@davidmoran No, not all gold related; but it sure has helped YTD, eh? @Junkster You're still covered with your prior assumption of PRPFX. It's having a "day in sun" from the choices in place at this time. Most of us here all have our "geez" moments about the ones that got away. Multiply by years of investing and the positive compound returns, over and over; and one could buy their own private island or whatever, eh?
PRPFX = 5 year return rate at 1.1%
Most here understand the market cycle sector benefits or downfalls of this type of fund.
Looking at the composition (below link); one finds gold in various forms, real estate and appears to be long term gov't. bonds; among other.
I'll pick a few simple and readily available choices if one really had their act together at the start of 2016 to look like the smartest one around for many miles. 'Course these may all go into the ground within the next year and cause one to look like a real buy and hold dumbbell, too.
YTD's for the following:
---GDXJ = +135.2%
---GDX = +98.1%
---GLD = +24.2%
---EDV = +24.1%
---IYR = +11.2%
---LQD = +10.4%
Hey, make your own list based upon what you find in PRPFX, but don't forget to sell at the proper time to lock the profits.
PRPFX composition.
@VintageFreak Apologizes for perverting your original questions.
Take care,
Catch

"Demand for REIT stocks and REIT exchange-traded funds will likely increase, if only from passive index funds that are linked to the S&P 500. The financial sector will drop to about a 12.7% weighting in the S&P 500 from 15.7%."
I'm not sure I understand how this would happen. Shouldn't any passive index fund linked to the S&P 500 already have all those stocks? It seems like the massive amounts of money in passive investments shouldn't change much and that any new demand might be more likely to come from active funds or individual investors who start paying more specific attention to real estate.

FYI: Even the father of passive investing has warned of the potential for 'chaos' if index funds get too popular.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/08/26/are-index-funds-eating-the-world/

FYI: Below is an updated look at our asset class performance matrix using key ETFs traded on US exchanges. For each ETF, we show its performance this past week, month-to-date, and year-to-date. As one might be able to surmise, there really hasn’t been much in the way of major moves this month across the spectrum of our Asset Class Matrix. In fact, just eleven of the 58 ETFs shown are up or down more than 2%. Two of the biggest losers this month have been Telecom Services (-7.6%) and Utilities (-5.7%). These are generally considered ‘safe’ areas of the market, but ironically enough, have been some of the most volatile in a month lacking any volatility at all. On the upside, oil is up over 12%, and along with it, the Energy sector ETF is up just under 3%.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/bespoke-report/the-bespoke-report-82616/

SCMFX What is there to like about a fund that has significantly underperformed its category YTD, 1 Yr, 3 YR, and 5 Yr ?? SEEDX isn't much better. One common refrain (excuse) when investors hold underperforming funds is it's for diversification purposes. However, in the spirit of fair disclosure I use to rag on holders of PRPFX a dog of a dog the past many years and now look how superbly it has performed this year. So what do I know? Not much - which is about as much as all the so-called experts out there.

That's correct.
Rexx:
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/rexx/financials?ltr=1
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/072815/oil-companies-near-bankruptcy.asp --- says REXX to fall; this was over a year ago. Still. So I could lose $3500 more.
Locations:
http://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/Rex+Energy+(REXX)+Updates+on+Moraine+East,+Appalachian+Basin+Operations%3B+BSP+Elects+into+Additional+Wells/11758150.html
So I dunno. They just completed a big sale in Illinois. I am not buying more.

I hold some Schwab 2030 TDF (SWDRX) and have been happy with it's performance over the years. However, YTD performance has fallen off sharply (91st percentile). I'm not panicking yet, but does anyone have any idea of what might be going on this year?

@Davidrmoran Three factors to consider with energy stocks now:
1. Balance sheet strength--those with least debt or manageable debt with distant maturity dates will survive.
2. Marginal cost of production.
3. Geopolitical risk of well locations.
Many energy stocks are over-levered so even if their common stock shares seem cheap, they will be worthless in a bankruptcy as the debt holders get everything.

Well, somebody's been buying for the last couple of years. Is all of that you, David?

@Ted 's transcription is correct. But I doubt any MMF ever grows weary of rolling over paper. To paraphrase GEICO, if you're a MMF, that's what you do.
Rather, given the rate of outflows, prime MMFs are likely wary of rolling over paper into new three month holdings. As the WSJ writes:

Because prime funds are afraid of facing even stronger outflows after Oct. 14, they’ve been weary of stashing their money in assets that mature after that.

"Weary" is repeated, so it's not a typo. In the WSJ. Is nothing sacred?

The proposal doesn't do away with paper. It just makes paper opt-in, rather than opt-out. Even if you've chosen electronic, it would require funds to send a printed version at no cost on demand, within three days of your request.
The proposal doesn't require funds to even offer electronic versions, let alone make them the default.
@hank 's got the right link. The part of the doc pertaining to the paperless proposal (a new Rule 30E-3) starts on p. 149. What's there is a clear discussion of the background, the thinking, and how the rules would work. That is, English as opposed to actual legalize text of the proposed rule.
The Bloomberg article cites Roll Call as estimating the potential savings at $2B/decade. According to the SEC report, the savings are way less than that. Total printing costs are about $116M, and given the number of funds/investors expected to participate, the savings on printing would be about $105M/year. Offsetting that are new costs (maintaining web site, mailing paper copies on demand, etc.) totaling about $32M/year.
Net savings/decade (my calculation) = ($105M - $32M) x 10 = $3/4B.
IMHO the real savings are in costs to the environment - trees (as mentioned in Bloomberg), energy for paper recycling (or landfill), and mailing/shipping (fuel).
You can find the comments that people (and companies) have submitted here:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-15/s70815-123.pdf

