Did a little rebalancing among funds this week. Reduced stock allocation from 57% to 55% (the balance point for stocks set at the start of the year). Reestablished position in JABAX. A little concerned about stocks going into late summer/early fall, especially with pandemic.

I do rather worry about the RobinHood crowd and the prospect that they're pushing things higher, in part by triggering the algos. The observation that the S&P 495 is underwater by 5% year-to-date while the S&P 5 is up dramatically, does feel worrisome.
David

Be well, David.
Speaking of the RobinHood crowd, I saw TSLA is doing a 5:1 split. Since TSLA is a totally unhinged herd-mentality momentum stock, I have to wonder, would this attract RobinHooders and other bet-it-all-on-red folks? Heck, do RobinHooders play with stocks that cost more than $30/share?

@Derf, Interesting pick in SPEDX. Thinking I'll cut some from SPECX into SPEDX through a nav transfer. This should put me somewhere around 50% in SPECX, 25% in SPEDX and 25% in AOFAX within the Alger family of funds. I've got to be careful moving out of SPECX as I've built up sizeable unrealized capital gains in SPECX. In doing a nav transfer I avoid commissions but tax wise this counts as a sale and the tax man will want his cut.
Again, a good pick in SPEDX as I am really thinking hard about moving some money into it especially since, from my perspective, equities are overbought and it can short. I'd most likely hold SPEDX in my niche fund sleeve found in the growth area of my portfolio.
As for my cash I have it split among four money market funds. They are AMAXX, TTOXX, TBIXX & PCOXX. Currently, their year to date returns are 0.27%, 0.34%, 0.47% & 0.52% respectively. When I reduced my cash allocation from 20% to 15% in my portfolio, a while back, I rolled this money into a couple bond funds (MIAQX, LBNDX & FLAAX) since cash yields are paying next to nothing and these bond funds have current yields of about 4.2%, 4.0% and tax free 3.2% respectively. This move became my chosen option to counter low cash yields and raised my income area allocation from 40% to 45%.
Over time, I'll let my portfolio's income generation restore my cash position back to the neutral position of 20%. I'm thinking by year end I'll be back close to the 20% cash allocation as I take all income distributions including year end mutual fund capital gain ditributions in cash. At year end I'll decide how to proceed with respect to the rebalancing my portfolio.
I'm sure there is more than one way to deal with low cash yields. As investors, we have to decide which way is best for each of us to proceed knowing there is no one right (or wrong) way to move as there are no doubt many options that will find success.
Thanks again Derf for bringing SPEDX to the board's attention as I am no longer a student of new fund study although I do follow the markets and for the most part run with what I have establised through my many years of investing.

“The fund’s management fee currently consists of a group fee component that declines at certain asset levels and is calculated daily based on the combined net assets of all T. Rowe Price Funds (except the funds-of-funds, TRP Reserve Funds, Multi-Sector Account Portfolios, and any index or private label mutual funds) and an individual fund fee component. However, the individual fund fee is 0.00% so the fund’s management fee equals the group fee rate. On May 31, 2020, the annual group fee rate was 0.29%. In addition, through at least September 30, 2020, T. Rowe Price has contractually agreed to waive a portion of the management fee it is entitled to receive from the fund in order to limit the fund’s overall management fee rate to 0.15% of the fund’s average daily net assets. Effective October 1, 2020, the arrangement limiting the overall management fee to 0.15% will be terminated and the group fee component of the management fee will be eliminated, and the fund will begin paying T. Rowe Price an annual investment management fee of 0.06% based on the fund’s average daily net assets.”
That’s four of the most confusing sentences I’ve ever read. - “Who’s on first?“

@Old_Skeet: bought my place five years ago and thought long and hard about a generator, in particular one that tamped into the natural gas line. And then I kept thinking, "I lived around the Quad Cities for 32 years and have had one outage that lasted more than an hour or two. What are the odds that this will be a good investment for me?"
"Rising," apparently.
(sigh)
I do rather worry about the RobinHood crowd and the prospect that they're pushing things higher, in part by triggering the algos. The observation that the S&P 495 is underwater by 5% year-to-date while the S&P 5 is up dramatically, does feel worrisome.
David

