Hi @Catch22,
Thanks for posting the findings from your study.
I have also enclosed a link below to a study that @Ted posted in another post about this topic and strategy. The study provides returns based upon different investment concepts for the off season.
http://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/should-you-sell-may-go-away?nopaging=1
Now, for this year I have sold equities down thus far instead of going to all cash I put some into a few hybrid income funds, some into a bond fund, some into a couple of opening positions in a CD Ladder and also some to cash.
I've made some good money with the strategy this season ... and, rather than see it get vaporized by some geopolitical mess I felt it was harvest time so I am now in the process of reducing my equity allocation towards the low range within my asset allocation. When completed my portfolio should bubble somewhere around 45% equity in Instant Xray. So, even if equities continue to rally through the summer I will still be at the equity party.
I'm not saying by any means what I am doing is right for others.
Take care ... and, thanks again for posting your findings.
Old_Skeet

This is my AC/BC (after coffee/before chores) 2 cents worth on this Saturday morning.
The purpose of this bond view is whether one's investments would have fared better "IF" selling equities in May and purchasing a bond fund, instead of moving the money to a money market cash holding.
The example choices below were a bit random and you likely have your own bond fund list. PIMIX is probably the big outsider here, as a bond fund, as PIMCO uses a fair amount of "magic sauce" machinations with many of their funds. Any front load funds are presumed to have been purchased load-waived for purposes of total returns. ALSO, the sells and buys would likely not be productive for reasons of taxation; and therefore, would be of benefit only within a tax sheltered investment portfolio.
A bond fund(s) overview for total return during the May-Nov period, relative to the sell in May theory for equity holdings. Most funds are investment grade corporate bond, with outright exceptions being FTBFX and PIMIX . I can not verify the holdings of the funds and/or any changes that were performed during these time periods; as an investment grade corporate bond fund may have been allowed by their prospectus to "drift" a percentage of holdings into other bond type holdings: i.e., high yield, mortgage or government issues. After spending 42.5 hours (actually a few hours of digging) :) with this project; this is as good as it gets for my pay grade here. Wish for better formatting layout and I'll edit for some cleanup after the initial post.
A few notes from my old brain cells: Keep in mind the massive quantitative easing from the Fed. Reserve during the early period of these date ranges. 2008 was, of course; the big equity melt; 2009 the recovery in equities, 2010 and 2011 still found unresolved problems in Europe in particular and 2011 found the downgrade in July of U.S. government debt from its AAA rating. 2013 bond performance started the year normally, and then; in May, when Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke suggested that the Fed may soon “taper” its quantitative easing policy, profit taking temporary killed off the bond market. The ten year yield hit about 3% in September of this year. Alas, in the fall of 2013; it was announced that taper "would not" take place "yet". 2015 was a twitch of thought that the 30+ year bond rally was going to end, any day now; and "soon" interest rates are going to rise back to "normal" levels.
......... 2008... 2009... 2010... 2011... 2012... 2013... 2014... 2015... 2016...
FTBFX -8.1% +12.4% +5.5% +.1% +3.5% -1.6% +1.8% -1.2% +3%
PIMIX -8.7% +16.8% +11.3% +4% +11% -.5% +3.3% +.2% +4.6%
VFICX -12.5% +13.5% +7.4% +2.5% +5% -2.6% +1.9% 0 -.5%
PIGIX -12.3% +16% +8% +.5% +7.2% -4.4% +3.7% -.6% +4.1%
ACCBX -16.2% +17.6% +3.4% -1% +3.6% -2.5% +2.3% -1.6% +3.8%
MFBFX -13.1% +19.1% +6.7% +1.9% +5% -2.2% +2% -1.3% +2.8%
EDV* +6.7% -1.6% +6.4% +46.7% +9.2% -18% +12% -.2% +3.2%
IEF* +.8% -.1% +10.3% +11.7% +3.1% -5% +3.4% +1% +.7%
SPY* -33.5% +23.6% -.6% -6% +8.5% +11% +6.4% +.5% +.3%
* EDV=Vanguard Extended Duration Bond, IEF=Gov't. 7-10 year issues, SPY=S&P500. Three and four digit tickers no longer highlight here, at MFO.
Well, surely not a scientific study; so you may gather what you choose from the above. Let us know if you discover any errors.
Take care,
Catch

Hi Guys,
All the tools discussed here are variations of market timing schemes. As the posts suggest, there are an endless number count of these techniques, some of which are highly sophisticated.
I don't participate in this investment ritual. For the most part, I make portfolio adjustments about twice a year and it's not in that May deadline timeframe.
Here is a Link that nicely summarizes why I am not a very active participant:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonmoore/2016/03/07/the-myth-of-market-timing/#272c87f0461e
In its closing paragraph it accurately summarizes my feelings on this matter: "All of this is not to say that timing is impossible, but the odds appear in favor of the buy and hold investor rather than the market timer. "
I practice that conclusion because I'm not a learned, self-confident investor, and I'm not prepared to pay the time price to become one. I thank you active market players for your dedication and for keeping the marketplace fluid. There is plenty of room for alternate investment approaches and each may be successful ( or otherwise).
"I will look at any additional evidence to confirm the opinion to which I have already come." That's
Lord Molaon, an Englishman, speaking. We seek conformation. We all are burdened with our own biases. I wish us all luck in overcoming them. We surely need that luck.
Best Wishes

I know. I'll RMD on May 1, buy a 6 month CD, then at the end of the 6 months, invest in a tax managed equity fund (or defense or healthcare depending on the weather).

