Eerily similar to 2011, the dividend payers are leading the way, and certainly much more than the title gives credit...AT&T at +28% YTD?

Stocks have declined / made little upward progress when certain elements signal overvaluation / deterioration and coordination.
Since 1924, mean reversion statistically has occurred when there have been consecutive years of S&P 500 performance over the fixed "valuation baseline" * ( recent consecutive string 2012, 2013, 2014, ). Quantitative price based variable # 1 https://stockmarketmap.wordpress.com/2015/11/14/market-map-model-tactical-asset-allocation-using-low-expense-index-etfs-2015/
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hsBqvv3SUmHKBV5G0SUcFQpGaSf9nNlzDbT3W8hXGo8/edit
Economic conditions index falling below threshold removes "economic" market support
( conditions still positive ): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IqXuggnKY7fDH-i_96uMIOlmhzS7ei-dreUZ_8dpatc/edit?usp=sharing
An inversion of the yield curve can correlate to larger forward market declines vs. declines during normal yield curve structure ( during model cash signals ):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QkFJRNjd3TTEwDPUwXcCjd7toGaN_mxix5-nSN-kdig/edit?usp=sharing
*

Thank you for this heads up. I have a Fido brokerage account and I'm being shown that there's a 1.53% load on FMIHX (FMI Large Cap). Anyone else seeing this?

MUB is trading at $114... way above par.

Hi, Ted.
Sorry, no. I wasn't addressing the question of the fund's total return. Mike's arguments were that the stocks in the portfolio were weak performers and that the fund was both cursed and blessed (depending on time frame) by Mr. Cinnamond's precious metal investments.
I'm certainly aware that the fund's absolute returns substantially trail its peers over the past five years. On the other hand, looking at raw returns without looking at volatility is delusional since we know that volatility is a key determinant of investor behavior (mostly self-destructive). On that basis, the fund captured about 40% of its peers' annualized five-year returns and experienced 41% of their volatility.
Back to writing!
David

I cited M* for S&P 500 TR from 12/31/14 close (aka New Year's Day, 2015) to 6/29/15 as 2.79%. Agreed it's not nothing, but it's not 3.73% either.
Since SPY is a unit investment trust that can only reinvest dividends quarterly, it suffers from cash drag, which can actually improve performance when the market dips. (It reinvests dividends later, after the market has gone done for the quarter.) That's one reason why I wouldn't use SPY as a benchmark.
In any case, it appears you're using Yahoo's adjusted close figures for 6/29/16 and 1/2/15. (266.66/199.21) That's a common off-by-one error. Somewhat like saying that we're in the 20th century because our years begin 20xx. It's forgetting that the first century started with a 0, not with 1(000).
One needs to start with the final price before the period begins (i.e. 12/31/14). Then, the closing price on 1/2/15 (relative to the 12/31/14 close) tells you how much you made by holding your stock for the first trading day of the year.

Huh? $10k into SPY New Year's day of last year is now worth $373 more as of close yesterday, more as of close today, looks like. Not much, sure, but not nothing.

Hi, Mike.
I was curious about your observation so went back to check the numbers. The stocks in ARIVX have returned approximately 92% YTD, 50% over the trailing twelve months and 13% over the past three years. For comparison, the Vanguard SCV index returned 5.3, -1.7 and 9.4%. That assumes cash levels of 90, 80 and 75% for those three time periods. I don't have a firm grasp on the 5-year cash average - it looks to be in the mid60s - so I didn't want to venture an estimate there. If you accept mid60s, then the stocks have returned about 10%/year, about in-line with the index. At one level, it seems that his stocks have substantially and pretty consistently outperformed.
I hadn't thought much about precious metals. Mr. Cinnamond's argument when we last discussed it was that he wasn't particularly thrilled by gold but the mining stocks were getting hit so badly that they were among the few passing his value screen. He suggested that he actually could have justified a bigger position but wasn't comfortable with it. At the end of 2014, gold and silver stocks represented about 8% of the portfolio and about 33% of the stocks in the portfolio. There were four stocks, two of which remain in the portfolio and he subsequently added two more. They represent about 7.5% of the portfolio and about 70% of his stock holdings. The fund has a really low correlation to precious metals (0.34 to DBP, the PowerShares Precious Metals ETF) so I'm reluctant to praise or blame the fund's stake in such stocks.
David

In junk corps I hold WAHYX and CHBAX after selling IVHIX. I still think junk will see double digit returns in 2016 but I hold only 30% in junk corporates. That is very, very light for me. That is because they are more volatile than normal this year and also because they have been so dependent on oil. I would like to get heavier if the market cooperates. In bank loan I replaced SAMBX and EVFAX with RSFYX.

I think that the FED will not raise rates and will need to follow Europe with negative rates at some point. At that time you will hear people say proudly "I'm getting 3% on my bond investments!", and others saying "I wish I could find such a return now.".