Where To Stash Your Cash
Oct. 11, 2017 8:59 AMGM, VFSUX, VMFXX
Summary
Investors have been bullish on equities with a couple of corrections along the way since March 2009.
Equities are starting to look a bit frothy.
In the past, investors might have started moving money out of equities and into bonds at this point.
The driver for the 8.5 year bull market in equities has also driven up the price of bonds resulting in near historically low yields.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4112870-where-to-stash-your-cash
Couple good ideas revisited
Short bond funds/ultrashort bond funds/mm/ cd yields/
Vanguard Short Term Investment Grade Fund (NYSE: VFSUX)
Vanguard Short Term Tax Exempt Fund (NYSE: VWSUX)
Vanguard Ultra Short Term Bond Fund (NYSE: VUSFX)
Vanguard Federal Money Market Fund (NYSE: VMFXX)
We do use preferred etf PFF and preferred BAC vehicles
Regards

Sold gld and slv....added more brk.b and Vanguard-2045 and vht today
Seems everyone backing up a bit from gld slv and bonds, maybe over priced...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4367158-natural-gas-prices-surged-over-20-last-week-natural-gas-equities-surged-even
Summary
Dry natural gas prices broke out to the upside last week.
Natural gas equities outperformed, as they have been doing for a majority of 2020.
Bigger picture, natural gas equities are leading dry natural gas prices, which are leading commodity prices, which will lead to inflation.
This idea was discussed in more depth with members of my private investing community, The Contrarian. Get started today »
Bull markets are born on pessimism, grow on skepticism, mature on optimism, and die on euphoria.
-- Sir John Templeton
Introduction
I have been bullish on dry natural gas prices and natural gas equities for a long time. Two recent published examples of this bullish include the recent published article, "Antero Resources Is A Generational Buy: Working Through The Near-Term Debt Maturities", and "EQT Corp Surges As The Bearish Natural Gas Thesis Is Dead", which was published on March 17 in the heart of the declines in the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY) and the Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (DIA).
Natural gas equities featured in these articles, including Antero Resources (AR), Antero Midstream (AM), and EQT Corp (EQT), have performed admirably year-to-date in 2020, with AR shares rising 37.9% year-to-date through August 7, AM shares rising 9.3% YTD, outperforming all of their pipeline peers, and EQT shares rising 58.4% YTD./
Just an observation -
Maybe huge demands for commodities on the horizon....so many cars on road now new where we live...things slowly returning to normalcy unless another hugh covid19 outbreaks...

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/853437/000174177320002231/c497.htm
97 1 c497.htm
T. Rowe Price U.S. Treasury Long-Term Fund
Supplement to Prospectus Dated March 1, 2020
The fund’s Board of Directors has approved changes to the fund’s name, investment objective, fee structure, and overall investment program, which includes changing to an index strategy that tracks the returns of its current benchmark index. These changes are expected to become effective on October 1, 2020, subject approval by the fund’s shareholders of change to the investment objective.
Effective October 1, 2020, the fund will change its name from the T. Rowe Price U.S. Treasury Long-Term Fund to the T. Rowe Price U.S. Treasury Long-Term Index Fund. In connection with the name change and to align with the shift to an index strategy, the fund’s investment objective is proposed to be changed to seek to provide high income consistent with maximum credit protection.
The fund’s management fee currently consists of a group fee component that declines at certain asset levels and is calculated daily based on the combined net assets of all T. Rowe Price Funds (except the funds-of-funds, TRP Reserve Funds, Multi-Sector Account Portfolios, and any index or private label mutual funds) and an individual fund fee component. However, the individual fund fee is 0.00% so the fund’s management fee equals the group fee rate. On May 31, 2020, the annual group fee rate was 0.29%. In addition, through at least September 30, 2020, T. Rowe Price has contractually agreed to waive a portion of the management fee it is entitled to receive from the fund in order to limit the fund’s overall management fee rate to 0.15% of the fund’s average daily net assets. Effective October 1, 2020, the arrangement limiting the overall management fee to 0.15% will be terminated and the group fee component of the management fee will be eliminated, and the fund will begin paying T. Rowe Price an annual investment management fee of 0.06% based on the fund’s average daily net assets.
Effective October 1, 2020, subject to approval by the fund’s shareholders of the change to the fund’s investment objective, the following changes will be made to the prospectus:
The investment objective on page 1 will be revised as follows:
The fund seeks to provide high income consistent with maximum credit protection.
The fee table and expense example on pages 1—2 will be revised as follows...

