I guess in the spirit of full disclosure I am having a bad, a really, really bad year. After a bang up 2014 and 2015, this year I am up 5.58%.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but with a well allocated portfolio including stocks, bonds and cash, a YTD return of 5.58% is actually pretty good. And frankly, if you could finish the year up 6-8% in this type of environment, I'd say you did well.
But, that's just me.

Waylon Jennings sang:
Lookin' for love
I've spent a lifetime looking for you
Single bars and good time lovers, never true
Playing a fools game, hoping to win
Telling those sweet lies and losing again.
I was looking for love in all the wrong places
Looking for love in too many faces
Searching your eyes, looking for traces
Of what.. I'm dreaming of...
Love/lovers being the love of an investment relative to the topic here. Sometimes folks are so in love, that they don't see and leave a bad relationship.
Regards,
Catch
I must be in a nitpicking mood today. The song was # 1 on the country billboard sometime in 1980 and sung by Johnny Lee from the movie Urban Cowboy. Was it covered at some point by Waylon Jennings?

Old-Skeet I am not trying to start anything here as I have always found you legit - something that can't be said for some that post on investing and especially trading boards. But you are the only investor I have ever seen anywhere anyplace that breaks down your returns minus cash. Everyone else breaks down returns based on their total portfolio balance - cash included.

I have to agree. If a trading portfolio is up 100% for the year but the trading portfolio is 10% and cash is 90% of the total, excluding cash does not give a true picture.

Hi @Mindy
@jerry noted: "U.S. Treasuries are a disaster..." My take on this quote from Mr. Snowball's July commentary is the wording stated to Mr. Snowball from Mr. Hasenstab. If I am incorrect, someone please state otherwise.
Disclosure: We were invested in Mr. Hasenstab's global bond fund for about 2.5 years, selling the holding in March, 2012.
Selected bond reference total returns, March 2012 - July 1, 2016
---TPINX, +6.6%
---IEF, +16.6%
---HYG, +20.2%
---EMB, +23.8%
---TLT, +42.5%
---EDV, +62%
As to the "Treasuries are a disaster", I would require a full explanation of the statement and to what time frame, past and/or present, from Mr. Hasenstab causes the disaster word. As Mr. Hasenstab has vastly more investment/economic studies versus my ongoing studies at Whats-a-matter U; I could only guess as to the decision making process for his investment choices. The presumption being that he is a dedicated value investor in the world of bonds. Not unlike Eric Cinnamon mentioned here recently searching for the ultimate values in the world of equity or whatever. Perhaps both managers have been sidetracked by the total dynamics of continued changes in the money flows of the global markets since the market melt. Sometimes it is difficult to deal with the "this time it is different".
Although our house is still bond slanted, I am not a fan of how this low interest rate environment is going to resolve. Money borrowing is dirt cheap, and will likely continue to temp more buyout/takeover action (whether sensible or not); as well as affects on consumer borrowing/spending.
However, until economies become more settled; I expect investment grade bonds to remain stable. The economies today are being pushed and shoved hard by politics and society in general.
Flexible and adaptable perhaps do not always fit into a managers mold of what he/she views as "what should be"; versus the real outcomes.
I suspect most here are really value investors. We want to buy cheap and sell at a higher price, yes? When the investment gears don't turn in the anticipated directions, value can become a sink hole.
Johnny Lee (Urban Cowboy movie) sang:
Lookin' for love
I've spent a lifetime looking for you
Single bars and good time lovers, never true
Playing a fools game, hoping to win
Telling those sweet lies and losing again.
I was looking for love in all the wrong places
Looking for love in too many faces
Searching your eyes, looking for traces
Of what.. I'm dreaming of...
Love/lovers being the love of an investment relative to the topic here. Sometimes folks are so in love, that they don't see and leave a bad relationship.
Regards,
Catch

