FYI: What a difference three months can make in the world of top-performing mutual-fund managers.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/and-the-no-1-stock-fund-manager-is-11554689520?mod=article_inline

@johnN: The link below will take you to a December 2015 post that I made about my asset allocation. It seems, I was at this time just moving to about 20% cash, 30% income, 35% growth and income and 15% growth asset allocation. Prior to that, based upon my recollection, I was at about 15% cash, 25% income, 40% growth & income and 20% growth asset allocation. Most likely, I was at an asset allocation of about 10% cash, 20% income, 40% growth & income and 30% growth during the time span you inquired about (2009-2010).
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/24926/old-skeet-s-new-portfolio-asset-allocations-2016#latest
I'll keep looking and if I come up with something else I'll post it.
And, here is something else that I came up with that dates back to March of 2012 as how I went about adjusting my asset allocation. Perhaps, it will be of some interest.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/2501/a-system-i-use-to-adjust-my-asset-allocation#latest
As you can see through the years; and, as I have aged, I have reduced my allocation to equities and raised my allocation to income while cash has stayed about the same except when I was positioned for the 2009-2010 stock market rebound. Back then cash was at about 10%. One reason that I hold excess cash is that it provides me the opportunity to open special equity spiff positions form time-to-time should I feel this is warranted. This is something that I have done for a good number of years ... and, I still do form time-to-time. However, I did not put a spiff in play during the last market swoon (4th Quarter of 2018) as I was in the process of rebalancing and reconfiguring my portfolio. Howerver, I did leave myself +5% equity heavy during this last rebalance process to tactically overweighting equities from my newely established asset allocation of 20% Cash, 40% Income, 30% Gr & Inc and 10% Growth. With this, my Growth Area is now +5% heavy while my Cash Area is -5% light from their neutral positions due to this tactical overweight positioning in equities.

In addition, REITs are now somewhat more attractive to own outside of tax shelters, because they get a Section 199A 20% reduction in taxes. That is, whatever income they pass through, you get to deduct 20% of that. So if you're in the 22% tax bracket, you'll owe a net 17.6% (80% x 22%).
Still higher than the 15% cap gains rate, but not by very much. Something to consider if you're looking to generate income, or if you've already filled your IRA with bonds that are taxed at a higher rate.
http://www.2ndmarketcapital.com/reits/reit-benefits/ (quick and dirty summary)

...
(With nonretirement-account losses able to 'detax' any gains for years to come, I have been pondering recently, as I raise cashflow from both rollovers and Roths per ORP, whether the taxfree future of my Roths really matters.)

Different ways of viewing it for sure. In pure dollars and cents the linked article probably makes sense. Did 3 conversions. First & biggest in March ‘09. Motivation was primarily to reduce by at least 50% the RMDs that would be coming down the road in a few more years. (And there are years when the only distribution comes from the traditional.)
While they’re invested conservatively (like the traditional IRAs) I vowed never to keep a cash position in any of the Roths. That has probaby made the biggest difference in their outperformance. Also, I avoid holding newer untested funds in the Roths. Deserve a bit extra care.

I’m doing it all wrong.
First, I’ve allowed my Roths to outperform my Traditional IRAs over the years. Roths now comprise over 65% of IRA assets. Worse yet, if I need $10,000, I take $5,000 from the Traditional and $5,000 from the Roth. This leaves an immediate tax liability on $5,000 (instead of $10,000).
But always willing to learn something from the links board.

Interesting short read. The rally is fun while it lasts and certainly a relief after quarter four of last year. The two largest holdings in my portfolio each have about 50% in stocks with the balance in bonds and other diversifying stuff. Everything seemed to click for them in quarter one. RPGAX was at +9.1% and GDMZX was at +8.8%. (A head shake followed by a triple check of the end of quarter numbers confirmed that's what happened.) I can not imagine it will be smooth sailing for the entire balance of the year. But this was a welcome start....

