Yep, I'll tell you how the moving averages worked out 10 years from now!

FYI: There’a an ominous looking chart going around the internet that shows a stock market on the verge of collapse. As with many scary market charts, what you choose to show–or leave out–can change the picture immensely.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/05/10/sometimes-moving-averages-are-just-lines-on-a-chart/

Thanks Ted,
Here's another 1 year chart that is a little more global:

reference:
sps-seasonal-change-value-china-vietnam/

Very cool. Here's Teresa's performance with MAINX/MINCX since inception ...

FYI: We’re quickly approaching the one-year anniversary of the S&P 500’s all-time closing high made last May 21st. Below is a look at the performance of the S&P 500 and its ten sectors since that day. As shown, the S&P 500 as a whole is currently 2.4% below its all-time closing high. Since 5/21, four sectors are positive, while six are down. Utilities is up the most with a gain of 10.56%, followed by Consumer Staples at +8.79% and Telecom at 5.69%. All three of these sectors are defensive in nature, which speaks to the type of market we’ve been in over the last 11.5 months. The only other sector in the green since 5/21 is Consumer Discretionary, but nearly all of that gain is due to Amazon.com (AMZN) and Netflix (NFLX). On an equal-weighted basis, the Consumer Discretionary sector would be down as well.
The Energy sector is the main reason why the S&P 500 is still below its 5/21/15 all-time high. Energy is still down 16.56% since then even though it has rallied back 25% from its lows. Materials is down the second-most at -9.3%, followed by Health Care at -6.24% and Financials at -5.91%. The Technology sector is down 2.99%, which is just a bit more than the S&P 500 as a whole.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/think-big-blog/sp-500-sector-performance-since-the-52115-all-time-high/
Sector Tracker: (Click On Selected Timeframe):
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker

Part I: Always Cry Over Spilt Milk
(An Admission of a Past Mistake on Resources)
Jeremy Grantham
Part II: Updates
Equity Markets
The tone of the market commentators back in January, when I was writing my last quarterly letter,
seemed much too pessimistic on global stock markets, particularly the U.S. market, and I said so.
This relative optimism was an unusual position for me and the snapback in these markets has validated,
to a modest degree, my thinking at the time. I still believe the following: 1) that we did not then, and
do not today, have the necessary conditions to say that today’s world has a bubble in any of the most
important asset classes; 2) that we are unlikely, given the beliefs and practices of the U.S. Fed, to end
this cycle without a bubble in the U.S. equity market or, perish the thought, in a repeat of the U.S.
housing bubble; 3) the threshold for a bubble level for the U.S. market is about 2300 on the S&P 500,
about 10% above current levels, and would normally require a substantially more bullish tone on the
part of both individual and institutional investors; 4) it continues to seem unlikely to me that this
current equity cycle will top out before the election and perhaps it will last considerably longer; and 5)
the U.S. housing market, although well below 2006 highs, is nonetheless approaching a one and onehalf-sigma
level based on its previous history.
https://www.gmo.com/docs/default-source/public-commentary/gmo-quarterly-letter.pdf
PS
@Ted Don't sell the farm ! From the letter..
Farmland is likely to outperform most other assets. It is still my first choice for longterm
investing.

FYI: )--Matthews Asia has announced the expansion of its fixed income offerings today with the launch of the Matthews Asia Credit Opportunities Fund (MCRDX, Investor Class; MICPX, Institutional Class).
Regards,
Ted
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160510005433/en
Matthews Website:
http://us.matthewsasia.com/our-funds/f-32/matthews-asia-credit-opportunities-fund/investor/overview.fs

I'd looked at that. Google doesn't tell you this, but these are on different dates. The NASDX list of top holdings is as of 3/31 (see M* summary page), and the USNQX list is three months older.
USNQX uses the e-mini NASDAQ 100 futures contract " to reduce any performance discrepancies between the Fund and its respective Index" (from prospectus). This is what I meant when writing that the funds use different techniques for tracking the index and managing cash flows.
The use of futures and other derivatives makes comparing stock percentages (even if calculated on the same date) nontrivial. One needs to add back the percentage contribution from each of the derivatives to know what the "effective" percentage of each stock is for a fund.