@MFO Members: (From an earlier link "Markets Confound In Year's First Half."
With dividends included, the Standard & Poor’s 500 index returned 3.84% in the year’s first six months, according to Bianco Research. Meanwhile, the Treasury’s benchmark 10-year note returned roughly twice that, 7.97%, and the 30-year bond returned more than four times as much, 16.93%—its third-best start of the year on record. Even dowdy municipal bonds did better than stocks, with a 4.33%
Regards,
Ted

Here's the "Adjusting to Changing Markets" page you cited.
Those moves seem right; they comply with the 31 day rule (no reversals within 31 days, but they are allowed to make additional changes in the same direction).
January 7: 30% stocks (increase), because S&P dropped below 2000 (1990 on Jan 6th)
January 11: 35% stocks (increase), because S&P dropped below 1925 (1922 on Jan 8th)
January 12: no change. S&P went back over 1925 (but 31 day rule prevented immediate reversal; couldn't decrease stocks).
January 13-29: no change. S&P remained within 1850-1925 band (35% stocks).
January 29 - February 1: no change. S&P went back over 1925, but 31 day rule was still in effect, so no decrease in stocks was allowed.
Feb 12: 40% stocks (increase), because S&P dropped below 1850 (1829 on Feb 11).
Feb 13 - March 13: no change. 31 day rule prevented decrease in stocks, even though S&P rose.
March 14: 25% stock (decrease), because S&P was over 2000 (2022 on March 13), and fund could reverse direction - it had waited 31 days since it increased stocks.
--------
My concern is with the Brexit trading. Taking your suggestion, I did send email to Columbia. But I erred in that email. Here's what did happen, and why the fund did not capture Brexit:
March 14: 25% stock (decrease)
April 14: 20% stock (decrease), because S&P rose above 2075 (2082 on April 13).
April 15 - May 14: no change. 31 day rule prevented increase in stocks, even though S&P dropped below 2075 in late April/early May.
May 16: 25% stock (increase), because S&P closed at 2066 on May 13th. This was below the new 2100 threshold effective May 1st. (2025-2100 range for 25% stock allocation.)
May 17-June 15: no change. 31 day rule prevents decrease in stocks. To increase stocks, S&P would have to close below 2025, which didn't happen.
June 16: - June 22: no change. S&P remained between 2025 and 2100 (25% stock allocation)
June 24: 20% stock (decrease), because S&P rose above 2100 on June 23.
June 25-June 30: no change, because 31 day rule prevented fund from increasing stock allocation, even as the S&P dipped below 2000.
Because of the 31 day rule, the fund was not allowed to buy stocks low (June 24-June 30) and sell high (July).
It was required to stand pat. It may make sense for funds to ride out rapid market movements. So I don't generally fault funds for missing this type of trading opportunity. But I'd like that miss to be for tactical, not tax reasons.

Hi @Charles,
Thanks for posting how SPY & AGG has performed and split 50/50 would have performed with a return of about 5.75%. This is something that I monitor but in mutual fund form and not in etf form.
My mutual fund 50/50 portfolio that I track is up 4.4% vs. the etf 50/50 being up 4.75%. To me, this reflects that the etf is out performing due to lower cost associated with most ets today but might not reflect all investment cost if the etf's are held in a wrap account.
With some skill and luck the investment return of my portfolio (excluding cash) according to Morningstar's portfolio manager is up 5.5% year-to-date and when factoring in trading profits puts me up about another percent. With this, I am "feeling pretty good" (as Flo says in the Progressive Insurance commericals)... and, especially, when I consider the current investment climate we have all faced over the past couple of years. My engineer high school buddy, that I have reference in some previous post, is up about the same as I am as we have both at times used some adaptive allocation strategies. He uses only mutual fund of indexes within his portfolio for the S&P 500 Stock Index and the Aggerate Bond Index.
While my portfolio is more complex and offers a higher income generation his is more simplified with lower income generation with his portfolio currently slightly edging me out on a total return basis for the one, three and five year periods but not over a full market cycle of the past ten years.
We are both happy with our results as we both wear smiles on our faces. Indeed, investing has been good to both of us.

