+1

Hi Kaspa. I invested about a 3rd of my Schwab IRA money in Intelligent Portfolio about 15 months ago. I like the hands off approach, but the jury is still out for me on returns. My robo-portfolio is 62% equity, 28% bonds and 10% money market cash. I put the ETFs in M* to track the portfolio. So far this year it has done really well, +6.7%. But one year returns are a meager 0.5%. FWIW...

What caught my eye was: "adjusted for inflation", which says that the figures are for 0% real returns. The recent concerns have been over 0% nominal returns. That's a less frequent occurrence (since inflation is almost always positive).
"Regression to the mean" says that since a 0% return is below the market average (mean), you're more likely to get a positive return (regress to the mean) than a negative return (diverge further from the mean) over the next time period.
It doesn't say that your cumulative returns will approach average if you wait long enough. That's the law of large numbers. And the further your returns are from mean, the larger (more years) those numbers have to be to get close.
The concern when the market underperforms (or outperforms for that matter) over a long stretch is that this time really is different, there's a new normal. Perhaps that should be a new norm (mean). I don't think anyone expects the US to ever again produce 1/4 of the world's output. Things do change. The difficulty is in recognizing when.
Still I agree that patience is essential.
https://infogr.am/Share-of-world-GDP-throughout-history
(Interesting graphs - China peaked at 1/3 of the world's GDP around 1820, and has been on a trajectory back that way this century.)

Hi Guys,
I wish you all a happy and safe Independence Day. I will definitely overeat.
On recent posts some considerable concern has been expressed over the current length of several zero returns delivered by indices like the S&P 500. I don’t share that concern.
It is not a rare happening. In a very rough measure, it occurs something like one-third of the time based on long term market history. Not to worry because a regression-to-the-mean is always operative. The data support this observation. Here is a Link to a recent article by excellent financial writer Morgan Housel that reviews that data:
http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/06/30/when-stocks-give-you-nothing.aspx?source=iaasitlnk0000003
Housel subtitled his piece: “the long wait”. That’s appropriate. Patience can be severely tested. The quandary for investors is that nobody can forecast how long that wait is and when it will end. But be confident that it will end. Figure 2 in the Housel article illustrates the potential length of that long wait from historical data.
Nobody likes running in-place, but a regression-to-the-mean will eventually kick-in. Unfortunately, not any expert can predict when that will happen in a reliable, reproducible manner. That’s the nature of the equity marketplace. But as the zero return environment lengthens, the odds of a recovery to the historical average annual returns increases.
I completely agree with Housel’s observations that patience and a cash reserve are mandatory requisites for successful investing. Incrementally increasing your equity positions during this difficult period will surely not maximize your total end wealth since only precisely picking the market bottoms can do that. But that’s an impossible goal; it can not be done.
In that sense, investors should be satisficers and not maximizers. There just are too many fund choices and too much uncertainty to ever fully realize maximizer perfection. Any attempt to do so will ultimately end in unhappiness at our failures to accomplish that lofty target. Instead, being satisfied with near Index returns is easily accomplished with little effort and even little time commitment. I practice that discipline.
The percentage of professional money managers who successfully maximize returns, using an Index as a measure of their success, is grimly low. The evidence is in their dismal performance records.
Please enjoy the fireworks and the feasting.
Best Regards.

I agree with @Ted as to the funds he mentioned and KISS. I will add VWENX which is available to Vanguard account holders. This fund is active managed varying from 50-70% in equity. The long term return performance is excellent, with this fund having an expense ratio of .18%. Not knowing the tax status of current or these new monies, one may also consider a Vanguard muni bond fund for some of the monies, if investment taxation could be a problem. Also, if applicable; maximizing a Roth IRA contribution with some of the monies. The above is offered with the presumption that these monies are directed properly towards any and all other financial needs first, as deemed appropriate.

Yeah, one of the many things I like about Fido FullView (and there are others, e.g. ML) is that it shows total 1y portfolio performance, period, and while I am not positive it is accurate in all respects, it includes anything you tell it to, including other accounts. Humbling when you see it say -1% or +2.6% or whatever, until you remember that it is (should be) reflecting a 30-40-50% cash position on average.

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.