From the article: "While you shouldn't pick funds solely based on fees, expenses matter because high fees will substantially reduce your returns. Remember, though, that some things in life are worth paying more for, and a good fund manager is one of those things. One rule of thumb: If the fund's expense ratio is more than 1.5%, you should be really sure about the fund manager before you buy"
Huh? Whoever wrote this article sounds like a financial adviser considering he talked about what they like to do when selecting funds for their clients' portfolios, and he spouts this crap. How exactly does one get "really sure" about the fund manager before you buy? It sounds a little like knowing your manager isn't as important if he doesn't have to overcome a big expense ratio. We know statistically that a big portion of fund managers can't beat a low cost index fund after expenses, so it seems to me you'd want to know your manager as well as you can no matter what the expense ratio is.

I'm not a technical expert by any stretch of the imagination but the pattern on the chart looks to me like a flag pattern consolidation that normally resolves itself with a continuation of the trend. If that turned out to be true, it doesn't say that gold miners should go down, it just says that bullion should go up more than gold miners OR go down less.
Since the second half of 2011 gold has been going down, after a huge rally from roughly $700 in late 2008 to roughly $1900 in late 2011. Interesting, the "box", the 50-62% retracement of that move is bounded on the lower side by roughly $1150. Gold has tested $1150 several times in the last six months and it has held. So from very long term perspective one might argue bullishly for gold.
Along with gold being weak since late 2011 the miners have been weaker, which has caused the ratio of GLD to GDX to climb as shown in the chart in the article. If the price of gold was set to rise, then a good bull market should be led by the miners as well, just like they led to the downside.
So one the one hand there seems to be good technical reasons to think that gold's next move could be higher and on the other hand the ratio of GLD to GDX would suggest to me that if the ratio is going higher and miners lead then for the ratio to go up both have to fall, miners more than bullion.
Again, that doesn't lead me to a strong belief one way or the other but I also don't think it would lead me to assume that gold miners are a bad bet.

The value of a commodity (gold, oil, milk, pork bellies, etc.) is impacted by the valuation of the currency it's held in.
From the link below (investopedia):
"Gold is a proactive investment to hedge against potential threats to paper currency. Once the threat materializes, the advantage gold can offer may have already disappeared. Therefore, gold is forward-looking, and those who trade it must be forward-looking as well."
gold-the-other-currency

FYI: As soon as the program becomes available for free, early tomorrow, I will link it.
Regards,
Ted
May 7, 2015
Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen caused a bit of a stir in an interview Wednesday when she commented that “equity market valuations at this point generally are quite high.”
It wasn’t exactly an “irrational exuberance” speech, a la Alan Greenspan in 1996, but pundits were quick to point out that his observation was about four years early, as the markets continued to rally until the March 2000 peak.
The market is expensive historically, based on several longer term measures including one of our favorites, the CAPE ratio, or Cyclically Adjusted Price Earnings ratio, created by frequent WEALTHTRACK guest, Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Shiller.
The CAPE, which is figured by taking the current price for the S&P 500, divided by the average of S&P earnings over the last ten years, adjusted for inflation, is currently around 27. That is well above its 20th century average of about 15.
Fed Chairman Yellen isn’t the only one concerned about stock market levels, professional investors are too.
According to a recent survey from State Street Global Advisors, of over 400 institutional investors worldwide, 63% of them increased their stock exposure over the last six months, but 53% wish they could decrease it and would if they had a more attractive alternative. Talk about conflicted!
Plus, 57% expect a market correction of between 10 and 20% in the next 12 months!
Normally investors could turn to bonds for income and protection, but with bond yields near record lows, they are no longer a viable option.
According to this week’s guest, Clifford Asness, both stocks and bonds are more expensive now than they have been in 90% of market history. Asness is Founder, Managing Principal and Chief Investment Officer at AQR Capital Management.
AQR stands for Applied Quantitative Research, which they use in a number of strategies.
Founded in 1998, AQR, now a global investment management firm, oversees more than 130 billion dollars in hedge funds, mutual funds and a diversified collection of investment strategies, from traditional long-only ones to multiple alternative approaches. I asked Asness how unusual it was for both stocks and bonds to be this expensive at the same time and what investors should be doing in response.
If you’d like to see the show before it airs, it is available to our PREMIUM subscribers right now. We also have an EXTRA interview with Asness, about his new venture with London Business School, available exclusively on our website.
If you have comments or questions, please connect with us via Facebook or Twitter.
Have a great weekend and make the week ahead a profitable and productive one.
Best Regards,
Consuelo

