http://energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-835-august-25-average-historical-annual-gasoline-pump-price-1929-2013
Interesting chart for gas prices from 1929 to 2013 normalized in 2013 dollars. I started driving at 16 in 1970 and from the chart, .35 is exactly the price I remember filling my dad's car with, That would be $1.63 in today's dollars... ok, not quite filling. I think I put a gallon or two in the tank... once in a while.

@Crash The Bureau of Labor Statistics "CPI Inflation Calculator" says $1.11 today has the same buying power as 19 cents had back in 1971. So, if that is what you are wondering about, gas still has a ways further to drop before its that cheap to fill the tank....and they used to throw in pumping, window washing, checking the oil, and free glasses too!
See: http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

You can purchase QSPIX at Scottrade for a minimum investment of $100.00 plus $17 T/F in taxable and non-taxable accounts. There was a lot of discussion concerning QSPIX on Bogleheads concerning the pro/cons of the fund especially since it is to close to new investors next month.
Some of the Boglehead posters mentioned that Fido and TD no longer offer QSPIX available for purchase.

Jeez. I recall 1971, and gas was .19 cents per gallon. Easier to comprehend that. How does $2.00 gas compare, today? (inflation, and everything else...) My still shiny-new, miniscule stake in COP is down -10.5% since it was begun, just a few weeks ago. I'm not thinking of adding until into the New Year. Further to fall? Not trying to time the bottom. Even if it comes off a new bottom, these are BARGAIN prices.

Dumped my MLP funds INFIX and TMLPX, waited too long, but with them down almost 50% since they were added, that would mean they would have to move up 100% for me to get back to even. Doubt that will happen anytime soon to say the least. Right now proceeds parked in cash, but they represented only 4% of my equity portion when purchased. I am not likely to reenter this sector in near future, I do have some exposure with more general equity funds anyway. That's enough for now.

Treasury Bills Beat Oil 30 Years On
Posted on December 22, 2015 by David Ott Acropolis Investment Management
The annualized standard deviation of monthly returns for WTI spot was 25.21 percent. To put that in perspective, it was 16.86 percent for the S&P 500 during the same period, which include the tech bubble/burst and the 2008 financial crisis.
That’s right, oil was 50 percent more volatile than stocks, but it yielded lower returns than Treasury bills over a 32 year period.

The orange line below takes the historical prices and puts them into today’s dollars ... I find it remarkable that oil was trading at the equivalent of $65 per barrel when the data first started (1983)compared to the $35 level today.

http://acrinv.com/treasury-bills-beat-oil-30-years-on/
Update 12/23/15 Oil and Energy Stocks
Posted on December 23, 2015 by David Ott
One of my favorite long-timer readers asked me today to follow up on the chart from yesterday to include the performance of energy stocks
The best quality sector data from S&P only dates back to 1989, so this data set isn't quite as long as what I showed yesterday, but the story is basically the same and I have to admit that I was surprised by how well energy stocks have done over the last 25 or so years.
In fact, despite the absolute bear market in energy stocks, which have fallen by about a third since their peak last year, they are still outperforming the S&P 500 when you look at the entire period. (1989-present0
In that same vain, when we look at this shortened period, WTI crude has kept pace with inflation, unlike the chart yesterday that showed crude failing to keep up with inflation - it just goes to show how so much data is period specific.

http://acrinv.com/oil-and-energy-stocks/

I have dialed my asset allocaton back to a 50/50 asset allocation currently holding 20% in cash, 30% in income funds, 35% in growth & income funds and 15% in growth funds. I am thinking the market for 2016 will be much like that of 2015 and with this I have reduced my allocation in stocks due to their relative high valuation with reported earnings running around a TTM P/E Ratio of 23 for the S&P 500 Index and in bonds due to anticipated rising interest rates. In equities, I am favoring good dividend paying world equity and allocation funds over domestic and in fixed income I am favoring short duration, bank loan and convertible funds.

Many thematic (not sector) ETFs like those mentioned in the article are, in my view, mainly short-to-near-term fads. Their being 'successful' comes down to how much AUM they can gather by people who fall for their marketing. An ETF that launched in 2014 or 2015 cannot, in my view, be considered "successful" in anything other than its AUM for the vendor ... how it performs under varying market conditions over time is how I view a fund's ability to be 'successful."

Is anyone buying this fund. Expensive yes but with interesting qualities. Nice behavior currently. I will likely rollover a pension distribution into an IRA.

