Hi PopTart!
You are so right. I need to stop longnecking and start proofreading more. With FBIOX you are also right. I can't take the pain so now I stay away. FSPHX is also at a 52-week high right now.....just saying.....I guess most things are. I'm going to ramble now about something said long ago by a human resources person that I went to school with. He said the company would give you a set amount of $$ and you put it into what you want or what matters the most to you. Like healthcare.....a good plan or eye care or dental or life insurance or the 401......whatever you wanted most. It never happened but what a novel idea. You could build your own benefit plan to your needs.
God bless
the Pudd

For my eyes/thoughts..........the most vital statement in the article:
"Internationally, Vail suggests avoiding G-10 foreign sovereign debt. Why? "Mainly because they're still firmly in easing mode, but yet rates are not going down," she said. "Combine that with dollar strength, which will probably chew at the domestic U.S. investor and eclipse any potential price return you're going to get from the easing policy at the ECB and the BOJ in those countries" (Europe and Japan.)"
>>>Japan's central more or less placed its QE program with the U.S.; after the 2008 market melt, and kept it in place longer. The European central bank played austerity for about 2 years after the market melt and continues today with purchases of some private bond issues for more support. Japan, within the past year intervened directed into their own equity markets for support of those markets. China? Your guess is better than mine. Higher interest rates here will indeed likely continue to maintain a stronger dollar (higher commodity pricing for other countries having to purchase a more costly dollar). And if there is another "twitch" in global equity markets, interest rates will come down here again as protection money will move to U.S. Treasury issues for safety.
One big, funny money circle, eh?
Just a IMHO 2 cents worth.
Catch

@MFO Members: " Why Leveraged ETFs Are Not a Long-Term Bet"
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/financial-advisors/082515/why-leveraged-etfs-are-not-longterm-bet.asp

Wow: blog.themistrading.com/2017/01/introducing-the-4x-etf/

Watch for the upcoming Fed meeting on March 16-17. Probability for 25 basis point rate hike is over 50%. If employment continues to improve and inflation exceeds target rate of 2%, several more hike this year.

$67,928 if you were earning 5% risk-free.
I used the calculator bee points us add and had it calculate $100 initial, $300/year addition (i.e., $25/month), compounded monthly for 50 years. The "compounded monthly" part just means we assume that your April portfolio would have undergone some modest appreciation so your May portfolio will be more than just April + $25.
It's a very imprecise calculation since it does assume all of the additions occur once a year through capital growth occurs, uninterrupted, monthly. The better answer would come from a Monte Carlo simulation. If you're familiar with Excel (Chip and Charles will happily testify to the fact that I am not), one of the faculty at Wabash College has posted a free Monte Carlo add-on for it. The technique also underlies the retirement calculators at T. Rowe Price and Vanguard.
Thanks, by the way, for helping your granddaughter. I've had this same conversation with one of my brothers about why (17 years ago) he should really be putting away $25 or $50 a month for his son's education. I even set up the account and put in some hundreds of dollars to start it. Mostly I got uncertain nods and a long-unfunded account in return. There's some research that suggests we need to visualize our future selves (in some cases researchers use "aging" software to accomplish the task) in order to make this work. Something like, "let's say you've worked like a dog for 40 years and now you find yourself living alone in a house that's too big with a quarter-century of 'vacation' in front of you. What do you imagine you'd want to be able to do or feel?"
For what that's worth,
David

Of all the variables you listed the most powerful is the compounding of interest (5%) over time (50 years). This teenager should try to save as much as possible early in life and then let time and compounded interest work their magic.
Q's to pose to this teenager:
Could your teenager scrape together $100/month or $1200/year?
Could this be saved in a Roth IRA (teenager must have earned income)?
If a 16 year old could save $1200/yr for 16 years (until age 32) and then stop contributing, but remain "invested" at an average of 5% a year; at age 64 he/she would have a nice little nest egg for retirement, about $150K.
At an average of 6.5% it would be twice that amount or about $300K.
At 10% average return it would over $1M.
Not bad for a $19,200 investment (16 yr saving $1200/year).
This calculator seem to meet your input criteria:
moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calculator.htm