Take a look at HYS. Duration 1.91 years. 4.54% distribution yield.

I was reading the fund "Fact Sheet" tonight and it says it invests primarily in higher-quality high-yield bonds and maintains a duration of less than three years. So, it doesn't sound unconstrained based on that. Currently, the duration is about 1.49 years as of March 31.

"If you guys want to continue this discussion, that’s fine." "Everyone is free to disagree."
"I note that in your comment, you use the plural “we” when recording “our” disapproval." "Given your choice of pronouns, you presume to be speaking for the bulk of the MFO community."
@MJG- Well now, you gave "you guys" permission to continue the discussion, with an ever-so-slightly condescending "that's fine". And while I make no presumption about speaking for "the bulk of the MFO community", I thought that I was included in "you guys". Maybe not.
Never did put much stock in your "Best Wishes", actually, especially when used to end one of your many polemics. Kinda sounds insincere, if you follow me. By the way, I've been noticing a bit of self-plagiarism in your recent replies to other MFO folks. And here I thought that you reserved all of that vituperation just for me. Yet another let-down.
"Best Wishes"

Spot on Bee with FAIRX.
I'd say RPHIX is another one.
Hmmm...not a 1 star, but they never warmed to OAKBX, even during its amazing period last decade.

Hi Old Joe,
To quote Ronald Reagan from the 1980 Presidential debates with Jimmy Carter: “There you go again”.
What pleasure do you take in building a straw-man (that’s me), and then meaninglessly attacking that straw-man? That could be a dangerous practice for you. This straw-man chooses to fight over either flight or freezing. My posting record shows that over and over again.
In this instance, you purposely misinterpret simple declarative statements that I wrote: "If you guys want to continue this discussion, that’s fine. Everyone is free to disagree." I meant nothing more than what I said. There is no deep hidden meaning that lurks below the surface.
Somehow, with malicious intent, you distort and insinuate my real meaning to declare that I hold MFOers postings as “substandard commentary”. That’s a total fabrication that was invented in your own mind. That’s sad indeed.
But I do appreciate this addition to your continuing and gratuitous tirade directed at me.
It further documents your spiteful and nasty nature. Your written words say much more about your character than they identify my shortcomings. It permits seasoned MFOers to compare and judge the merits of your superfluous assertions against my posts. I’m sure they recognize and measure the quality to these exchanges.
I note that in your comment, you use the plural “we” when recording “our” disapproval. Given your choice of pronouns, you presume to be speaking for the bulk of the MFO community.
To satisfy my curiosity, I wonder how you assembled this imagined cohort. Did you conduct a comprehensive and independent survey? Did Professor Snowball provide you with some statistical documentation? Or are these the rants of a lone dissenter who has an old, rusted axe to grind? I suspect the latter.
Why you persist in your ill-conceived vendetta totally escapes me. But I still hope for your rapid and complete recovery from this wasteful malady.
Best Wishes (sort of since my patience is thinning but my resolve is not).

http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/When-Should-You-Take-Social-Security
The amounts are so much higher when you wait, seems like a no-brainer if you can swing it from other resources and are unlikely to die soon.