@Paul: Your a day late and a dollar short when it comes to the M* Conference that Davis Snowball and other MFO staff will be attending. That information was given on 4/10/17.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/32359/m-investment-conference-chicago-2017-april-26-28-mccormick-place#latest

Mutual fund X has $200 worth of assets, and has 10 shares outstanding. I go to the distributor of fund X, hand it $20. I am issued one share. Fund X now has $220 worth of assets, and with 11 shares outstanding, each share represents a 1/11 interest in those assets, i.e. $20.
You may choose to view this as my getting a single share of the fund, a security worth $20 based on current market price. Or you may choose to regard this transaction as providing me a 1/11 interest (worth $20) in a $220 portfolio of securities and cash. Either way, I've received 100c on the dollar. No overhead.
When one purchases shares through a DRIP plan, one may even get a discount. See, e.g. WTR's plan (5% discount on dividend reinvestments).
Not many companies offer DRIPs at discounts with no set up fees, no maintenance fees, no purchase fees, but a few like WTR do. (WTR does charge an annual fee if you want the shares in an IRA.) Can't say it never happens.

You might be interested in Polaris Global Value PGVFX. Under 100 holdings, mix of mid, small and large caps, around 60% international. Same team also runs the successful Pear Tree Polaris Foreign Value Small Cap fund QUSOX.
MFO previously profiled PGVFX here: http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2014/12/polaris-global-value-pgvfx-december-2014/

Howdy folks,
War is 'destruction economics'. You use up bullets and bombs and have to make more. You take your unemployed and put them in uniform and have to replace them accordingly. Geez, the Egyptians building pyramids added more value.
Bring the troops home and defend the shores and you could cut the defense budget by $60B/year while making them stronger and better equipped and trained. cretins.
BTW, here is George Patton's real speech. Put the kids to bed first.
http://www.pattonhq.com/speech.html
And as someone coming up on my 50th anniversary, here at the top quotes from our current SOD - Mad Dog Mattis who was CG of the 1stMarDiv
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/the-best-from-mad-dog-mattis/
and so it goes,
peace,
Sgt. O
CoA, 1stReconBn, 1st Marine Division, RVN 3/68-11/69

>> getting $10K of securities for $10K.
Roger all, again, ... but why do you keep putting it like this?
Only in a world of no trading costs, and no other costs either. Not only does it never happen, it ought never to happen. (And it never does happen.) That was my point. I remain perplexed about why you put it as you do. It costs something to get you your $10k of securities, does it not?

@MFO Members: From the Scout Website.
Regards,
Ted
http://scoutinv.com/resources/documents/press/CTA_April_2017_Announcement.pdf?c=1492723270799
InvestmentNews Article:
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20170420/FREE/170429982/raymond-james-to-pay-172m-for-scout-investments
M* Scout Family Of Funds:
http://quicktake.morningstar.com/fundfamily/scout/0C00004ALR/fund-list.aspx

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1105128/000168028917000111/20170418scoutfunds497.htm
497 1 20170418scoutfunds497.htm
Scout Investments
Scout International Fund
Scout Emerging Markets Fund
Scout Global Equity Fund
Scout Equity Opportunity Fund
Scout Mid Cap Fund
Scout Small Cap Fund
Scout Low Duration Bond Fund
Scout Core Bond Fund
Scout Core Plus Bond Fund
Scout Unconstrained Bond Fund
(collectively, the "Funds")
Supplement dated April 20, 2017 to the Prospectus dated October 31, 2016, as supplemented
The following supplements the information about the Funds' investment adviser, Scout Investments, Inc. ("Scout"), included in the Prospectus. Scout is a wholly-owned subsidiary of UMB Financial Corporation ("UMB").
On April 20, 2017, UMB announced that it signed a definitive agreement to sell Scout to Carillon Tower Advisers, Inc. (the "Transaction"). The Transaction is subject to certain regulatory approvals, as well as other conditions to closing. In connection with this announcement, the Funds' Board of Trustees will meet to consider various matters related to the Transaction affecting the Funds. The Funds' Prospectus will be further supplemented to announce the Board's determinations.
You should keep this Supplement for future reference. Additional copies of the Prospectus may be obtained free of charge by calling (800) 996-2862.
Scout Investments