Old-Skeet I am not trying to start anything here as I have always found you legit - something that can't be said for some that post on investing and especially trading boards. But you are the only investor I have ever seen anywhere anyplace that breaks down your returns minus cash. Everyone else breaks down returns based on their total portfolio balance - cash included. I am just curious why you do this. Now you throw in "when factoring trading profits". So I guess the question is assuming no withdrawals or additions, what are you up based on 1/1/16 total balance to 7/01/16 total balance.
Edit. I guess in the spirit of full disclosure I am having a bad, a really, really bad year. After a bang up 2014 and 2015, this year I am up 5.58%. I am lagging the returns of both junk corp and junk munis. Lots of reasons for my underperformance but primarily due to a lifestyle change. The only comfort I get from my low return is my worst drawdown in 2016 has been under 0.80%. But were I to figure a YTD percentage excluding cash I would be up probably 8% to 9%, albeit it would be difficult to compute. But regardless, excluding cash seems to me to be a totally meaningless and bogus percentage.

Skeet, how did you come to it over NOBL or SCHD or the like, for the past year much less since fall '13 when Pettee took charge?

Imagine that ...
SPY investors just had to withstand another 10% drawdown and a 5% dip for good measure, while AGG investors have enjoyed a pretty easy ride.

Hi @MFS,
Not to keep lingering of the subject; but, it seems while it is increasing its position in stocks funds, it is decreasing its position in bond funds, unless it has an ample cash position to absorb its trading activity. However, from reading what has been written under "Adjusting to Changing Markets," it does not seem, to me, to not be following the 31 day trading rule in all of its rebalancing and new positioning moves. Still it is a fund that I own and I continue to add new money to. Your arguement (debate) should not so much with me ... as I feel ... it should be presented to the fund company itself. Perhaps they can provide some clairty to their rebalancing and new positioning moves. I have only written on what I have read and made comment on what I felt would explain or what might would have allowed them to make new positioning moves when the 31 days had not elasped. And, you have only written on what you have been reading. I guess, it will be up to the fund company to better explain these rebalancing and positioning moves should you choose to contact them for comment. Perhaps, this is something you will make further comment on in your coming writtings on this fund. Still, it is a neat fund, by my thinking, and the only one that I am aware of like it. Do you know of others?
Again, thanks mfs for making your comment(s). I enjoyed reading what you have written because it provides someone else's take on a fund that I feel employs a neat, clever and simple investment strategy for that of a mutual fund.
Have a great 4th of July ... and, most of all ... I wish all good investing.
Old_Skeet

FYI: Timothy Pettee is beating all of his stock picking rivals without spending a lot of time picking stocks.
Pettee, who runs the $11.5 billion SunAmerica Focused Dividend Strategy Portfolio, selects 30 stocks only once a year using a quantitative model that does the heavy lifting. The mutual fund has returned 9.7 percent a year on average over the past decade, the best performance among more than 260 U.S. large-cap value funds, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-01/a-12-billion-fund-beats-all-peers-picking-stocks-once-a-year
M* Snapshot FDSAX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/FDSAX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot FDSAX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/FDSAX
FDSAX Is Ranked # 54 In The (LCV) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-value/sunamerica-focused-dividend-strategy-portfolio/fdsax

The rule itself is simple, though the prospectus states it in language that's a bit too compact.
You're not allowed to reverse direction within 31 days. So if the fund increases its stock allocation, it can increase it further, but if it wants to decrease its stock allocation, it has to wait 31 days since it last increased the stock allocation.
Likewise, if the fund increases its bond allocation (i.e. decreases its stock allocation), it can increase bonds further. But it can't start selling off bond funds until 31 days since it last increased its bond holdings.
In your example, stocks go up (1/11/16), then up more (2/2/16). Before going down, it must wait 31 days (until 3/4/16). So it's allowed to reduce stocks on 3/14, having waited more than 31 days.
The rule as stated in the prospectus:
"after the Fund has increased its percentage allocation to either stock funds or bond funds, it will not decrease that allocation for at least 31 days"

What oil price collapse? Up 17% YTD. Junk bonds as of Friday's close are at all time highs. Doesn't sound like end of the world stuff to me.