FYI: On Aug. 31, major market indices will no longer bundle REITs inside of "financials" as an industry classification. Instead, they will reside in a new category called, surprise, surprise, "real estate."
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-05-09/reits-are-coming-of-age-for-investors

The top 10 holdings in NASDX and USNQX as per Google:
Nasdx
Security Net Assets
Apple Inc (AAPL) 9.51%
Microsoft Corp (MSFT) 6.39%
Facebook Inc A (FB) 5.09%
Amazon.com Inc (AMZN) 4.70%
Alphabet Inc C (GOOG) 3.50%
Intel Corp (INTC) 3.04%
Comcast Corp Class A (CMCSA) 3.03%
Alphabet Inc A (GOOGL) 2.92%
Cisco Systems Inc (CSCO) 2.86%
Gilead Sciences Inc (GILD) 2.66%
Usnqx
Security Net Assets
Apple Inc (AAPL) 10.17%
Microsoft Corp (MSFT) 7.68%
Amazon.com Inc (AMZN) 5.49%
Alphabet Inc C (GOOG) 4.55%
Nasdaq 100 E-Mini Mar16 Xcme 20160318 4.20%
Facebook Inc A (FB) 4.12%
Alphabet Inc A (GOOGL) 3.93%
Intel Corp (INTC) 2.82%
Gilead Sciences Inc (GILD) 2.53%
Cisco Systems Inc (CSCO) 2.39%

Global bond yields touch new all-time low
May 9 2016, 11:37 ET | By: Stephen Alpher, SA News Editor
Global bond yields have fallen to 1.28%, according to a Bloomberg index. The high over the past decade was the 4.84% hit in July 2007 as the financial crisis was beginning to unfold.

https://twitter.com/lisaabramowicz1/status/729628794936512512
Probably will be discussed Here

Please join us for a live DBL/DSL audio webcast hosted by:
Jeffrey Gundlach
Mr. Gundlach will discuss his outlook on the markets and what he believes may be the best investment stratgies and sector allocations for the closed-end funds; DoubleLine Opportunistic Credit (DBL) and DoubleLine Income Solutions Fund (DSL).
Thursday, May 12, 2016
1:15 pm PT/4:15 pm ET/3:15 CT
Register
https://event.webcasts.com/starthere.jsp?ei=1085522

FYI: Author of ‘A Random Walk Down Wall Street’ says smart-beta strategies are riskier than index funds.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/index-fan-burton-malkiel-is-skeptical-about-smart-beta-2016-05-09/print

These days, 5 years isn't a useful metric at all ... since the GFC all fund performance returns have been goosed by QE 1-4 and related artificial support around the world. When 5 years passed since 'the bottom' fund managers and their PR folks were gleefully preparing new info sheets to show awesome 5-year performance to anyone who would listen.
For a mutual fund I will *start* at ten years. Right now, I want to see how a fund was positioned going into the GFC ... that to me gives great insight into how the managers think and how beholden (or not) to the Wall Street 'herd' mentality they are during the latest mania/bubble/groupthink. IE: were you an equity fund and lost only 20% in the GFC versus 35-40% in your same category? I'm interested....why was that?

FYI: We’ve all heard the line about past performance not being indicative of future returns, but when looking at mutual funds the historical data is still worth paying attention to. Yes, a fund’s expense ratio, strategy and tax efficiency all matter, but a fund could look good on all three fronts and still have terrible performance. You want a fund that’s likely to best its peers, and past performance can offer some clues.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2016/04/05/the-key-time-frame-to-use-when-evaluating-a-funds-performance/

Don't know about the timing question. Here's an answer to the Great Owl question: over the past three years, TRAMX has outperformed the average EM fund by 700 basis points/year. And over the past five years, it's up by 700 bps a year. And since inception it's up, though only by 150 bps/year. And, in each of those periods, it's been less volatile than the competition.
Weird, eh?
David

FYI: If inflation returns, here are six strategies to protect a portfolio’s value.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-fed-proof-your-bondholdings-now-1462759206

@hank
I guess I bit on the bet !
GHCAX calls it "the strategy"
A U D
Bought AUD$ / Sold US$
Foreign Exchange Contracts
18.68% of assets as of 3/31
http://www.lelandfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/LF-Currency-Fund-March-Holdings-2016.pdf

