I haven't looked recently at the holdings data for TWEIX and FLPSX, and doubtless the study considered such; but I do wonder if CAPE at least fits relative, perhaps not 'true', value criteria. It's supposed to, I believe.

all noted, tnx
The thing is, this was not ever supposed to be a 'brokerage attached to a bank', but the bfd result of a long-established independent brokerage marrying a big ol' bank, with all the joy-joy of each and both...
I forgot about CAPE not paying dividends (etn meaning debt instruments) --- so all the DSE_X divs come from the bond sauce. Huh.
Yeah, the end-month fractional sweep thing is also nuts.
BoA credit cards don't need ME/ML brokerage, I think, though you probably get extra-nice treatment or something if you have a lot of bucks at the brokerage.

Yup, they are oddly unsophisticated, and in important ways, I think.
If ML were not hardwired w/ BoA (where we have checking / savings / mortgage / heloc / 3% credit card sort of), and above all did not have free trading, and did not pay so much for accounts transferred into them (I guess the same as other places, turns out), I would move everything back to Fido.
Also, fwiw, ML's accounts aggregator, My Financial Picture, is invariably accurate, while Fido's has been sketchy for about a decade, even as they changed from yodlee to other data feeds, and earnestly promise improvement every other month. I have a dozen emails about FullView and My Portfolio update problems. Still laggard and/or wrong, almost every night.
There is worse, too, in just trying to ascertain whether you can buy a given fund --- it shows availability right up to the moment you make the actual purchase attempt. And the capper for me is their restriction list, already covered in this forum, notably for me CAPE unavailability.

While 40% might be a tad high, I agree more with @msf here. Bogle is generally a lot of “bluster.” I doubt even he agrees 100% with everything he says. (But I’ll acknowledge his contributions to mutual funds / investors).
The biggest reason I can think of to diversify equity holdings more outside the U.S. is the long term damage being done to our competitive position and democratic institutions by the current occupant of the WH. Unfortunately, to a degree he’s a symptom of deeper problems in the country that aren’t going to disappear overnight. I’ve tried to increase international exposure by bolstering my % in RPGAX. And it hasn’t escaped my attention that domestically oriented DODBX has a significant amount of foreign exposure (somewhere near 20%). Recently increased my stake in that one.
I’ve always clung to a healthy dose of foreign currencies / bonds for a somewhat different reason, If some nasty inflation (actually Dollar deflation) were to emerge down the road, the dollar would weaken against foreign currencies and foreign currencies would increase in relative value. I can’t predict that will happen. But I like having the insurance of some foreign currency exposure anyway.
Back to equities - About the time equities in one region or another begin looking bleak is, IMHO, a good time to begin averaging in. Europe appears “on the ropes” now due to BREXIT & related issues. And China just had an awful year. Good places for long term investors to look for possible value. EM as a group? If younger, I’d make a spec play on the beaten up EM sector. But over the very long term most of my international exposure would be with the less risky / volatile developed markets.

A report of "Harold Evensky’s final presentation on investing."
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2018/09/26/the-investment-world-according-to-harold-evensky
Very straightforward, nothing earth shattering, though several points I've seen elsewhere are included here:
"Evensky cited the Shiller CAPE ratio, which is 31.1 versus its historical average of 16.2. 'It’s a very expensive market,' he said."
Maybe not as expensive as three months ago when this presentation was made, but still far from cheap.
"If a manager cuts turnover from 100% to 50%, the marginal reduction in taxes is negligible, Evensky said. Managers need to be closer to 10% turnover to be thought of as tax-efficient."
Which is why I may fret about Dick Strong-type churning, but don't obsess over "moderate" turnover. Though turning over an entire portfolio within a year still isn't "moderate" from other perspectives.
“'Our clients don’t need cash flow,' Evensky said. 'They need real income.' The problem with dividends is that they are not consistent; interest is also volatile, as bonds are subject to interest rate movements. 'Our clients need reasonably consistent income,' he said".
Hence a focus on total return.
“'we tend, particularly in planning, to focus on the probability but ignore the consequences. That can be really dangerous in planning.' If you know the probably of success is 95%, the consequences of failure still matter, he said. We need to plan, for example, for additional longevity of our clients."
Which is why I continue to be concerned about simulations showing 95% success that don't also tell me how bad the results are in those other 5% (miss by just a little, or spend golden years of poverty?)
Evensky has changed his outlook about annuities, which he once derided as an inappropriate vehicle for his clients. Single-premium immediate annuities (SPIAs) and deferred-income annuities (DIAs) will be the single most important tool in the coming decade, he said, mostly because their fees have come down

@Derf
don't see any comment from her except quoting him, and I sure love his 'lathered in derp' locution
yes, almost everything looks oversold, and if I had any cash I would be buying bigtime, not only CAPE and ARKK but PCI and now PDI

