsletter is indeed good reading.
Please make comments on post you enjoy reading, or find favor in, or they will get moved to the bullpen, as mine did, if enough comments are not made to keep it posted under the discussion heading.

http://funds-newsletter.com/nov16-newsletter/nov16-new.htm
synosis -
Is Skill Still Relevant in the Era of the Indexes?
By Tom Madell
Anyone failing to notice that index funds, along with index-based ETFs are, day-by-day, becoming the preferred investments for investors likely hasn't been paying much attention. So it's more important than ever to consider the question of whether portfolios still managed based on presumably skillful interventions can realistically ever hope to consistently beat portfolios run on autopilot, that is, passively managed and made up of index funds.

FYI: Last summer I watched Creed. It’s the latest movie in the “Rocky Balboa” series. One of the lines stands out. The movie’s lead character, Adonis Creed, asked Rocky how he had beaten his father. “I didn’t beat your father,” said Rocky. “Time takes everybody out. Time’s undefeated.”
It’s like that for most investors who try to beat the market. They might get lucky for a year or a decade. But if a low-cost index fund were a boxer, time would stand in its corner. According to the SPIVA scorecard, the S&P Composite 1500 Index beat 87.47 percent of U.S. actively managed stock funds during the ten years ending June 30, 2016.
Regards,
Ted
https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/does-factor-based-investing-work

MJG - good points. I sure wasn't intending to paint all fund companies w/that sentiment! Some, like VG, TRP, and others, are indeed quite responsible in such outreach, I think.

Hi Rforno,
Thanks for your post. Not all professional organizations are smoking the high flier weed. Vanguard is definitely not in that group with a much more subdued projection of market returns.
Here is a Link to a short Vanguard video that briefly summarizes their modest market expectations:
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/video/3693-Exc1
Enjoy. I sure wish they had hired a chief economist who spoke more clearly. But I'm even more sure that their forecasts are based on solid available data and sound economic principles.
Now if we could only model group emotional behavior we might have something much more reliable. Forget it! That's a reach beyond our grasp now and forever.
Best Wishes.

Hi Rforno,
Thanks for your post. Not all professional organizations are smoking the high flier weed. Vanguard is definitely not in that group with a much more subdued projection of market returns.
Here is a Link to a short Vanguard video that briefly summarizes their modest market expectations:
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/video/3693-Exc1
Enjoy. I sure wish they had hired a chief economist who spoke more clearly. But I'm even more sure that their forecasts are based on solid available data and sound economic principles.
Now if we could only model group emotional behavior we might have something much more reliable. Forget it! That's a reach beyond our grasp now and forever.
Best Wishes.

More like why the fund marketing departments will love these rolling averages. Remember how responsible FAs and others (ie, MFO readers) were saying in 2013 beware of the 5 year returns being hyped once the '08 crash 'fell off the radar' on that chart? People will still get suckered in by awesome 5-year returns, I bet. ;(
Speaking of returns, I still chuckle that many funds and pension offices still assume a 5 or 7 percent annual return in their projections. Really, still? What are they smoking?

This is a quality site concerning withdrawal scenarios. Need to read the detail to understand the chart output. Takes 111 years of historical data in one year time snapshots.
http://www.firecalc.com/
Problem being in today's world is that recent and possible future low rates have potentially tainted the age old 4% rule.

