Sorry Art,, deregulation and tax reform are not issues that matter most. Perhaps to the .1 of 1%.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.cnbc.com/video/2017/07/24/cashin-markets-holding-up-despite-washington-drama.html?play=1
Earnings This Week:
Below is a list of the 40 largest companies set to report earnings this week. Next to each company, we provide its historical beat rates (% of time beating analyst estimates) and its average one-day change on its earnings reaction days.
https://www.bespokepremium.com/think-big-blog/40-largest-companies-set-to-report-this-week-724-728/

@BenWP: The K-1 forms are well worth the effort especially when I have my tax accountant handle them. In addition to KKR, I own BK with a 6.25% yield and appreciation of YTD 27.88% and 1 year of 24.92%, and APO with a 7.05% yield and YTD return of 43.90% 1 year 66.83%
Regards,
Ted

I have no stats to back up my opinion, yet I wonder if this is not an example of the disappearance of another small cap from the investable universe. Two places where I shop, Panera and Whole Foods, are being bought. Probably should follow Ted's example into private equity, the K-1 forms be damned.

FYI: (KKR is one of my income stock, that has had some nice capital appreciation in the last year coupled with a 3.52% dividend yield.)
.YTD 25.57%
.1 Year 33.55%
WebMD Health Corp. agreed to be taken private by buyout firm KKR & Co. for about $2.8 billion, five months after hiring bankers to explore a possible sale.
Stockholders of the online health information company will receive $66.50 a share in cash, according to a statement Monday. The price is 20 percent more than Friday’s closing level and 29 percent higher than where the shares traded in mid-February, when New York-based WebMD hired JPMorgan Chase & Co. to review strategic alternatives.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-24/webmd-agrees-to-be-bought-by-buyout-firm-kkr-for-2-8-billion

FYI: Newcomer Artisan Developing World earns a Bronze rating thanks to its seasoned manager, attractive approach, and good parent with a long record of success.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=816785

FYI: There seems to be a bull market in piety. Assets in portfolios that focus on sustainable investing — the new term for what used to be called socially responsible investing — have risen to $22.9 trillion globally from $3.8 trillion in 2006, according to investment researcher Morningstar.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/investing-according-to-your-values-can-also-make-you-money-2017-07-24/print

Thanks DavidV. Despite a hyped-up overly sensational title, this actually makes for pretty good reading. Couple of excerpts:
"... active equity funds just absorbed their biggest inflows in 2 1/2 years, according to BAML. This is a sign of confidence not just for the market, but for fund managers that make their living picking stocks. It's a rare bright spot for active management, which has struggled alongside the rise of the red-hot ETF industry."
"... Institutional investors are also holding the lowest levels of cash since the start of the eight-year bull market, survey data compiled by Citigroup show. The measure now sits at less than one-third of a multi-year high reached in 2016."
The first quote seems to explain (at least partially) the fact that S&P ETFs are seeing steady outflows (see other thread). Looks like maybe some of that is going into actively managed funds.
I'm a bit perplexed re the second quote. Are MFs counted as institutional investors? In that case, there would seem to be a contradiction, as just about every actively managed fund I own has been raising cash over the past 3-6 months. (Of course, T. Rowe could be the exception.)
Good article. Just touched on a couple things that stood out to me.

In global markets, all signs of sentiment are pointing up. And it's that very unbridled enthusiasm that could spell their downfall.
http://www.businessinsider.com/stock-market-today-record-low-cash-active-manager-inflows-2017-7?utm_content=buffer62e57&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer-finance

FYI: AS I THINK BACK over the past three decades, I have one overriding investment regret.
No, it has nothing to do with the investments I bought. For much of the past 30 years, I’ve owned a globally diversified portfolio, with 100% in stocks when I was younger and closer to 70% now that I’m in my mid-50s. Initially, I owned actively managed funds and a few individual stocks, but I substituted index funds as they became available, so my stock performance has been what you would expect—very similar to the broad market.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.humbledollar.com/2017/07/looking-bad/

"The first that you may notice when looking at the simple index funds compared to the complex funds is the difference in expense ratios. ... The simple index fund ... does very little trading, which is what helps it keep its expense ratio so low."
Sigh. Trading costs are excluded from expense ratios, so a lack of trading cannot be what keeps a fund's ER low.
WSJ: "Portfolio managers can rack up steep expenses buying and selling securities, but that burden isn't reflected in a fund's standard expense ratio."