"... [and] paying more attention to the performance of said funds, their index construction, and—not the least of it—the tax consequences of selling one fund to buy a cheaper one."
There are differences between indexes. Some are better designed than others (e.g. in terms of buffer zones) to facilitate running index funds, but at the possible cost of slightly higher tracking error (vs. the part of the market the index is "measuring").
Many indexes are constructed mechanically, while some (notably S&P) are comprised of hand-selected securities. Some are constructed with transparent rules, others are built with proprietary, secret models. Whatever rules are used may vary from index to index (e.g. S&P indexes usually require companies to be profitable).
http://openmarkets.cmegroup.com/8808/inside-the-sp-500-an-active-committee
Some (notably R2K) are more subject to front running than other larger cap and/or less widely followed indexes.
http://www.morningstar.com/advisor/t/102491623/the-russell-2000-index-s-achilles-heel.htm
[Ted linked that article two years ago]
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/19286/the-russell-2000-index-s-achilles-heel
Index funds likewise have their own characteristics. They have different policies on lending securities (and how much of the revenue from those loans is plowed back into the fund). They have different policies on how quickly they must alter their portfolios in response to index changes (DFA in particular tries to trade tactically). Funds that track via sampling may take different approaches (e.g. how far down the cap scale they go in sampling securities from smaller companies in their index). This is especially significant in bond funds, where bonds come and go (they mature), and funds take different approaches in matching maturities, quality, convexity, etc. of their portfolio to their index.
While the differences between index funds may not be as wide as the differences between actively managed funds, selecting an index fund is not a matter of throwing a dart or picking the lowest cost one.

Unfortunately I have forgotten the formula for determining the future value of an invest from my intermediate accounting classes. I would like to provide some incentive for my grand daughter by showing her what a $100.00 initial investment with $25.00 monthly additions would be worth in 50 years earning 5% per year. Anyone familiar with the formula for making this calculation and if so, could you please provide me the results? Thank you to all for your suggestions on reading material.

I can't wait to read more responses to your questions; I own FSPHX and FBIOX in addition to VGHCX (which is not on your list; you may want to add that to your list to complete your research).
PRHSX was closed when I was reshuffling my portfolio, but now open to investors; but I am good with the trio of VGHCX, FSPHX and FBIOX. FBIOX is most volatile of the lot, so if there is any need to sell, it will be the first to go.....and VGHCX will be the last to go. Also, rounding this group is POAGX (which has ~30% in Healthcare but currently closed).
ACA repeal will be only for short-term reaction to the sector. On the flip side, the President has also vowed to revamp FDA so drugs can come to market faster. A lot of "issues" in this sector (regardless of regulation, innovation and pricing are big factors for the sector).
Some of the regulations only transfer "power" between the sub-sectors (sub-sectors: traditional Pharma, Biotech, Payers (Managed Care companies), Distributors, etc). For example, ACA and pricing "gave" the Payers more leverage recently. On that note, I think PRHSX may be the most diversified of the lot, VGHCX and FSPHX are broadly diversified and FBIOX is the most concentrated. .
I have had VGHCX and FSPHX for a long time (not selling them), and I bought FBIOX early last year when it was down big (I may sell soon). All of them are still lower compared to their 2015 highs.
But I will wait for the "correction" to buy. Look forward to other comments.

I've noticed that this sector hasn't been discussed on this board for several months due to Hillary's 2015 tweet and continued possible government intervention in this sector. I've also noticed that Health Care funds have received "a shot in the arm" recently i.e. their performance has been good. Notably Fido Select Health Care (FSPHX), Fido Biotech (FBIOX) and Price Health Sciences (PRHSX). I'm considering buying a health care fund and would like to hold it for as long as possible, which does depend a great deal on government action or inaction regarding this sector.
1. What do people think of this sector for the next year and further into the future?
2. Opinions on FSPHX, FBIOX and PRHSX? FBIOX scares me however due to its volatility.
3. Is PRHSX open to new investors? M* indicates that it's open, but I thought it was closed.
4. Wait until Trump's fixation with changing/repealing Obamacare has settled?
5. Any other suggestions & comments would be most welcome.
Thanks in advance for any and all comments!

FYI: Riding just one growth stock to big gains is always a challenge. But Will Danoff does it so often that Fidelity Contrafund has become a $107 billion behemoth that's returned an average annual 12.94% during his more than 27 years at the helm.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/mutual-funds/fidelitys-will-danoff-talks-about-the-super-bowl-and-super-stocks/

As is all too usual, I'm a little confused here. It looks like about 75% of the random growth stock group selections beat the S&P, while the previous post claimed value persevered. Polen beat the average random growth selection, of course (one would hope so, at a 1.35 e.r.), or it wouldn't have presented the "data."
Now, if John Bogle is right, and indexing beats active management; and value beats growth (not quoting St. Jack here; I think other studies have said that; and I think that was the thesis of this month's "elevator talk" ) does Polen's (US) Growth's record mean they will beat international managers (who might have more experience)?
I suspect other participants will enlighten my ignorance.