FYI: Blend of 50% stocks, 50% bonds offers strong and stable result.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/careful-you-might-be-risking-too-much-for-the-same-investment-return-2015-12-22/print

FYI: Firm behind successful cybersecurity ETF now eyes drones.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-new-etf-will-let-you-bet-on-drones-taking-off-2015-12-18/print

Hi @Bitzer,
Thanks again for making comment.
I feel my active management has indeed been worth while. Let me explain. Take a million dollar portfolio and the difference of my ten year annualized return of 6.9% vs. my buddies ten year return of 5.6% as noted in the post that I linked equals a spread of 1.3% or about $13,000.00 per year. And, when ths is carried out over a ten year period this amounts to about of $130,000.00. I score this as being worth my time. At least, it has been for me.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/751173/000119312515409219/d104788d497.htm
497 1 d104788d497.htm MANNING & NAPIER FUND, INC.
MANNING & NAPIER FUND, INC.
Supplement dated December 21, 2015 to the combined Prospectus (the “Prospectus”) dated May 1, 2015 as supplemented August 3, 2015, November 17, 2015, November 25, 2015 and December 16, 2015 for the following Series:
Focused Opportunities Series
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Prospectus and should be read in conjunction with the Prospectus.
The Board of Directors of the Manning & Napier Fund, Inc. has voted to completely liquidate the Focused Opportunities Series (the “Series”).
The closure of the Series to new investors and to additional investments from existing shareholders was described in the December 16, 2015 supplement to the Prospectus.
The Series will redeem all of its outstanding shares on or about January 25, 2016 and distribute the proceeds to the Series’ shareholders (subject to maintenance of appropriate reserves for liquidation and other expenses).
As is the case with other redemptions, each shareholder’s redemption, including a mandatory redemption, will constitute a taxable disposition of shares for those shareholders who do not hold their shares through tax-advantaged plans. Shareholders should contact their tax advisors to discuss the potential income tax consequences of the liquidation.
As Series shareholders redeem shares of the Series between the date of this supplement and the date of the final redemption, and as the Series increases its cash positions to facilitate redemptions, the Series may not be able to continue to invest its assets in accordance with its stated investment policies. Accordingly, the Series may not be able to achieve its investment objectives during the period between the date of this supplement and the date of its final redemption.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

Vanguard Core Bond Fund filing:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/836906/000093247115009408/malvern485a.htm
In the appended SAI, one finds:
" Brian W. Quigley, Gemma Wright-Casparius and Gregory S. Nassour co-manage Vanguard Core Bond Fund; which as of the date of this Statement of Additional Information had not yet commenced operations.
As of May 31, 2015, Mr. Quigley managed 1 other registered investment company with total assets of $5 billion (advisory fee not based on account performance). As of May 31, 2015, Ms. Wright-Casparius managed 4 other registered investment companies with total assets of $41 billion (advisory fees not based on account performance). As of May 31, 2015, Mr. Nassour managed 3 other registered investment companies with total assets of $75 billion, co-managed 2 other registered investment companies with total assets $15.8 billion, and co-managed 1 other pooled investment vehicle with total assets of $10 billion (none of which had advisory fees based on account performance)."
And, not touched upon in the Barron's blog:
"Daniel Shaykevich manages Vanguard Emerging Markets Bond Fund, which as of the date of this Statement of Additional Information had not yet commenced operations. As of May 31, 2015, Mr. Shaykevich managed X other registered investment companies with total assets of $X billion, and co-managed X other pooled investment vehicle with total assets of $XX billion (none of which had advisory fees based on account performance)."

So, not only will Vanguard have an actively-managed Core Bond fund, they apparently will also have an actively-managed Emerging Mkts. Bond Fund. Well, whaddayaknow, that's a change.
Vanguard's announcement:
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/article/fund-announcement-C-122015?link=topStories&linkLocation=Position1

In all these cases, we witnessed a rare phenomenon that exists in only the most extreme bottom-calling scenarios. It is when the price of the E T F hits an all-time low while the shares outstanding hit an all time high. That is exactly what is happening right now with USO as shown in the chart below. That is a wide, scary mouth, and it is gobbling up investor cash.

Better Link to AndyJ posting
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-21/etf-investors-have-spent-24-billion-trying-to-call-bottom-in-oil

FYI: Vanguard Group’s new bond fund would pave the way for the fund giant’s in-house portfolio managers to buy or sell junk bonds for the first time.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2015/12/21/a-milestone-for-vanguard-new-fund-could-include-junk-bonds/tab/print/

@ heezsafe & MFO Members: Mutual Fund Wire.Com slant on American Century.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mfwire.com/common/artprint2007.asp?storyID=53157&wireid=2