No one can give you 'the answer'. Here are some things to think about in developing your own answer:
1. At 76, presumably you are not trying to 'grow' your assets, and with your fixed costs covered, you re-invest the income, and presumably wish to conserve your assets. If that is the case, and you have 'won the game' -- meaning you have sufficient assets for your needs. Well, why keep playing the game, after the game is already won? If that assumption on my part is wrong, and you prefer to stay in the game, for whatever reason, then the answer is probably 'stay the course' -- so long as you will be copasetic with the results Mr. Market delivers.
2. If by 'bond bubble', you are implying the likelihood of a'popping' of the bubble, why stick around, at least in full-allocation mode? An investor can earn ~ 1% yield on near-cash or cash assets (e.g. "MINT", internet savings accts, etc.) Market-cap bond index products pay what now, something with a 2-handle in terms of yield? If the answer is you want the marginally higher income, that is a true answer. But consciously accept, stability of income may be at odds with stability of principal, especially when asset values are rich. You have to understand what is of primary importance to you, the income, or the value of your principal, then decide what to do.
3. If your 'bond bubble' diagnosis becomes reality and the bond market drops, expect stocks to fall in sympathy with bonds. Both asset classes benefitted from Q/E & ZIRP; IMO it would self-serving and delusional to expect that stocks will soar while/if bond prices drop. Often, stocks are more frenetic in their price moves than bonds. So reallocating principal from bonds to equities, probably won't DE-risk a portfolio. In fact, it may have the opposite effect.
4. Lastly, and I am sure you know this, a decision to buy, hold, or sell is never a 'final decision'. Circumstances may change tomorrow, and you can reverse your decision.
I'm about 25 years your junior. Still in accumulation mode, but expecting to retire early in 4 years. Except for the whole health-insurance issue, I could retire now, spend principal, and not have another worry. So, I've no intention of exposing all of my assets to the vississitudes of Mr. Market here --- which might risk delaying my retirement. Especially with most asset classes trading 'rich'. But that is me. You are in a different place. Your fixed costs are covered. The question is to what degree to you wish to expose your assets to Mr. Market -- and for what purpose? Does the marginal income/return you derive from holding rich assets adequately compensate for the risk of holding richly-priced assets? Ultimately, only you can answer that question. Nobody else can.

Here is a simple trick question, posed by Meb Faber this week, using real world data, whose answer is supportive of what @JoJo26 was getting at with her comment.
http://mebfaber.com/2016/10/26/which-investment-do-you-prefer/

Get in line @ Blackstone ! From The Blackstone Group LP (BX) Q3 2016 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
In the past 12 months alone, our limited partners, we call them LPs, have entrusted us with nearly $70 billion in new capital which despite $38 billion in realizations brings us to another record for assets under management of $361 billion. We continue to see strong positive growth in every one of our businesses. Blackstone continues to be the solutions provider our limited investors need, perhaps now more than ever in a world of sluggish growth, record low interest rates, high public market valuations, the resulting very low returns for most asset classes. These challenges seem likely to persist for some time which is causing real problems for LPs.
Here is a pretty stunning fact. In the past 10 quarters, we have raised nearly $200 billion, more than the aggregate size of any of our domestic alternative peers. And given the secular forces driving capital into the alternatives, we continue to nicely grow combined with Blackstone's powerful and unique competitive position. I remain quite optimistic in our ability to keep growing with one of the largest, if not the largest, platforms in each vertical area, Private Equity, Real Estate, Hedge Funds and Credit. We are able to accept and responsibly deploy billions of dollars from individual LPs which is a critical capability that few, if any, other firms can offer
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4016086-blackstone-group-lp-bx-q3-2016-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single
Bloomberg Gadfly Take by Gillian Tan Oct 27, 2016 3:58 PM EDT
Stephen Schwarzman, the billionaire chairman, CEO and co-founder of Blackstone Group, is accustomed to having people pay attention to his point of view, whether it's in a meeting room at the firm's Park Avenue headquarters or in his capacity as a philanthropist. But he seems to have trouble getting his message across when it comes to Blackstone's shares.
Disconnect
Blackstone, like its peers, has struggled to win over investors.
As the firm's biggest shareholder with a stake of roughly 20 percent, Schwarzman has gone to lengths to persuade investors that Blackstone deserves a higher valuation -- even going so far as walking through the math of his argument -- but his words have fallen on deaf ears. On an earnings call Thursday, after the New York firm easily beat analysts' expectations thanks to sales of real estate assets, he resorted to sarcasm. "Who needs yield when you can invest at 1 percent in government bonds?" he dryly asked, after referring to the fact that Blackstone's dividend yield is markedly higher than that.
.....potential shareholders should remember that the yield isn't as airtight as, say, a U.S. Treasury bond. Blackstone's ability to pay dividends fluctuates every quarter and is driven in part by the firm's ability to profit from its activities across various arms, such as by selling off real estate or other investments as it has done in recent years. Still, there's little likelihood that the dividend will disappear completely, owing to the diversity of Blackstone's holdings
https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-10-27/blackstone-yield-appeal-is-schwarzman-s-latest-valuation-argument