@Davidrmoran There are obvious differences between these politicians. What I am saying is Mooch's once supporting Dems doesn't strike me as a sign of moderation but more so a hedge fund manager's expedience. (Or does expedience count as moderation these days? I'm not asking that facetiously.) A number of hedge fund managers supported Clinton and Obama in 2008 and then when Dodd Frank and the Consumer Protection Act came out switched teams, resenting any form of regulation.
There was a track record for them to believe especially in Clinton's case that she would be a friend to the Street. Both parties have been. While Republicans designed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act or the Financial Services Modernization Act which deregulated Wall Street in 1999, Bill Clinton eagerly signed it into law. He was also a supporter of much of the deregulation that occurred in the 1990s--deregulation that allowed many financial service firms to make a mint off M& A activity.
There is no moral equivalency I am claiming though between these three, merely stating that Wall Street never saw any of them until recently as enemies.

@davidrmoran There are two things going on--one is the pursuit of raw power regardless of which party. Trump himself was once a Clinton donor until it no longer suited his ends. The other is an undying love for all things Wall Street. Both Trump and Hillary are friends of Wall Street no matter what either of them says otherwise. As was Obama, contrary to popular belief:
https://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=n00009638
While such a pro-Street ideology might be suitable for the head of an exchange or investment bank, it is not necessarily ideal for the communications director to the most powerful public servant in the world. I wonder if this will affect the fiduciary rule in some way.
Here's an interesting take on the appointment from one financial adviser who supports the fiduciary rule:
https://riabiz.com/a/2017/7/22/in-letter-to-riabiz-ron-rhoades-reacts-to-the-ardent-of-dol-rule-detractor-commandeering-the-white-house-microphone
Obviously hedge funds charging 2% of assets and 20% of profits might not fair so well in a world where advisers must always put their clients interests first.

I watched his 1st day at the WH press room, doing Q&A with the national press. He struck me as very impressive.
Its on youtube, for anyone who is interested.

FYI: One of the downsides of the fund industry boom is that it has produced some offerings that are risky, expensive and, often times, misunderstood.
Regards,
Ted
http://mutualfunds.com/education/how-short-selling-and-leverage-impact-mutual-funds-returns/?utm_source=MutualFunds.com&utm_campaign=ad00745ab1-Dispatch_Weekend_Engage_07_22_2017&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_83e106a88d-ad00745ab1-290921629

Yes, I forgot he was the guy who chaired the attempted revival of Wall Street Week.

Wasn't that the show that premiered with a backdrop so cluttered, fast changing, and irrelevant to Wall Street (Times Square) that viewers were distracted from the program's content?
Seems like a perfect fit.

FYI: Even as the S&P 500 Index clawed its way to a fresh record and squeezed out a third consecutive weekly gain, signs of fading enthusiasm in U.S. stocks have become increasingly difficult to ignore.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-21/record-s-p-500-failing-to-stem-steadiest-fund-outflow-since-2009

I've heard him on the money shows. He fits in with the Trumpster. No conscience. Slick. Or should I say, "greasy?" @Ted, I just gotta post this one, because one good turn deserves another: (From "Harold & Maude." One of Harold's death scenes.)

Yes, it's that Anthony Scaramucci:
skybridgecapital.com/about-skybridge/managing-partners/
The same one who compared the fiduciary rule to the legalization of slavery in the Dred Scott decision:
businessinsider.com/anthony-scaramucci-white-house-communications-2017-7
Is this political or fund related:
investmentnews.com/article/20161021/BLOG09/161029976/knut-rostad-trump-adviser-anthony-scaramucci-should-apologize-for
skybridgecapital.com/investment-solutions/our-funds/mutual-funds/
I suppose it counts as both.

In this case, mainly because he never just comes out with a call ("foreign sovereigns look like the place to be the next 15 years or so", "everyone thinks Treasuries are going up, but oil prices tell a different story so we're positioning ourselves differently", etc.) -- he wraps his "read" up in some pseudo-literary naval gazing.
And, among the would be poets out there, he's the worst.