Last Quarter 401-k traded in retail for institutional shares. I ran the institutional shares, prvix, adjusted close & came out + 5.31% gain for the Qter.. 401-k shows gain of 3.19 %. The other change took place in rptix. Adjusted close shows +1.37 % while 401-k shows -.38 % for the Qter.. Was this due to selling one day at close & buying the next day at close.
Did I take one in the shorts or what. Seems to me MF would do the exchange same day to keep the customer happy !
Thoughts requested,
Derf

Vanguard's 1-3 year short-term government bond fund VGSH has lower expenses than SHY (.10 vs .15) and can be bought, along with VOO, in a Vanguard brokerage account for no commission.

@BobC: First congratulations on becomming part of David's MFO team. I have always considered you a huge asset both here at MFO and in the old days at FundAlarm. I bought PFF back in March of 09 @19.07, needless to say one of my better investments.
Regards,
Ted

FYI: Simply allocate 90 percent of your money to the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) and 10 percent to the iShares 1-3 Year Treasury Bond ETF (SHY).
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-02/put-buffett-s-advice-into-action-with-these-two-etfs

Valeant is not 'a sewer': Bill Ackman
Bill Ackman, Pershing Square Capital CEO and portfolio manager, discusses the changes happening at Valeant Pharmaceuticals, and his decision to invest in the company's business model, after Berkshire Hathaway Vice Chairman Charlie Munger commented the company has become a sewer.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000514305

Actually, in reading over Dodge & Cox's Prospectus recently (was having trouble falling asleep) I came across language that looks similar to Sequoia's. It's in the generic portion which applies to all their funds. This might might pull-up the prospectus: https://www.dodgeandcox.com/pdf/prospectus/dc_statutory_prospectus.pdf
Language: "Redemptions-in-kind The Funds reserve the right, if conditions exist which make cash payments undesirable, to honor any request for redemption by making payment in whole or in part in readily marketable securities chosen by a Fund and valued as they are for purposes of computing a Fund’s NAV. If payment is made in securities, a shareholder may incur transaction expenses in converting these securities to cash. The Funds have elected, however, to be governed by Rule 18f-1 under the Investment Company Act, as a result of which a Fund is obligated to redeem shares, with respect to any one shareholder of record during any 90-day period, solely in cash up to the lesser of $250,000 or 1% of the net asset value of the Fund at the beginning of the period."
---
On the broader subject, I'll maintain that focused funds like Sequoia are inherrently hazardous, for the obvious reason (because they focus on a narrow group of equities). And in today's climate, with the floods of performance-chasing hot money running in and out, I'd think they're even more hazardous - game of musical chairs. (Last one out - please turn off the lights.)
But just for old time's sake, here's GW Bush's classic "Fool Me Once."

Can't resist - BLVAX, another load fund. Ignore the load (which you can do by purchasing it NTF at places like Fidelity) and its rating improves from 4* to 5*.
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/BLVAX.lw/quote.html
Somewhat related ...
The minimum for DSEEX is just $5K in an IRA. So if you're investing in an IRA, there's no need to use the more expensive DSENX share class.
At Fidelity, you could purchase the min of DSENX (NTF), add whatever amount you want to keep in the account (at least $5K total), and ask Fidelity to convert the share class. For most funds, they can do this and there's no $50 fee charged. (I've done this with another fund, but not with DSENX, so you'll have to ask if they can convert this fund.)
Then, additional amounts cost just $5 (using Fidelity's automatic investment program, one time only). Not bad to reduce fees by 25 basis points.
Similar idea with AUENX - the min for AUEIX at Fidelity for an IRA is $2500, same as for AUENX. Save the 25 basis points. (Where can one get AUENX outside of an IRA for under $1M?)

According to Barchart Opinion: SPY is short-term challenged, but IWM, IJH, EFA and EEM look adequately healthy.
The S&P 500 bounced off 2050 twice on this past Friday, which appears to be short-term support.
Kevin

Just wanted to chime with regard to Roth 401K plans.
Roth 401k plans grow tax free and can be withdrawn tax free, but must follow RMD (required minimum distributions) rules after age 70.5.
Individual Roth IRA plans do not have RMD requirements.

If only things were that simple :-)
The IRS does not impose RMDs on Roth 401(k)s or regular 401(k)s so long as you are working where the money is held. (That is, if you are working at company B, you might not have an RMD at company B, though your money at your former company A would be subject to RMDs.) Same for 403(b)s, but SIMPLEs and SEPs follow IRA rules - RMDs even while you're working.
https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/RMD-Comparison-Chart-IRAs-vs.-Defined-Contribution-Plans
https://www.irahelp.com/slottreport/still-working-and-past-age-70-12-answers-7-frequently-asked-questions
That's the IRS rule. Still, the plan itself may require you to take RMDs after age 70.5, so you have to check the plan rules also.
Depending on the terms of the plan, you can often take an "in-service" distribution from a 401(k) or similar once you turn 59.5. That enables you to transfer the Roth contributions to a Roth IRA to avoid the RMD issue, assuming you're still working. (If you're not, you're free to take the money out at any age and transfer it to an IRA or use however you'd like.)
Finally, a couple of obscure exceptions to all of the above:
1) In a 403(b) (but not a 401(k)) pre-1987 contributions may not have to be taken out until age 75
2) Inherited Roth IRAs do have RMDs. (If a spouse rolls over an inherited IRA into his/her own IRA, then it is no longer inherited and no longer subject to RMDs.)