I agree. The bond story is one that no one is looking at. And, no one is looking at what it is telling us. Growth is slowing around the world. Stock wise, I'm guessing, the stocks that have pricing power will do well. I would guess, health care and real estate. The sector to avoid in real estate are shopping malls and less then class A office space.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-economist-thinks-china-is-headed-for-a-1929-style-depression-2016-06-30
This economist thinks China is headed for a 1929-style depression

I'm not quite sure why people love these funds that will take such high cash positions... I get the whole "hold cash because valuations aren't compelling thing," but do you really want to pay 142 bps for 90% of a portfolio that earns you nothing?

@David & MfO Members:The fund's YTD and 1Yr. returns are due mainly to positions in precious metals stocks, but let's not try and put lipstick on a pig. The 3 & 5 year returns for ARIVX put it in the 95 and 94 percentile coupled with it's extremely high cash position make it a prime candidate to serve on Thanksgiving Day !
Regards,
Ted

Sometimes in all these discussions about stocks the big picture gets lost.
Stocks haven't gone anywhere for 1 1/2 years
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^GSPC+Interactive#{"range":"2y","allowChartStacking":true}

Remember to include dividends. In real terms, even including dividends, it's true that stocks have returned nothing. But in nominal terms, stocks have provided small gains. See, e.g.
Yahoo S&P 500 Total Return chart (2 Year, interactive), or
M* interactive chart - Total Stock Market (VTSMX) and S&P 500 TR, Dec 31, 2014 to June 29, 2014
VTSMX has gone up 1.45%, and the S&P 500 has gone up 2.79%.
Given recent volatility, a single day's movement could wipe all this out. So the cumulative returns are indeed positive, but not necessarily meaningful.

FYI: Battered investors are looking for light at the end of the tunnel. Here is at least a small glimmer: The most bullish day of the year is here. According to Stock Traders Almanac, July 1 (or which day is the first trading day of July) is the most bullish day of the year.
Over the past 21 years, the S&P 500 has advanced 85.7% of the time on the first trading day of July. The average gain is 0.46%.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/are-you-ready-for-the-most-bullish-day-of-the-year-2016-06-29/print
CXO Advisory July Trading Calandar:
http://www.cxoadvisory.com/trading-calendar/july/

For what interest it holds, I've been talking with Mr. Cinnamond about the decision. Two quick takeaways: (1) he's sympathetic with critics of the fund who decry a stock fund that's at 90% cash and climbing. (2) Given recent developments, he doesn't know when we'll next see a "normal" investing environment. Central banks are almost certain to follow free money policies, which only reward speculators, for the foreseeable future.
I'll try to flesh that out in our July edition but the fuller story will appear in August. Mr. Cinnamond remains employed at River Road, and behold to Aston, until July 6. After July 6, his reflections won't implicate Aston or River Road which are both constrained by FINRA rules about communicating with the public. So we'll chat in mid-July and I'll share what I learned.
I'll discuss in July's issue my own decision. When Artisan SCV was to be liquidated, I took the cash rather than allow a rollover to Artisan MCV. After spending a lot of time working with the numbers through our premium screener, the choice came down to ARIVX or Intrepid Endurance. I chose Endurance for a couple reasons: same discipline, slightly more flexible approach. Mr. Cinnamond is up 9.2% YTD, 6.2% over the TTM and 3.3% over the past five years; Intrepid is up 6.2%, 1.2% and 4.2% in those same periods. Both have had marginal volatility.
More soon,
David

Sometimes in all these discussions about stocks the big picture gets lost.
Stocks haven't gone anywhere for 1 1/2 years
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^GSPC+Interactive#{"range":"2y","allowChartStacking":true}
Or they lost money.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^RUT+Interactive#{"range":"5y","allowChartStacking":true}
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^IXIC+Interactive#{"range":"2y","allowChartStacking":true}
They still don't look appealing to me.

S&P500 bond index is available at Vanguard as Vanguard Intermediate Term Corporate Bond index, VICSX Admiral Share
ER 0.10% with 0.25% purchase fee; SEC yield 2.96%
The ETF equivalent, VCIT, has the same expense ratio and SEC yield, but without the purchase fee.
I have been using this ETF since 2009 and quite happy with its low cost and consistent performance. YTD is 7.39%.

FYI: The bonds of companies in the S&P 500 index enjoyed a good run following the victorious “leave” vote in the U.K.’s referendum on EU membership — even as their stocks got crushed.
The strong performance baffled analysts at first because corporate bonds are considered so-called risk assets, if not typically as risky as their stock brethren. Demand for corporate bonds over government-issued debt, for instance, tends to rise when risk appetite spikes and fall when markets are in panic mode; that’s typically true of stocks, too.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-why-investors-bought-sp-500-bonds-not-stocks-after-brexit-2016-06-29/print

FYI: Herro’s Oakmark International among those losing 10% in a day.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-27/worst-u-s-mutual-funds-in-brexit-rout-bruised-by-european-banks