Speaking of " Buck$$$",Just opened a very small position in GHCAX as an alternative investment with little correlation to other asset classes.
http://www.lelandfunds.com/index.php/currency-strategy-fund/
http://www.lelandfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Leland-Currency-Strategy-Fund-Quarterly-Commentary-2016Q1.pdf
http://www.lelandfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Leland-Currency-Strategy-Fund_Fact-Sheet_2016Q1.pdf
Enter GHCAX in comparison box to compare vs US$$$
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSEARCA:UUP&ei=qOcvV-mnH4K0mAHtza24DA
China News Shanghai Composite Index stocks-fall-to-seven-week-low
Chinese imports dropped 10.9%, leaving a trade surplus of $45.6B.Weak domestic and global demand is hampering government efforts to reverse an economic slowdown that dragged growth to a seven-year low of 6.7% in Q1.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/3180933-china-trade-contracts-april
China’s stocks headed for their biggest two-day loss in 10 weeks
..imports dropped for the 18th straight month.
Investor sentiment toward Chinese stocks has turned more bearish as a boom in commodities futures waned and data showed March’s pick up in economic indicators didn’t carry over to April, with manufacturing gauges missing predictions. The Shanghai Composite has lost 20 percent this year, the biggest decline among global benchmark indexes tracked by Bloomberg.
"China’s trade import data in terms of dollars were worse than expected,"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-09/china-s-stocks-fall-to-seven-week-low-as-material-shares-slump

As this ICI paper states, 401(k) plans are complex to maintain and administer, and are subject to a slew of regulations. You can find some detail about this on p. 3.
This costs money, and 401(k) plans charge fees to recoup the costs (and to make a profit).
Large employers aren't charged much per employee. So they just eat the costs. Small employer plans cost more per employee, so these employers often pass the costs through to the participants.
Rather than charge employees so many dollars per year to participate (which would discourage participation), the plans tack on a percentage fee to all the funds. They do this by wrapping the plans inside an annuity, and using the annuity fee to pay for the plan.
When the annuity fee is added to a fund fee, it looks like the fund costs a lot. But that's just slight of hand. The fund fee itself tends to be reasonable if not low.
This obfuscation makes it appear to employees that they're getting the plan "for free", when it's actually the employer who is not paying for the plan. All these costs are disclosed to the participants (they don't have to ask for more docs), but most participants don't look past the "all in" fee per fund (fund fee plus annuity fee).
(I know that the plan mentioned is a VA from the name of the TRP fund, which is only offered to VAs. In conflating the "all in" fee with the fund fee, Mr. Burns promotes this obfuscation. He knows better than that, but cost shifting isn't something he wants to discuss. That's a matter with more than one side, and he'd have to discuss what constitutes reasonable costs and how costs could be divided between employer and employee.)

From the WSJ (12/8/2008), writing about the Reserve Primary MMF:

in 2006, with the Primary Fund underperforming rivals, it went on a commercial-paper buying spree. It acquired so much of this higher-yielding but riskier asset that by September 2008, the fund's yield was tops in its class. But $785 million of that paper was Lehman's.

What's the difference between that and Rochester funds picking up junk or near junk to look better?
From WSJ (12/4/2013):

"That greater yield comes with higher risk. ...
"I don't think there was reaching for yield going on," says Daniel Loughran, head of the Oppenheimer Rochester muni funds, whose Oppenheimer Rochester Virginia Municipal tops Morningstar's list for Puerto Rico holdings, at 33%. ...
Morningstar's Mr. Jacobson cautions investors, however. In a competitive environment, "there is always something you can do to goose the income of a bond fund and pick up those extra sales," he says. "The temptation is always there."

Rochester funds have done this for years (perhaps forever?).
Is that looking out for your interest or facilitating placing a bet? Both are legal.
I'm not sure if "shareholders" (above) is a reference to the fund shareholders or the bond holders (who own bonds, not shares). If the former, it seems to me that they invested knowing they were getting higher than market yield and with that comes risk. More risk than with Reserve Fund Primary MMF.
If the latter, what does "make whole" mean? For vulture investors who purchased the bonds for pennies on the dollar because the bonds priced in risk, does it mean simply recognizing that risk and getting back, perhaps, the same pennies on the dollar? Or does it mean getting $1 back at maturity on a bond for which they paid perhaps 40c?
I'm no Trump, but I do hold a couple of PR bonds and I'm happy to take a haircut along with him to reduce my chances of taking bigger losses later. That might mean accepting lower interest payments (but still expecting principal returned at maturity), or extending the maturity of the bond, or something more substantial. Note that even if I get interest when due and just have to wait longer for the bond to mature does not make me whole.