Check out Junkster's post above about his friend.
Also, when computing when do take SS it isn't only what is mentioned in their article.
When you delay taking SS; you have to take into consideration the opportunity cost of using your $ for expenses.
So, using the schwab example, if a single person could get $2,000/mo or $24K/year from SS but use their money the interest or capital appreciation would have to be added to the years to break even.
e.g. 10% interest = 2,400 x 5 year delay = 12,000
Divide the 12,000 by the SS they would get per month at 67 for the number of months. Let's say 2,600. Then you have to add 4.6 months to the break even point.
Other factors you have to take into account:
-Opportunity cost above - compounding of int/cap gains, add more time for that? .
-401K mandatory withdrawals, if you take SS later + you have 401K withdrawals you may pay more taxes than taking SS early + the 401K because your tax base would be lower- add more time for that?
e.g. 600/month x 12 = 7,200 higher base x tax rate 20% =1,400/2600 = .5 month every year 15? = 7.5 months.
4.6 opportunity cost
.4 compounding interest
7.5 extra taxes
12.5 months.
So deferring may not be financially advisable. In the Schwab example the break even is between 15-16 years - Between 77 and 78
If you want to do the calculations I'd help in reviewing them for you.

AIG has perked up YTD and may help FAIRX (My "silver" 1 star fund) gather some additional stars.
What fund do you own that M* loves to hate?

Joe Bradley, Towle's head of client relationships and my contact with the adviser, writes: "Thanks for asking. We take pride in having a true team effort, meaning all five guys are viewed as portfolio managers rather than having an analyst/PM hierarchy you see elsewhere. We work together to build consensus around all decisions and all members of the team have input. The young guys have been there less that five years, but Peter’s been managing the portfolio with Woody for 14+ and Chris has been doing it for 20+. We believe we have refined the Towle “process” and are not dependent on any one individual."
On the question of benches, Towle has one strategy and five guys. Huber has three strategies and six guys (four PMs, two analysts), according to the Hubercap website.
For what interest that holds,
David

It takes 12 years to break even if you don't take SS early, figure it out...I did....
I have made very good use of my Gov. Checks for last 4 years 62 to 66yo, the money is well invested to make much more money (income) in the future, While late collectors 66/70 are still trying to get even.....go figure

@Crash
As msf wrote; there are many choices. Time to get studying on all of this now. Not sure if you can have some of the supplemental coverage plans (i.e., Plan F) if you are "expat" status living in another country. And your stated $1,000 becomes $896 as a direct deposit, as Medicare part B (currently $104) will be pulled from your SS each month. Plan D, the meds/drug is another situation with many choices to help cover meds costs. Michigan has 36 vendor choices for this plan. msf also noted about delays of acceptance/choice by you of some of these plans. If you "opt out" and delay and then want Plan D in the future, you will incurr a permanent penalty which = higher rates.
The internet is your best friend right now. All of this is available for research and study to determine what might suit your future needs.
Not sure what your Mickey Mouse is about with this.................

Are you sure Social Security is taxed in Mass? From Mass.gov:

21. Are Social Security benefits taxable in Massachusetts? Is the Medicare tax withheld from my Social Security benefits deductible on my return?
Massachusetts does not tax benefits received from U.S. Social Security, Railroad Retirement (Tier I and II), Public Welfare assistance, Veterans' Administration payments or workers' compensation. Any portion of such income, which may be taxed under federal law, is not subject to Massachusetts's income tax.