FYI: You might expect a 70-year-old mutual fund with $74 billion in assets to be set in its ways.
But the Franklin Income Fund’s holdings have gone through big changes in recent years. Ed Perks, the fund’s lead manager, described those shifts as well as the uncertain investing landscape of 2018 and what he sees ahead.
The Franklin Income Fund FKINX, -0.93% FRIAX, -0.94% was launched in August 1948. The fund’s objective is to maximize income while also seeking opportunities for capital growth, with a diversified, actively managed portfolio of stocks, bonds and convertible securities.
In an interview on Dec. 18, Perks said the fund was about evenly allocated between fixed-income and equity investments. At the beginning of 2018 the allocation was about 40% fixed income and 60% equities. Perks said that this year the fund’s management team has “softened its overall investment posture,” in order to “reduce total expected portfolio risk going forward.”
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/there-will-be-plenty-of-opportunity-for-investors-in-2019-says-manager-of-74-billion-franklin-income-fund-2018-12-21/print
M* Snapshot FKINX:
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=FKINX&region=usa&culture=en_US
Lipper Snapshot FKINX:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/fkinx
FKINX Is Rank #21 In The (30%-50%-E) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/allocation-30-to-50-equity/franklin-income-fund/fkinx

@Crash
Same question. Why would one want or need CM as part of a portfolio?
Sidenote: Canada, for the most part did not escape the turmoil of pricing declines during the market melt. CM, from a high price in May, 2008 through its low price in March, 2009 found a -62% change.

M* has screwed up the categorizations of DSE_X, from the getgo, I think.
It algorithmically churns SP500, as CAPE-plus vehicle, so never ever SC. LCV is always reasonable, since valuation drives the algorithm.

When in doubt go to the funds website:
https://doublelinefunds.com/shiller-enhanced-cape/

After several years of almost no year-end distributions, this year the tax man cometh. NAV is around $15.50 and the total distribution is estimated at about $1.65. Ouch. Still, it's hard to complain about the performance. The ETN, CAPE, does not make big distributions.
For a really tax-efficient, winning equity fund, check out AKREX.

You can always roll your own, 50-50 or 25-75 or whatever w/ PONAX and DSENX (or SCHD or CAPE or whatever) and call it a day; still a distant horizon at 50y.

Blows my mind too. Sometimes, however, I come close to understanding Einstein’s view of gravity (somehow tied-in to the the theory of relativity) - but than it escapes me. As I understand his view of gravity, everything is traveling in a straight line (including orbiting planets). But because space itself is warped by the mass of large objects, objects like planets only appear to be moving in circular orbits.
From a practical standpoint, would an equity position opened on Earth by an “Earthling” from his near-the-speed-of-light spacecraft appreciate in Earth years? If so, the traveler would be unimaginably wealthy once he eventually returned to earth - and still young enough to enjoy his new found wealth to the fullest. :)

Yeah; I was (am always) looking for alternatives to CAPE, which outdoes them all but is unavailable at one of my brokerages. All similar more or less but real (non-huge) differences in performance.

@hank, what blends?
upon any dip I am going to buy QUAL and MMTM with some XRLV (and CAPE if I can)

Hi Old Joe,
Disrespectful, disrespectful, and more disrespectful.
Your comments that you design to degrade my contributions to the MFO board say much more about you and your character than about me. This goes way back to FundAlarm days. The reason escapes me. Regardless, I still extend you.....
Best Wishes

You're missing a number of points and writing what it seems you want to be true: that the 4% figure "is based on multiple studies that included using Monte Carlo analyses". It wasn't.
If what you meant to say is that subsequent Monte Carlo simulations validated this figure, then there's a different problem with the narrative. Because that would also validate the use of historical data - something you say has an intrinsic shortcoming.
Of course the odds are virtually nil that the next thirty years will match a previous thirty year period. Just as the odds are virtually nil that the next thirty years will match a performance pulled out of a hat (aka a Monte Carlo iteration). This is a red herring.
In the typical Monte Carlo simulation, patterns are abstracted away. You seem to regard this as a virtue, writing disapprovingly that historical returns are used "sometimes in the precise order in which these returns were registered." (Orderings weren't preserved merely "sometimes" but always when Bengen came up with his 4% figure. See his original paper.)
Again I suggest reading the AAII piece. You'll find a concrete example of how ignoring some patterns can affect results. Bengen notes there that if one rebalances much less frequently than yearly, " you can actually add about a quarter of a percentage point to your withdrawal rate" He attributes this to persistence of performance. That's a kind of pattern that simplistic Monte Carlo simulations abstract away.
"Monte Carlo simulations continue to grow in popularity." When all else fails, cite popularity for validation. I'm sure VHS's popularity meant that it was the superior technology, that the more popular Windows is better than Mac, etc.
There really was some interesting stuff that you didn't discuss. Like how "there is an inverse relationship between the long-term valuation of the stock market and how much retirees can withdraw without running out of money."
How does that historical data fit into your Monte Carlo simulations? How do you map CAPE into means and standard deviations for large cap stocks, small cap stocks, and bonds? Those are the inputs for the simulators you're linking to.