Hank, excellent response. Over the years I have seen many investors that make changes in their portfolio based on prediction and opinions of "experts" just to find later they were wrong.
I don't blame these journalists their intention is to grab attention with their headlines, after all, every time you click and read they get paid. Probably over 95% of article are useless, reparative, recyclable and not actionable.
Just to name one, Gundlach, the bond "king", predicted that the 10 year treasury will be at 6% in 2021 (link).
This is why I don't pay attention to any of these. As a trader I just follow charts, uptrends and prices but I'm in the market invested at 99+% about 97-98% of the time.

Your hindsight is impeccable 1K. I’ll give you that. I’ll try here to answer your somewhat condescending questions:
- I’m by nature a conservative investor. Within a diversified portfolio, I‘ve always maintained some significant exposure to equities. So nothing’s changed just because my analysis tonight concluded we’re running on “borrowed time“. Considering 22 years retired, I’m likely a lot more more aggressively invested than many in that situation - and less so than others.
- Generally, I feel it’s foolish to try and invest according to a reading the macro tea leaves. I’ve said as much here on more than one occasion. I rarely do it - perhaps on occasion for small speculative gambits.
- Yes, there have always been doomsayers: Granville, Dent, Rogers, Faber, Hussman to cite a few. I’ve listened to all of them . Never fell in love with any. Although I’ll say Rogers is certainly a glib and engaging talker.
- Short the market? Not me! Takes nerves of steel. And greater insights into specific companies than I possess. Do any of my funds short? Probably. In particular alternative fund TMSRX (about 10% of my holdings) has the ability to short.
- You didn’t ask, but my post was not intended or offered as actionable investment advise. Indeed, it suggested there might be many more years of rising asset prices.
I hope I’ve answered your questions.
So what are you overlooking here in your rather derisive and dismissive antipathy towards my thoughts? Probably the 35+ year downtrend in global interest rates. Do you really think the past 35+ years of generally rising asset prices would have played out that way had the 10-year risen from below 1% to over 10% during those years instead of the other way around? And do you choose to ignore the massive and unprecedented Federal Reserve interventions, both during the ‘07-‘09 market wreck and again after the March pummeling? Why would you find their propping up wine growers and auto sales companies that far-fetched? BOJ has purchased stocks in the past. And our own Federal Reserve is currently buying / owns corporate bonds rated just one notch above junk.
BTW- You’ll be glad to learn the Pres. is now talking up further tax cuts - apparently to be enacted by by decree.
MORE TAX CUTS COMING?

Love OJ's pictures.

Shares of Kodak plunged Monday after a US agency suspended a loan intended to support the former photo giant's launch of a new pharmaceutical venture.
...
The Wall Street Journal has reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating Kodak's disclosures about the loans and is expected to probe the company's awarding of stock option grants to executives on July 27.

Agence-France Presse wire story.
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/kodak-shares-slump-us-loan-195029583.html
WSJ article cited in report:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-agency-sidelines-planned-765-million-loan-to-kodak-amid-probes-11597018204

Article On How More Take-Home Pay Might Boost Equity Valuations
Today’s Red-Hot Numbers
The DOW led the charge, picking up 357 points or 1.30%
Interestingly, the NASDAQ lost about a half-percent - possibly on China tensions. One Bloomberg pundit suggested today the U.S. might break off diplomatic relations with China before year‘s end (unconfirmed speculation).
Other Markets (from Bloomberg)
CRUDE +2.0%
GOLD -0.51%
SILVER +2.49%
MINERS -0.82%
10-GOVT YIELD 0.58%

A bullish but plausible projection with a couple of big caveats.