FYI: Charles Schwab Corp. has upped the ante in the push to be the lowest-cost provider of target-date retirement funds, launching a new series of target-dated mutual funds on Thursday that edge out Vanguard Group and Fidelity Investments to claim the title as cheapest on the market to date.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160825/FREE/160829963?template=printart

FYI: Prime money funds will be weary of rolling over commercial paper and certificates of deposit a month ahead of the new U.S. regulation being enacted.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/08/24/why-money-markets-should-be-expecting-a-bumpy-september/

FYI: Emerging markets are sizzling and it has nothing to do with the heat wave.
As yield-starved investors go further afield in search of returns, emerging markets have witnessed a jump in investment. And as the money continues to flow into the sector, fears of an imminent bubble have started to percolate, raising the specter of an impending crash.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/investor-love-for-emerging-markets-is-more-than-a-summer-fling-2016-08-24/print

REXX is a play, solvent and productive but extremely cheap, 61 cents or so, but it may take awhile, esp if NG pricing goes even lower. I am thinking the downside is nearly nonexistent.

DM, from dec 2014, when price was around $5/share: "I don't know how anyone is going to lose buying REXX now --- financially solid, just takes patience. Awfully low. Just one example."
i really do have to admire your tenacity. i think you've bought more all the way down. have you held onto all your shares? at some point REXX is going to take off and hopefully make you rich beyond words. I might have to throw $500 at it, just to join you in my own small way. should it go back to $5/sh, that'd make me $4k happier.
or, it could just go to 1 cent and join certain marijuana stocks i bought in 2014 and that still clutter up my monthly statements.
anyway, how financially solvent do you think the company still is?

Intriguing topic. Sketchy at best on exactly what the SEC is proposing. Maybe this is the proposal the article references? https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2015/33-9776.pdf
If I read the above correctly, funds would no longer be required to make paper copies of fund reports available to investors. I get it. Saves money and trees. Can't stop progress I suppose.
Personally, much as I enjoy pleasure reading in digital form, there's something unique about legal/financial language and content that I find easier to digest in print. I wouldn't want to sign off on a 30 year mortgage for which I'd seen only a digital copy. I find Barrons much more more rewarding in print. And I don't like the thought of handing over my hard earned money to a firm whose reports exist only in the digital realm.
The suggestion in the article byline that most investors don't bother to read their fund reports sounds absurd. If you trust your manager enough to give him/her your money to invest, surely you value his or her insights into the markets and his/her unique perspectives on why the fund is invested the way it is. Not read the reports? Nuts.

@JoJo26:
QLEIX and QLENX are available in Fidelity retirement accounts for $100K and $500 minimums, respectively, with a TF.
@msf:
I totally agree with your assessment of the ER. That is why I have been advocating for years that M* report on the fund's front page the actual expense ratio that investors will be paying, as detailed in the prospectus. In this case, the actual ER of 1.87% should be reported on the fund's front page. And notice that this 1.87% figure doesn't even appear in the expense breakdown for the fund. M* could report this accurate ER but chooses to not do so, likely to favor fund managements over investors. M* could and should do better.
Kevin

The Long/Short Equity space is very troubled, as there have been very few funds which have had attractive long-term performance, and the expenses of such funds are inherently high, which serves as a drag for future performance. Whenever I look at a space with many entrants but few winners, I instinctively avoid the space, and I think that this is generally the right move.

Concur completely. Personally I go further - I tend to avoid "esoteric" categories even if they have a modest number of successful funds, at least until a category has proven itself through stressful periods.

Furthermore, M* understates -- as usual -- the actual expense ratio that investors pay for NCLIX, which is actually a net ER of 1.87%, not the 1.55% listed on M*'s front page.

That's because M* is excluding leveraging costs. The flip side, according to M*, is that depending on how that leveraging is achieved, its cost may still be hidden (even if M* isn't the one doing the hiding). Pick your poison.

Morningstar elects to exclude interest and dividend expense from the net expense ratio in order to provide the end investor with an apples-to-apples comparison of expense ratios. Depending on the leveraging techniques employed by the fund, the fund may or may not be required to report interest and dividend expense. For example, funds that employ shorting strategies or reverse-repo transactions are required to report interest expense in the Annual Report whereas funds that employ futures, swaps, TBAs, and forwards are not required to report the cost associated with those instruments as interest expense.

I'd love to invest in QLENX. Unfortunately, I don't have $1,000,000, much less $1,000,000 to allocate to L/S Equity.

@JoJo26:
The Long/Short Equity space is very troubled, as there have been very few funds which have had attractive long-term performance, and the expenses of such funds are inherently high, which serves as a drag for future performance. Whenever I look at a space with many entrants but few winners, I instinctively avoid the space, and I think that this is generally the right move. From my perspective, there are exactly two attractive funds in the space -- BPLSX/BPLEX and QLEIX/QLENX -- with only the latter being open to new investors.
The managers of this very young fund have done a pretty good job at their long-only equity fund, NCVLX. I am not sure how they will do in the more treacherous L/S space. Furthermore, M* understates -- as usual -- the actual expense ratio that investors pay for NCLIX, which is actually a net ER of 1.87%, not the 1.55% listed on M*'s front page.
If you must invest in this space, I would consider QLEIX/QLENX. As for NCLIX, I would wait for a track record to develop and would be reluctant to be an early investor, as it opened its doors very recently on 12/31/2015.
Kevin