Time and again, you see mutual fund families reach a certain size and they become, what seems to me, "investment vehicles" for others. Whether this is a bad thing is often hard to tell, but I'm hard-pressed to recall an instance where a mutual fund operation showed evidence where large outside investment proved to be a good thing. Or maybe it doesn't really matter--- hey, somebody's gotta hold the shares--- as long as the outside stakeholder remains a minority stakeholder.
At what point should it be concerning? Are there red flags that should raise concern; if so, what are they? My thinking on this is pretty fuzzy. What say others?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-21/american-century-sale-proceeds-seen-helping-cibc-on-other-deals
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-21/nomura-agrees-to-pay-1-billion-for-41-american-century-stake

Below is a description of my portfolio sleeve management system along with my new portfolio asset allocation targets for 2016. In short, the cash target was raised by five percent from fifteen to twenty percent while the growth area target was reduced by five percent from twenty percent to fifteen percent. The income and growth & income area targets remain the same at thirty percent and thirty five percent respectively.
Old_Skeet's Portfolio Sleeve Management System (12/18/2015)
Here is a brief description of my sleeve system which I organized to help better manage the investments that were held in five accounts. The accounts consist of a taxable account, a self directed ira account, a 401k account, a profit sharing account and a health savings account plus two bank accounts. With this I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves … an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consists of two sleeves. … a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves … a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. An finally there is the growth area, where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five sleeves … a global sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, a specialty sleeve and a special investment sleeve. Each sleeve consists of three to six funds (in most cases) with the size and the weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds and amounts held. By using the sleeve system one can get a better picture of their overall investment picture and weightings by sleeve and area. In addition, I have found it beneficial to xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly. Again, weightings can be adjusted form time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets and wish to weight accordingly. All funds pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio with the exception being those in my 401k, profit sharing, and health savings accounts where reinvestment occurs. With the other accounts paying to the cash area builds the cash area of the portfolio to meet the portfolio’s monthly cash disbursement amount with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. In addition, most all buy/sell trades settle from or to the cash area with some nav exchanges between funds taking place.
Here is how I have my asset allocation broken out in percent ranges, by area. My current target allocations are cash 20%, income 30%, growth & income 35%, and growth 15%. I do an Instant Xray analysis on the portfolio quarterly (sometimes monthly) and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assessment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc. Currently, going into 2016, I am about 20% in the cash area, 30% in the income area, 35% in the growth & income area and 15% in the growth area.
Cash Area (Weighting Range 15% to 25% with target being 20%)
Demand Cash Sleeve… (Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual)
Investment Cash Sleeve … (Savings & Time Deposits)
Income Area (Weighting Range 25% to 35% with target being 30%)
Fixed Income Sleeve: GIFAX, LALDX, LBNDX, NEFZX, THIFX & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: CAPAX, CTFAX, FISCX, FKINX, ISFAX, JNBAX & PGBAX
Growth & Income Area (Weighting Range 30% to 40% with target being 35%)
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX & EADIX
Global Hybrid Sleeve: BAICX, CAIBX & TIBAX
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX, INUTX, NBHAX, SPQAX & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, DDIAX, FRINX, HWIAX & LABFX
Growth Area (Weighting Range 10% to 20% with target being 15%)
Global Sleeve: AJVAX, ANWPX, NEWFX, PGROX, THOAX & THDAX
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, IACLX, SPECX & VADAX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: PCVAX, PMDAX & VNVAX
Specialty Sleeve: LPEFX, PGUAX & TOLLX
Spiffs: None
Total Number of Mutual Fund Positions = 47
I wish all ... "Good Investing."

Qualified dividends are taxed at 0%, 15% and 20%, the latter if you are in a 39.6% tax bracket.

From @heezsafe 's link:
"[Q]ualified dividends ... are taxable federally at the capital gains rate, which depends on the investor’s modified adjusted gross income (AGI) and taxable income (the current rates are 0%, 15%, 18.8%, and 23.8%.)."
This is due to the Medicare surtax of 3.8% which kicks in once your AGI (not taxable income) exceeds a certain level.
From http://truepointwealth.com/recent-tax-changes-and-how-they-affect-you/
"Note, the 20% bracket doesn’t truly 'exist.' By the time income reaches the top marginal tax bracket of 39.6%, one is already subject to the additional surtax."
In addition to the description of qualified divs in the Fidelity link, there's another gotcha for mutual fund owners. Even if your 1099 says that dividends are qualified (box 1b), they are not unless you hold those shares for at least 61 days around the ex-div date.
This is the same rule as stated in the Fidelity page, but that page wasn't too clear about pass through entities like mutual funds. That is, the fund itself must hold underlying stock for 61+ days for it to pass through the div as a qualified div, but in addition you must hold the mutual fund shares 61+ days around the fund's ex-div date.
Here's another Fidelity page that goes into this gory detail:
https://www.fidelity.com/taxes/tax-topics/qualified-dividends