Regarding the parts of Medicare - A is hospitalization, 100% covered (once you begin SS benefits or apply if you don't claim SS benefits by age 65); B is doctor services, typically 80% covered, and you pay a premium (currently $104/mo). That premium is inflation adjusted and may be higher for high income retirees. The premium also goes up, permanently, if you don't start part B within roughly a year of eligibility (unless you're still working w/group coverage).
D is for 'D'rugs. Since these are private insurance plans, their premiums vary, but are still subject to penalty and high income premiums like part B. And since these are nonstandardized, each insurer has a different formulary. Like employer plans, those are subject to change with little notice.
C is Medicare Advantage. Like the group PPO/HMO plans you're familiar with, they (usually) cover everything (including drugs) but have their own networks of physicians and hospitals. So it replaces A/B/D if you use it.
You always pay your Part B premium to Medicare (even if you take Medicare Advantage instead of vanilla Medicare parts A/B/D). Some Medicare Advantage plans charge extra (and provide extra benefits), some do not. The networks are the major drawback; IMHO the major plusses are a cap on out of pocket expenses and no additional part D (drug) premium. (Under "original" medicare, you'd need a Medicare Supplement - Medigap - plan for an out-of-pocket cap.)
Medicare has standardized Medicare Supplemental Plans, so what one insurer offers must be the same as what another insurer offers for the same plan. These plans go by letters - too complicated to go into here. Since new Medigap plans (starting in 2020) cannot cover all your deductibles (new law), Medigap plans C and F will be changing, though no one knows exactly how yet. To that extent, MJG is correct, you cannot know the future exactly. But you can still have a pretty good idea of what's coming down the (Mass) Pike.
Good luck.

Looks like everything is pulling back this morning.

Bonds in some turmoil, sending futures lower.
Whole Foods spoiled to the tune of 11% after earnings yesterday. However, Priceline and Alibaba bearing this AM.

FYI: Overpriced and unloved.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/05/07/morning-moneybeat-time-for-large-stocks-pullback/tab/print/
Current Futures: (Not Good)
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

I was told not to wait. Take SS at 62. That source told me that if you wait until 66, it will take 8 years to make up what you left on the table, as opposed to starting at 62. I've signed into the SS.gov thing and saw my "account." At 62, I'd be due a bit over $1,000.00 per month, gross. But SS is taxed in MA. And I might just move far away where it's warm. Then there is the cost of medical insurance. This old dog does indeed consume multiple scripts. What is all this stuff about Medicare Part A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J.... ???
("M-I-C------ K-E-Y......... M-O-U-S-E.")

David -- TDVFX has piqued my interest. Any idea as to what extent they are team managed, vs. Mr. Towles (elder or younger) being the key person?
In the SV space I've got HUSIX. I don't mind the past year's poor performance (that will happen to any true value fund now and then) but the 1.85% ER has always left me queasy. TDVFX seems like a similar fund, but with a small asset base (about half as big, including both the mutual fund and separate accounts for both fund familiies) and their 1.2% ER strikes me as reasonable. What's not to like?
But I am increasingly wary about funds with a "great" man or woman running them, rather than a team with a deep bench. That probably is true for HUSIX too, but glancing at their website they at least have a bigger team behind Joe Huber.

Hi Catch22,
I have few problems when discussing religion. I am a practicing Roman Catholic and am at peace with it.
Investing is a horse of a different color. Perhaps I should have qualified my comment about supporting opinions with hard data. I was referring only to investment matters, decisions, and opinions in that instance.
I have no quarrel with investing opinions. All investors ultimately form them and should act on them. That’s what makes a marketplace. As a general rule, I just don’t trust opinions that are offered without supporting documentation. I’m surprised that some MFOers take exception to something as basic as that rule.
The marketplace is awash in a tsunami of statistical data. I expect that almost all investors use some portion of that data in making investment decisions. I do.
I surely agree that investing is not all stats; it is part analytic and part gut feelings. Analyses can be overdone. Correlation is not necessarily causation. There are countless examples of chasing ghost patterns.
Remember in the 1990s Harry Dent projected a Dow 41,000 because of a faulty population aging/spending argument. It was a badly flawed model.
With the abundance of market data, reasonably high correlations can always be “discovered” to project future market prices.
Remember David Leinweber’s discovery that the butter production in Bangladesh could predict 75% of the equity market’s returns. Add the Sheep population in that Country to the correlation parameters, and the correlation coefficient advances to 99%. Of course, subsequent out of sample data convincingly disproved that nonsensical correlation.
Enough. Please attend to your paint fumes while I do the same.
Best Wishes.