Hi again @MFS,
In reference to CTFAX ...
It appears from review of addition fund literature titled "Adjusting to Changing Markets" under sub heading "Rebalancing" ...
On 1/1/16 with S&P 500 level 1990 the fund held 30% stocks and 70% bonds.
On 1/11/16 with S&P 500 level 1922 the fund held 35% stocks and 65% bonds.
On 2/2/16 with S&P level 1829 the fund held 40% stocks and 60% bonds.
On 3/14/16 with S&P level 2022 the fund held 25% stocks and 75% bonds.
Therefore, it seems that it did not employ the 31 day trading rule in increasing its equity allocation while it did employ it in reducing its allocation to equities but not bond funds. Note when it was increasing its allocation to its equity funds it was reducing its allocation to the bond funds held. With this, it seems to me the 31 day trading rule applied some of the time but perhaps not all the time. Note the dates 1/1/16, 1/11/16 and 2/2/16 ... I am not finding that 31 days elasped between these dates. Perhaps it applies only if the 30 day loss sale rule applies? Not sure; but it sure seems that could be a possibility. And, another possibility might be if they have ample cash to cover new positioning.
And, so it goes.

Hi @msf,
Thank you for making comment about a fund that I made mention of and that is CTFAX. I realize that the fund is not for everyone. No doubt, you must be one of those investors that does not favor the fund. I got to tell you, though, it is both one I favor and one that I own.

I appreciate that you like it, and it seems to have performed adequately. But I believe that's in spite of its design, not because of it. I'll start a new thread later going into detail.

You bring up a point about this fund and its use of the its 31 day trading rule (loss sell rule). I'd also like to note inorder for the loss sale rule to be utilized there has to be a loss. If securities are sold at a profit then the rule does not apply.

Here's the link to the Columbia commentary you quoted below. It goes on to state:
"Please note: the fund employs a 31-day trading rule to help reduce the risk of taxable events. if the fund has increased the allocation to stock or bond funds, it will not decrease that allocation for 31 days."
As in the prospectus, this is stated as an unconditional rule: it will not rather than it may not. You can fault me for being too legalistic here, but that's what the prospectus is, a legal document. IMHO (and it sounds like in your opinion as well), the rule is too conservative, but there it is.

Additional comment ... In checking current fund trading details at Columbia ... below is what they state.
"On 6/23/16, the S&P 500 Index closed at 2113.32 which is above the fund's 2100 price level threshold, resulting in an increase to the fixed-income fund exposure in the portfolio." My comment ...
[...]
With the Brexit pullback the S&P500 Index did not close below the fund's closing price threshold thus the fund to trigger a new buy thus the fund did not increase its allocation to equities during the Brexit pullback. Not because of the 31 day trading rule (loss sale rule) but because the price level of the Index did not close below the threshold requiring it to increase its allocation to equities.
My records indicate that on 6/23 the 500 Index closed at 2113 ... on 6/24 at 2037 ... on 6/27 at 2000 ... on 6/28 at 2038 ... on 6/29 at 2071 ... on 6/30 at 2099 ... and, on 7/1 at 2103.

A minor quibble and then a look at the numbers. Despite the fund's commentary referring to S&P 500 Index closing price, the prospectus says nothing about the S&P 500® Index closing price, just the S&P 500® Index level (with no restriction on time of day given). Nevertheless, let's work with the closing prices.
The prospectus says that "When the S&P 500® Index moves into a new band on the table, the Fund will rebalance the stock/bond mix to reflect the new S&P 500® Index price level" (with exceptions like the 31 day rule).
That's pretty clear - the allocation is determined strictly by the value of the S&P 500 index, not its motion up or down.
The relevant bands are:
2100-2175: 20% stock/80% bond
2025-2100: 25% stock/75% bond
1950-2025: 30% stock/70% bond
As you observed, the index closed in the 25/75 band on 6/24, and in the 30/70 band on 6/25. Two thresholds were crossed on the way down: 2100 and 2025. The fund didn't add stocks to its 20/80 portfolio, because that would have been a reversal from its 6/23 change, where it reduced stocks.
(Actually, I believe the commentary is wrong - the index rose above 2100 on June 2nd, so the fund should have reduced stocks to 20% then. For the rest of June, i.e. within 31 days, it could not have reversed direction and increased stocks. Thus on 6/22, it still had a 20/80 allocation, and the fact that the index went above 2100 on 6/23 didn't matter. The fund already had a 20/80 allocation.)