I think we're all in agreement that funds (whether OEF or ETF) provide a valuable service for which they deserve fair compensation (management fees) and fees to cover reasonable costs (legal fees, servicing your account, handling proxy material, etc.).
Open end shares and exchange traded shares are two ways to gain access to this service. ISTM that the more middlemen that are involved, the more costs are layered on, even if they're not called out explicitly. These might include spreads with ETFs, and shelf space fees at brokerages for OEFs (especially ones sold NTF).
One may feel that these additional fees are also worth it for value received. But if one does not want to pay the middleman (explicitly or implicitly), then one needs to go directly to the fund sponsor. That's something one can't do with an ETF. (One also can't do that with CEFs or with some open end fund companies like Janus, that sell to retail customers only via brokers.)
That's what I meant by getting $10K of securities for $10K. I don't want to pay the middleman. (Though I confess that I find Fidelity's $5 fee worth the price to gain the convenience of not having to open yet another account elsewhere.)
There can be oddball cases. Vanguard Emerging Market Index fund used to charge a fee (I think it was 1%) when you bought open end shares of the fund. This was to cover the trading costs incurred by the fund in procuring stocks with your investment dollars.
That fee made it possible for the ETF share class VWO to be cheaper to buy, at least assuming the market price was close to the NAV. All you had to pay for the ETF was the spread and any commissions. So you might get $9950 worth of securities by buying the ETF (after all trading costs were considered), as opposed to only $9900 worth of securities by buying the OEF (after paying the 1% entry fee).

War is good for the stock market only if your side is winning:

Roger all. Also, I was misdirecting your point, about fees for the exact same thing.
Still, what did this mean?
>> prefer not to pay more than $10K for $10K worth of securities.

Does it intend to say that paying the least amount above $10k for $10k of securities is the most frugal course of action? True, and it goes without saying, almost.

Hi @VintageFreak,
I took a look at WGRNX and from a quick review of its M* report I went no further as it seems ...
@JoJo26 pulled the hat trick selecting MSFAX and thus far it is the top dog from what I am finding in looking through a good number of world stock funds. MSFAX has a threshold to purchase at a cool five mil; however, I have found another share class MGGPX of this fund that I can purchase with a much lower threshold but with a sales load. For now, I plan to continue with THOAX as a member of my global growth sleeve and thus far over the past five plus years I have owned it, it has served me well. Besides, I'd have a sizeable capital gains tax bill (for me) if I sold it.
Thanks again JoJo26 for the tip on MSFAX ... I'm now thinking you've selected the winning fund. It would be nice to hear form @ep1 as to what he thinks ... since, he picked our brains so-to-speak.
Have a good day!

I confess that I do not see anything attractive about this offering or DSENX. It is based on a ton of derivatives, futures, swaps, cash, U.S. govt and corporate bonds, all squished together to beat a created index, MSCI Europe Net Return USD. There are no actual European stocks or bonds that I could find. DSENX is very similar in its makeup. This is an example of how bizarre the investment world has become, where a company creates a fund to beat a mythological index, but owns nothing you would think should be in the fund, and then charge 0.9% to 1% annually for their mumbo-jumbo. So we now have actively managed funds, index funds, and funds created in a lab. I realize this is not altogether new, but I would wager the average investor in these things has no clue how they are managed, does not understand the inherent risks (and conflicts of interest), and for sure has not read the prospectus, let alone understand the mumbo-jumbo. For me, the very simple SPHD and EFAV will do the trick, and at least I know what I am getting, for 60% less cost.

>> I'd prefer not to pay more than $10K for $10K worth of securities.
haha, there goes the system. I'd prefer not to pay any markup ever for anything, cars, groceries, furniture. Actually no, I don't mind; I know that's how the service gets provided. Everything in life should be like VFIAX.

We should be clear on what service we're talking about. The portfolio management service is provided via management fees (part of the ER). It is the service of selling the product (here, fund shares) where the markup in question is added.
You have a choice. We all do. One can go directly to the "manufacturer" (fund company) and buy the product directly without paying a middleman a markup, or one can pay that third party for the service. In the case of ETFs, the third party is the broker who gets paid via spreads and possibly commissions.
Even if one wants to avoid middleman costs by using an OEF, one may not have that choice. Some funds already have that middleman cost priced in (higher ERs). Thus those funds charge a markup whether one uses a middleman (broker) or not.
Other funds like VFIAX offer the choice of paying a markup or not. One can go directly to Vanguard, or one can pay a middleman (broker) a commission (transaction fee) for the service.
You wrote that everything should be like VFIAX (i.e. available without a markup), and that using middlemen services entails markups. So we may reasonably conclude that you'd prefer to have the choice that VFIAX offers, viz. buying directly from the fund sponsor or paying the middleman (broker) a transparent fee for each transaction. None of these hidden fees like spreads on ETFs or shelf space kickbacks for NTFs.
Transparency and lower costs sound good to me too.

>> I'd prefer not to pay more than $10K for $10K worth of securities.
haha, there goes the system. I'd prefer not to pay any markup ever for anything, cars, groceries, furniture. Actually no, I don't mind; I know that's how the service gets provided. Everything in life should be like VFIAX.
CAPE is an etn. But to switch fruit, since it outperforms VFIAX so consistently, from inception and every interval since, again, who cares?

All those swaps. Makes me feel "ooky." No way. I know the US-version has done well, too.
"They're altogether ooky, the Addams family."