I think Monte Carlo engines are fine tools. Just so long as they're not simplistic, matched to the right task, and employed by knowledgeable users. Used as you suggest, they have lots of issues.

There are no constraints to Monte Carlo simulation, only constraints users create in a model (or constraints that users are forced to deal with when using someone else’s model). Non-normal asset-class returns and autocorrelations can be incorporated into Monte Carlo simulations, albeit with proper care.

David Blanchett and Wade Pfau,The Power and Limitations of Monte Carlo Simulations, 2014.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2014/08/26/the-power-and-limitations-of-monte-carlo-simulations

Hi @bee, My portfolio is comprised through many years of investing and there are guidelines in place but no hard rules. For instance, the two largest fund holdings are also my oldest at about six percent each (FKINX & AMECX). I decided ... enough is enough ... and, I don't want to keep expanding these two funds so I split some off and open other funds with these being my seed funds for the others. With new money, some gift and inheritance transfers, and taking what the existing funds generated I built what you see. With this I'm thinking new positions to complement the core. Also, a good amount of what you see is also held in taxable accounts. So, I have to consider the tax angle as well.
An exapmle. Currently, NEWFX is the largest position in it's sleeve so I'm thinking of splitting some of it into another fund (DWGAX) through a nav exchange process. This will rebalace NEWFX's sleeve while adding some diverfication to the sleeve that will hold DWGAX. As you can see I have another fund under review for a nav exchange buy (INUTX). So, this is an on going process and done when I felt warranted. Again, gudelines but no hard rules. Generally, no fund starts at less than 5% of its sleeve and becomes no more than 60%. For instance AOFAX is currently 15% of its sleeve, NDVAX 15% and PMDAX 70%. When AOFAX gets built AOFAX is tatgeted to become 20%, NDVAX 20% & PMDAX 60%. PMDAX is held in a taxable account and has been a long term position and through the years of growth become an outsized position within its sleeve. The strategy is not to sell any of PMDAX but to grow the other positions to balance the sleeve with some more buys and natural growth as they should grow faster than PMDAX.
That is why it is important to Xray what you have before starting to tweak.
The below outlines the process and was not posted with the portfolio. Again, no hard rules just guidelines about my sleeve management system.
Old_Skeet's Sleeve Management System
Now being in retirement here is a brief description of my sleeve management system which I organized to better help manage the investments held within mine and my wife's portfolios. The master portfolio is comprised of two taxable investment accounts, two self directed retirement accounts, a health savings account plus two bank accounts. With this, I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves ... an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consist of two sleeves ... a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves ... a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. And, there is the growth area where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five slleves ... a global sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, a specialty/theme sleeve plus a special investment (spiff) sleeve. Each sleeve (in most cases) consist of three to nine funds with the size and weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds held along with their amounts. By using the sleeve system I can get a better picutre of my overall investment landscape. I have found it beneficial to Xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly. My positions and sleeves can be adjusted from time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets through using my market barometer and equity weighting matrix. The matrix is driven by the barometer. All my funds with the exception of those in my health savings account pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio. This automatically builds cash in the cash area to meet the portfolio's disbursements (when necessary) with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. Generally, in any one year I take no more than a sum equal to one half of my portfolio's five year average return. In this way principal builds over time. In addition, most buy/sell transactions settle from, or to, the cash area with some net asset exchanges between funds taking place.
See the portfolio for asset allocation ranges for each area. Sleeve and fund weightings are known but not listed.

She knows nothing independently, is just assigned to see that the new HNW (ha) transferrer-in is happy and 'why don't I do the same for the rest of my Fido holdings'. I try to speak with her as little as possible, though she always says she will relay my complaints and suggestions. I got my $1k bonus already for the transfer. The CAPE "reason" she was reciting to me was bullshit, sure, and upon reflection unsurprising.
I may email them the questions / examples you suggest, but those C/S responses are no good either. Fido people at least are frank, ime.
Great etn list. So Barclays doesn't physically hold livestock, huh. I wonder who uses 3x inverse natgas.

VOO is better yet, and yes, it was the four months preceding Aug 15 that initially gave XRLV the nontrivial leg up.
Same with the last month.
So you get performance very close to VOO (or IVV) with possible added value of outperformance under rising rates. Win-win. All I was saying. No kidding anyone.
Hard to beat VOO. If there were significant downsides to QUAL, XRLV, and CAPE (none shown thus far), they would not be of interest. Yet they seem close to equal to VOO and, often enough, better than. That's why my discussion title was what it was.
But you do you, and stay argumentative.