"U.S. Treasuries are a disaster. Treasuries have been propped up by international buyers, mostly Asia or OPEC, who needed to find something to do with their trillions of excess US dollars. The oil price collapse and a sputtering Chinese economy have pretty much put an end to such buying. Treasury yields could drop to European levels; that is, zero or below."
I don't get it;If treasury yields drop to European levels won't I make a reasonable capital gain on my treasury bonds
I can even market time by selling at 10 year yield = .5 and so get out before the "smart money" who is watching this stuff on an hourly basis/So the question is why are treasuries a disaster?

Interesting even while trivial. Exact M* update timing may be problematic for totals and endpoints even involving recent-past data. If I were editorial director I would probably advise a small disclaimer or qualifier near the graph of 10k growth. As for NAV issues, I wonder if paras 3,4,5 below are accurate (assume so):
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052815/what-difference-between-etfs-net-asset-value-nav-and-its-market-price.asp

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/826732/000119312516640530/d221359d497.htm
497 1 d221359d497.htm 497
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
File Nos. 033-19228 and 811-05443
CALAMOS® INVESTMENT TRUST
Supplement dated July 1, 2016 to the CALAMOS® FAMILY OF FUNDS Summary Prospectuses for Class A, B and C and Class I and R of Calamos Mid Cap Growth Fund both dated February 29, 2016, the Summary Prospectuses for Class A and C and Class I and R of Calamos Discovery Growth Fund, both dated February 29, 2016, Prospectuses for Class A, B and C and Class I and R, both dated February 29, 2016, as supplemented on March 14, 2016 and on June 10, 2016, and the Statement of Additional Information dated February 29, 2016, as supplemented on March 14, 2016 and on June 10, 2016.
The Summary Prospectuses, Prospectuses and Statements of Additional Information for the Calamos Investment Trust (the “Trust”) are hereby supplemented. The following information supersedes any information to the contrary regarding the Calamos Discovery Growth Fund and Calamos Mid Cap Growth Fund (each a “Fund” and, collectively, the “Funds”) each a series of the Trust, contained in the Summary Prospectuses, Prospectuses and Statements of Additional Information:
The Funds will be liquidated on or about October 6, 2016 (the “Liquidation Date”).
Effective August 1, 2016, the Funds will stop accepting purchases from new investors and existing shareholders,
except that defined contribution retirement plans that hold Fund shares as of July 1, 2016 may continue to purchase Fund shares through September 29, 2016 and existing shareholders may continue to reinvest dividends and capital gains distributions received from the Funds through September 29, 2016. The Funds reserve the right to modify the extent to which sales of shares are limited prior to a Fund’s liquidation. After the close of business on the Liquidation Date, the Funds will liquidate any remaining shareholder accounts and will send shareholders the proceeds of the liquidation.
Each Fund intends to declare and pay any dividends required to distribute its investment company taxable income, net capital gains, and net tax-exempt income accrued in the Fund’s taxable year ending at to the Liquidation Date or any in any prior taxable year in which the Fund is eligible to declare and pay a dividend. These dividends will be taxable to shareholders who do not hold their shares in a tax-advantaged account such as an IRA or 401(k). You should check with your investment professional and tax professional regarding the potential impact of the Funds’ liquidation to your individual financial plan and tax situation.
At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may redeem their shares of a Fund pursuant to the procedures set forth under the section “How can I sell (redeem) shares?” in the Prospectus, as supplemented. Shareholders may also exchange their shares, subject to the restrictions on exchanges as described under the section “How can I sell (redeem) shares? — By exchange” in the Prospectus, as supplemented. Any such redemption or exchange of a Fund’s shares for shares of another fund will generally be considered a taxable event for federal income tax purposes. Shareholders who hold their shares in a Fund through a financial intermediary should contact their financial representative to discuss their options with respect to the liquidation and the distribution of such shareholders’ redemption proceeds.
Subsequent to the liquidation of the Funds, all references to the Funds in each Fund’s Summary Prospectus, Prospectus, and Statement of Additional Information are hereby removed.
Please retain this supplement for future reference
MFSPT3 07/16