“We now expect that at least one vaccine will be approved by the end of 2020 and will be widely distributed by the end of 2021Q2,” Goldman Sachs economist Joseph Briggs wrote on Sunday.
...the availability of a vaccine is key to giving consumers the confidence to go back out there and spend.
Goldman’s increased optimism about the vaccine led the firm to increase its 2021 GDP growth forecast to +6.2% (from +5.6%) and lower its 2021 year-end unemployment rate forecast to 6.5% (from 7.0%).
....even if Goldman is correct about the timing of the vaccine, the firm’s forecasts also assume consumers continue to get aid until public health conditions are more normalized.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/goldman-sachs-2021-forecast-gdp-unemployment-rate-earnings-morning-brief-100115722.html

While Wellington has been associated with Vanguard for as long as Vanguard's been around, it does also submanage many funds elsewhere. A couple of the other families that come to mind are:
Harbor Funds: HMCNX (not cheap, a new midcap fund)
Hartford Funds:
"Our mutual funds (with the exception of certain fund of funds) are primarily sub-advised by Wellington Management Company LLP or Schroder Investment Management North America Inc."
Examples: HAOYX, HGIYX (5* fund compares favorably with 4* VDIGX)
I'd still look first to Vanguard for lower expenses, but there are other families to consider as well. Especially as one moves away from domestic large cap value, which is where Vanguard/Wellington is focused. Wellington's been managing foreign funds for at least a quarter century; see, e.g. HAOYX.

the reinharts tend to the bearish, to a fault, but this argues for the long haul:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-call-it-what-it-is-were-in-a-pandemic-depression/2020/08/09/3904faf4-d8e5-11ea-aff6-220dd3a14741_story.html

Dinky linky.
The point being that they are the new CDO's. And banks own more of them than may be good for their health.

Since 2008, banks have kept more capital on hand to protect against a downturn, and their balance sheets are less leveraged now than they were in 2007. And not every bank has loaded up on CLOs. But in December, the Financial Stability Board estimated that, for the 30 “global systemically important banks,” the average exposure to leveraged loans and CLOs was roughly 60 percent of capital on hand. Citigroup reported $20 billion worth of CLOs as of March 31; JPMorgan Chase reported $35 billion (along with an unrealized loss on CLOs of $2 billion). A couple of midsize banks—Banc of California, Stifel Financial—have CLOs totaling more than 100 percent of their capital. If the leveraged-loan market imploded, their liabilities could quickly become greater than their assets.

There's more at the link. Check it out. Buy a subscription if you can afford it.

Perhaps an insightful article from Barrons would be more informative. Joyce Chang is the Chair of Global Research at JP Morgan. Her comments on the impact of COVID pandemic are well articulated. Also some suggestion on investment opportunities at the end of the article.

Question: You’re not predicting outstanding returns from equities either.
Answer: No, but you will have some returns. The traditional 60/40 equity/bond split, which earned 10% a year over the past 40 to 50 years, is now down to 3½%. Even if you’re tilted to equities, you’re still not going to get 10% again. You’re going to get something below 5%, but investors really have to contemplate what their overall asset-allocation parameters will be. In a world of zero yields, Is 80/20 the way to go? Asset classes that are a hybrid between “safe” bonds and equities—such as high-yield bonds and loans, collateralized loan obligations, commercial mortgage-backed securities, convertibles, and equity and mortgage REITs—offer equity-like returns. There’s a case for emerging market debt, because I think yields will have to come down further in emerging markets as well. China is going into [J.P. Morgan’s global bond] index this year, and our longer-term view is that China is going toward zero yield.

How the pandemic will change financial markets forever

These semi-transparent ETFs are "clones" of existing mutual funds.
Inception date is 08/04/2020.
Name Ticker Expense Ratio
Blue Chip Growth ETF TCHP 0.57%
Dividend Growth ETF TDVG 0.50%
Equity Income ETF TEQI 0.54%
Growth Stock ETF TGRW 0.52%
Link

I read the article and laughed. The first 4 pay under 1.9% which I wouldn't call great cash flow.
VYM pays about 3.6%..BUT WAIT...The higher yield stock style investing must be debunked all the time. VYM trails the SP500 for YTD, 1, 3, 5, 10 years. VYM recovery was way behind. YTD: SP500=VFIAX made 14.7% more than VYM.
I guess you missed the FAANGM and instead concentrated in higher income stocks (T???). Why not look at all stocks and select the best regardless of higher income.
So, what is more important, higher income or higher total return? of course higher returns is better and what I have been practicing since the start, even at retirement.
If I need more cash than my monthly dist (usually bond funds) I just sell some shares when I need to.