Highlights of the Week:from Payden & Rygel
High Yield: Despite retail flows stalling in the last three weeks, the market remains well bid. A combination of foreign capital flows and separately managed
accounts are providing price support as the market grinds tighter. Coupling this tailwind with prudent credit selection will reward long-term investors.
Corporates: A recent stringent crackdown by anti-trust regulators has halted several mergers and acquisitions from being completed in the last year.
Despite this slowdown, companies seeking to merge have still been rolling merrily ahead with their intentions. In fact, October 2016 now ranks as
the month with the most corporate merger agreements ever, nearly breaking $250 billion. Whether or not they will be completed is another story
• Municipals: While municipal yields have drifted near 7-month highs, the market has showed resilience in the face of over $16 billion in new supply
over the past two weeks. After the first week of fund outflows YTD last week, investors added $335 million to funds this week. Municipals remain
very attractive on a relative basis with 30-year municipals yielding in excess of 100% of Treasuries.
https://www.payden.com/weekly/wir102816.pdf

HI JoJo26,
Apparently I misunderstood your position, at least in terms of emphasis. We are in substantial agreement.
In investing there is an issue of too much information; some tendency towards paralysis by analysis. There is a famous study of horse-race handicappers that demonstrated that debilitating characteristic.
The handicappers were given tons of horse performance data. Initially they were tasked to handicap a race using only 5 bits of data for each horse that they selected. The challenge was repeated with 10, 20, and 40 pieces of individually selected data. The handicappers winner accuracy score did not improve with increasing data, but their confidence levels falsely did.
Some decision making experts believe that we can not process too much info when forming a decision. I'm sure the number varies with each person and for differing circumstances, but these experts have concluded that an information overload takes control at about the 7 piece level. I suspect that finding is highly controversial. I find that observation uncomfortable since I am a member of the more is better cohort.
Thanks for your post and your patience.
Best Wishes.

Hi JoJo26,
Thanks for your comment.
While I agree with you that the emphasis on multi-year returns performance is sometimes overemphasized when making an investment decision, I believe that it is a contributing factor to that decision and is not a worthless parasite.
Past performance in any industry is typically useful in estimating (perhaps guesstimating would be a better word) likely future performance. For a ball player earlier hitting or pitching success gives some insights into future success. For a book writer, earlier sales records are grounds for money advances. Yes there is risk.
The S&P Persistence Scorecards measure that risk for mutual fund managers, and it is not a pretty picture. Persistence erodes rapidly, but it does take a little time. Here is a Link to the S&P reference:
https://us.spindices.com/documents/spiva/persistence-scorecard-january-2016.pdf
I certainly agree that other factors are important when selecting a mutual fund to supplement performance history. Cost is always a significant part of that decision criteria list. So is the tenure of the managers and the stability of their investment process.
What percentage of their portfolio departs from an Index equivalent also guides the decision. And the aggressiveness of that management in terms of their portfolio turnover ratio and its market Beta are additional considerations. It gets complicated quickly since the weighting of these many factors is different for different folks.
Additionally, how well any one mutual fund integrates into a portfolio of many mutual funds also enters into the equation for us individual investors.
Indeed, many factors influence a mutual fund purchase decision, but I would definitely not exclude past performance. Historical numbers help support decision components that are more subjective, and perhaps even emotional. So we do need a little luck and must monitor our decisions continuously. Change happens.
Best Wishes.

The S&P 500 made its first new high at 2130 on May 21, 2015. It took 14 months and a pullback to 1829 (about 15% off its 2130 high) before the S&P 500 moved once again moved above 2130 in July of 2016. Today, a full 17 months later, it stands at 2126. This is 50 points below its must recent new high of 2187 (or about 2.5% below its most recent new high).
Here the 2 yr chart:

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000563495&play=1

FYI: Here’s another chart to scare you this Halloween: Foreign investors, who now represent 39 percent of funds dedicated to the U.S. high-yield fixed-income market, have become ever-more sensitive to the asset class’s performance since the financial crisis.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-28/bond-tourists-expose-soft-underbelly-of-america-s-high-yield-market

@Ted Ha! just coming here to post this one, ya beat me by the proverbial nose.

In the second quarter, that group of seven saw $34 billion in outflows. The tally is further evidence that investors, frustrated with high fees and mediocre performance of actively managed funds, are increasingly casting them off for low-cost passive investments. In the 12 months ended Sept. 30, active funds had redemptions of $295 billion while passive took in $454 billion ...

12 months, almost $300B--- that's some serious coin.