Hi @msf,
Thank you for making comment about a fund that I made mention of and that is CTFAX. I realize that the fund is not for everyone. No doubt, you must be one of those investors that does not favor the fund. I got to tell you, though, it is both one I favor and one that I own.
You bring up a point about this fund and its use of the its 31 day trading rule (loss sell rule). I'd also like to note inorder for the loss sale rule to be utilized there has to be a loss. If securities are sold at a profit then the rule does not apply. I am thinking they increased their allocation to equities during the Brexit pullback. Anyway, I'll be checking for information on this and when available I'll post.
Thanks again for your comment.
Old_Skeet
Additional comment ... In checking current fund trading details at Columbia ... below is what they state.
"On 6/23/16, the S&P 500 Index closed at 2113.32 which is above the fund's 2100 price level threshold, resulting in an increase to the fixed-income fund exposure in the portfolio." My comment ...This reduced the equity allocation from 25% to 20% and increased the fixed allocation from 75% to 80%. During the January/February pullback it had raised its equity allocation to about 40% and has now reduced it to the 20% range.
With the Brexit pullback the S&P500 Index did not close below the fund's closing price threshold thus their was no trigger for the fund to buy equities and increase its allocation in them. Not because of the 31 day trading rule (loss sale rule) but because the price level of the Index did not close below the threshold requiring it to increase its allocation to equities.
My records indicate that on 6/23 the 500 Index closed at 2113 ... on 6/24 at 2037 ... on 6/27 at 2000 ... on 6/28 at 2038 ... on 6/29 at 2071 ... on 6/30 at 2099 ... and, on 7/1 at 2103.
I hold this fund in my hybrid income sleeve since it appears, for the most part, to be a bond fund that loads equities during stock market pullbacks. Indeed a neat hybrid type fund by my thinking giving a fixed income investor some exposure to equities when warranted.

M* may update the security prices at different times.
As I wrote above, what you were seeing for VOO was NAV performance through June 30th, not July 31st. The graph has since been updated for the exchange traded security, and VOO shows a YTD return of $403.49. Not a perfect match, but $403.49 is a whole lot closer to $404 and change than was the "old" return of $381 and change.
As to the 0.0061% (61 cent) difference in YTD performance between the two share classes, we're back to noise. Easily attributable to the fact that reinvestment price is not well defined for ETFs, not to mention that the dividends are distributed (and thus reinvested) on different days for the two share classes.
I do still claim that sizeable differences are due to comparing different figures - price return vs. NAV return.
The graph shows NAV returns only. But even if it showed market returns, it wouldn't match your investment to the penny. That's because it can't use the exact same reinvestment price/time as your broker does.
If you invested $10K in the same ETF at the same time at two brokers, your ending values would be different. Obviously no graph could match both of those results at the same time. See Heisenberg.
Finally, regarding the VFIAX return. For open end funds, it appears M* is doing the "simple" thing you seemed to want at the outset - when you ask for the return from January 1st to now, it gives the full YTD return.
When you ask for the return from December 31st, it includes the return on December 31st as well as on all the subsequent days. That is, it uses the Dec 30th closing price as its starting point.
It is giving you returns for all days including the end points, e.g.
Jan 1 <= each day's return <= July 1 (uses Dec. 31 close and July 1 close)
Dec 31 <= each day's return <= July 1 (uses Dec 30 close and July 1 close)