Because prime funds are afraid of facing even stronger outflows after Oct. 14, they’ve been weary of stashing their money in assets that mature after that.

REXX is a play, solvent and productive but extremely cheap, 61 cents or so, but it may take awhile, esp if NG pricing goes even lower. I am thinking the downside is nearly nonexistent.

The Long/Short Equity space is very troubled, as there have been very few funds which have had attractive long-term performance, and the expenses of such funds are inherently high, which serves as a drag for future performance. Whenever I look at a space with many entrants but few winners, I instinctively avoid the space, and I think that this is generally the right move.

Furthermore, M* understates -- as usual -- the actual expense ratio that investors pay for NCLIX, which is actually a net ER of 1.87%, not the 1.55% listed on M*'s front page.

Morningstar elects to exclude interest and dividend expense from the net expense ratio in order to provide the end investor with an apples-to-apples comparison of expense ratios. Depending on the leveraging techniques employed by the fund, the fund may or may not be required to report interest and dividend expense. For example, funds that employ shorting strategies or reverse-repo transactions are required to report interest expense in the Annual Report whereas funds that employ futures, swaps, TBAs, and forwards are not required to report the cost associated with those instruments as interest expense.

You know this about perma-inflation Singer, right?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/06/heres-the-latest-dumb-argument-from-a-billionaire-that-will-hurt-the-economy/

Long term should have nothing to do with it. What matters is the cost of entry to the market, not how long you stay in it. In this regard, lump sum usually beats buying in over a period of time (say a year, though the length is not important). That's because the market tends to go up, so the earlier you invest, the cheaper (on average) are your shares.
For example, suppose you invest $1,000/mo for the next twelve months, and compare that with investing $12,000 all at once. At the end of the year, you'll have X shares if you bought each month, and Y shares if you bought all at the beginning.
After that, no matter how long or short you're invested, if Y is greater than X, you'll have done better with lump sum investing (since the return on each share going forward is the same, and you have more shares this way). Conversely, if you got more shares by spreading out your purchases (X is greater than Y), then no matter what your subsequent holding period long or short, you'll have done better by spreading out your purchases.
Where long term vs. short term makes a difference is where you buy different investments. There long term matters, because you're looking at long term trends. That's why holding 100% equity is better than a stock/bond portfolio if you can wait long enough. The problems are (a) this makes people too uneasy, and (b) you may have to wait too long for the trend to manifest, and in the long run we're all dead.