Not an expert, but looking back over the last 2 years (S&P 500) I would say it has been range bound between 2100 on the upside and 1850 on the downside.

Looks about right

You might take a look at any of the Vanguard 'Dividend' funds and/or ETF's. Also look at SDOG, a sector diversified Dividend Dog styled equal weighted ETF. And Schwab offers their SCHD, a US Stock, Large Cap Value ETF tracking the Dow Jones U.S. Dividend 100 Index.

Not an expert, but looking back over the last 2 years (S&P 500) I would say it has been range bound between 2100 on the upside and 1850 on the downside.

Just wanted to chime with regard to Roth 401K plans.
Roth 401k plans grow tax free and can be withdrawn tax free, but must follow RMD (required minimum distributions) rules after age 70.5.
Individual Roth IRA plans do not have RMD requirements.

FYI: Total private-equity capital hit an all-time high of $4.2 trillion in June, Fidelity says. As private-equity investing has grown, advisers have been increasingly interested private equity for their clients. “We've been thinking about what advisers need in private equity and how to create basic access tools to help them,” Mr. Gallagher said.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160429/FREE/160429911?template=printart

The second sentence grated. The legislation is not providing a safe harbor for information that might otherwise be considered an "unregistered offering", but rather a registered offering.
For the wonks among us - securities offered to the public generally must be registered under the Securities Act of 1933. Anytime a broker provides information about a security (such aa fund or ETF), the broker is at risk being viewed as having made a offer to sell that security.
There are rules to be followed when offering to sell a (registered) security; this safe harbor says that these rules aren't triggered merely by handing someone research about an ETF.

FYI: The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a bill this week that would allow wider distribution of research reports about exchange-traded funds.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160429/FREE/160429908?template=printart

@OLd_Skeet FYI:
Sector SPDR Funds YTD As of 4/29/16:
S&P 500 Index +1.05%
Consumer Discretionary (XLY) +1.33%
Consumer Staples (XLP) +3.58%
Energy (XLE) +11.90%
Financial Services (XLFS) -3.21%
Financials (XLF) -2.18%
Health Care (XLV) -3.11%
Industrials (XLI) +5.94%
Materials (XLB) +8.48%
Real Estate (XLRE) +0.63%
Technology (XLK) -1.63%
Utilities (XLU) +11.88%
Regards,
Ted

I believe Target (allocation) funds can be used quite effectively to not only get you to "work retirement", but also as a tool to get you through until your "earthly retirement" aka death. Something I have shared before and I am still refining are these investment thoughts:
bee's Target Date Strategy:
I've often thought there are really two target dates, one targeting retirement from "work" and one targeting retirement from "earth".
Fully funding a retirement dated (glide path allocation) fund makes perfect sense. As a retirement dated fund glides towards its maturity date it attempts to provide a smooth landing for your investment at that date.
Effectively, at "work" retirement, an investor would have most of their assets in low risk investments. This might be helpful if the markets happens to severely correct in the first 5 years of retirement, but this portfolio must also be re-allocated the prepare for longevity risk (your money needs to last as long as you do). So, during the first few years of retirement a portion of this retirement portfolio needs to reallocated into investments that attempt to achieve portfolio longevity in retirement.
In a sense, a retiree could reallocate a percentage of their retirement portfolio into target date funds that target the incremental need to reach "earthly" retirement. Much like laddering CDs, a retiree could ladder target date funds in 5 year increments that will be used for spending if the retiree is lucky enough to reach that target date.
I could envision a retiree owning 6 separate retirement dated funds, each maturing 5 years further into the future (funding years 65-95 or 70-100) and each needing differing amounts of initial funding based on financial needs during that 5 year period in the future. The last fund matures on your date of death and pays your funeral expenses.
Sorry if some of this sounds a bit morbid to the reader.

Thanks @Ted, for posting Fidelity's latest sector rankings and outlook. I found the link to be beneficial.
One of the things I have done is that I strive to maintain certain sector allocations within my portfolio. In the minor sectors of materials, real estate, communication and utilities I strive to maintain at least a five percent weighting. In the major sectors of consumer cyclical, financial, energy, industrials, technology, consumer defensive and healthcare I strive to maintain at least a nine percent weighting in each. When combined these base weightings add up to 83%. This leaves 17% that can be moved around to overweight sectors that are more in favor than others.
Currently, I am overweight, from my base weightings, financials by +2%, communication by +2%, industrials by +1%, technology by +2%, consumer defensive by +4% healthcare by +3% and utilites by +3%.

I think these funds are the best option for a majority of 401k working investors. I would like to see them standardized across brokerages though. Maybe if they called them by their target stock/bond allocation instead of retirement date. The Vanguard's, Fidelity's and T.Rowe Price's of the world can then add "recommended for retirement date such and such". Seems like a much better way to understand what you're invested in.