Hi, Dave.
We could talk about doing the calls again. The basic criteria were these: (1) I had to have talked to someone who I thought was borderline amazing and (2) they had to agree to an inconveniently timed conversation with (eeee!) unscripted questions and (3) I needed to find three or four of them since I wanted to run the feature for 3-4 months so that we could build an audience.
That's been a bit challenging. Some smart folks but not verbal, some smart and verbal folks who weren't thrilled at the format.
David

Hi Catch22,
Extrapolating short term market data for a much longer timeframe is dangerously serious business. It can certainly promote an unrealistic outlook and a deeply flawed projection.
I know you were kidding in your post, but it did surface an interesting question. If equities deliver positive returns in both January and February, what are the likely odds and returns for the entire year?
I sure don't have an answer, but Sam Stovall has appently addressed this same question. I don't have a primary source reference, but here is what a secondary source reported:
"(The) S&P jumped 3.7 percent in February after rising 1.8 percent in January. In the 27 years since 1945 that the S&P rose in both January and February, the S&P recorded a positive full year return 27 out of 27 times, averaging a total return of 24 percent,"
I lifted this summary paragraph from the following article:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/01/wall-streets-super-charged-bull-faces-its-own-march-madness.html
I haven't checked its accuracy. Apparently, so said Stovall. I was greatly surprised. So your fun projection might just be slightly overly optimistic.
I was also surprised that the S&P 500 generated positive January and February outcomes 27 times since 1945. Wow! That's 38 % of the time.
History is an important factor when making investment decisions. However, it is an imperfect measure; change happens. I know you recognize its shortcomings and are acting to protect your portfolio.
Best Wishes
EDIT: Here is a Limk to an article that presents the basic data in a chart format:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-bullish-signal-has-never-been-wrong-and-its-about-to-flash-for-2017-2017-02-22
Sam Stovall does excellent historical market research. Enjoy and profit, but note that although all 27 years finished in positive territory, two of those years staggered at the end with only slightly positive outcomes.

The Breakfast Briefing
What to make of a massive ETF flow?
For clues of what might stop the current stock rally, it's worth plumbing Wednesday's buying frenzy that carried the Dow Jones Industrial Average up more than 300 points and over the 21000 milestone for the first time ever.
The Dow gave back 113 points Thursday, a modest pause noteworthy because it was still the largest decline in a month.
But Wednesday's climactic rally is worth revisiting for a number of reasons. First, it snapped a 50-session streak during which the S&P 500 hadn't move more than 1%, the longest such streak since at least 1975, according to Thomson Reuters. Overall stock trading volume hit 8.1 billion shares, the highest of the year, according to WSJ Market Data Group. Finally, the SPDR S&P 500 ETF saw an inflow of just over $8 billion dollars on Wednesday, the biggest on any single day since December 2014, according to State Street Global Advisors.
Short-term fund flows can be noisy, particularly in this $238 billion ETF -- the market's largest and oldest. For one thing, banks and trading firms regularly create new ETF shares solely to satisfy short-selling demand. On paper, those bets against ETFs show up as “inflows” in the same way that long-term investments do.
And yet frenetic one-day scrambles for this ETF -- known by its ticker SPY -- that lift assets by more than 3% are rare and typically bode ill for future market returns. Jason Goepfert at SentimentTrader found only 10 other instances since 2006. The average S&P 500 performance after these occasions is flat over one month and slightly negative over two and three months.
It could be that Wednesday's burst higher marked a bit of panic on the part of traders looking to get into the market for fear of getting left behind. That might also mean that there's not much cash left out there to keep the rally in high gear, as has been the case for over a decade after massive one-day SPY inflows.

@rforno. I didn't even think about that. Investors can be swayed by so many ways. Sometimes we do stuff just because we can and offer up any excuse for our actions. I've been guilty of this myself.
I totally believe more investors likely to make 2 trades at $5 each than single trade at $10 each.

Normally I think, high PE Ratio funds are associated with high volatility and risk, but POGSX has a PE of 16.83, 2 points less than it's benchmark and 1.5 points less than it's category average according to M*.

@Junkster Did you trim your bank loan position? It seems to me it should be safe during a correction caused by stock overvaluation. SAMBX is up 0.11% today when everything is down.

On the Feb 23 posted I was 100% junk corporates. Bank loans have been a bit staid this year compared to the corporates returning 50% less YTD. But if stocks correct most likely so will junk corporates. I didn't like yesterday's rally. The bank loans have been really steady and still look good especially if short term rates keeps nudging up. I may get back in that sector.

@Ted Your starting to get on my nerves. You had better start reading the board before you knee-jerk you articles
But thanks for the reminder!
RMB Mendon Financial Services Fund to close to new investors
TheShadow TheShadow
RMB INVESTORS TRUST
(formerly Burnham Investors Trust)
RMB MENDON FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND
(formerly Burnham Financial Services Fund)
RMBKX (Class A)
RMBNX (Class C)
Supplement dated January 25, 2017
January 25 http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/31125/rmb-mendon-financial-services-fund-to-close-to-new-investors#latest