Again, thanks to Ted for linking to the Barron's article via Marketwatch.
Worth repeating: Recommended portfolio size for investing in individual bonds:
Treasuries only: "'We would recommend starting with a minimum of $50,000, with at least 10 bonds in $5,000 increments,' says Brian Therien ...at Edward Jones."
Corporates: "Investors interested in venturing into slightly riskier bonds that offer better yields—though it’s best to stick with AAA-rated municipal bonds or corporate bonds—will [have a] ... minimum investment for a laddered portfolio ... closer to $250,000."

Who is benefiting is obvious even without reading this WSJ editorial.
State tax-free income became more valuable to those who could no longer deduct state income taxes (SALT limitations), i.e. the very high earners in low income/low property value states and the middle class and above in high income/high property value states.
Consequently, states have to pay somewhat less interest on the bonds. This allows them to borrow more, but also benefits these taxpayers who ultimately bear the cost of state expenditures.
----
Muni bond investors likely know that two of the NRSROs (Moody's and Fitch) "recalibrated" their muni bond ratings in 2010. That is, they changed the curve on which they graded muni bonds, because AA muni bonds tended to be as safe as AAA corporates. So formerly AA munis were changed to AAA and so on.
This editorial challenges the recalibration, asserting that this lowered rates on muni bonds. Of course interest rates dropped. If a bond looks safer buyers demand less interest. However, nowhere does the editorial suggest that the recalibration was inaccurate.
My question is, given this professed concern by the Editorial Board in the accuracy of NRSROs, where was the WSJ back in 2007 when CDOs were all getting great ratings?
https://www.mercatus.org/publication/brief-history-credit-rating-agencies-how-financial-regulation-entrenched-industrys-role
----
Side note: I'm reading the column online at home courtesy of the library at a university in which I'm registered as a student. Registering and not sitting in on classes is actually less expensive than subscribing (not that this is why I sign up for classes - free access is just an added benefit.)

FYI: Which way are interest rates headed? Retirees have been asking this question for the better part of a decade—and that conundrum continues. Just when it seemed that rates were finally moving higher, the Federal Reserve turned dovish in late March, sending bond markets into a tizzy.
Price fluctuations are a source of angst for investors who trade in and out of bonds, or own them in mutual funds and exchange-traded funds. But for investors who own bonds to maturity, it’s no big deal. As long as an issuer doesn’t default, which is pretty rare, investors who own bonds until their expiration dates can count on getting back their initial investment, plus the interest they earned along the way.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/articles/retirement-income-bond-ladders-51554500911?mod=barrons-on-marketwatch

FYI: As an investor, it’s easy to blow it. You could sell too early, buy too late. Bet on a loser or pass over a winner. But often the most damaging mistake has nothing to do with the selection or timing of investments—it is carelessness when it comes to managing a portfolio for taxes. This is particularly important when you’re planning how you’ll take withdrawals for retirement income.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/articles/have-multiple-retirement-accounts-use-them-in-this-order-51553425225?mod=mw_latestnews

Relative to the funds in the article (and the additional funds mentioned here), RPHYX doesn't look so impressive these days. It has an SEC yield of 2.10%. Clearly it's having difficulty meeting its objective of beating the 1 year Treasury (currently 2.4%, as noted by Lewis) by 200 - 400 bps.
Currently, Treasuries are essentially flat from 1mo to 7 years. With that sort of curve (actually dipping in the middle), it makes little sense to me to try to eek out yield by going longer than ultrashort. Also, buying a one year CD or Treasury could serve as a hedge against rates dropping in the short term.
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/pages/textview.aspx?data=yield
Instead of keeping day-to-day money in a low/no interest checking account, one can keep money in Fidelity's SPRXX (2.25% SEC yield) or FZDXX (2.37% SEC yield) and write checks/pay bills directly from that fund. (Fidelity automatically sells the MMF if you have no cash in your core/transaction account.) Every penny helps.

The Muni-Bond Mania
Look who’s benefiting from the limit on state-and-local tax deduction.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-muni-bond-mania-11554422302

Yes, I too have seen the recent flattening, but no big drops fortunately.
Like Junkster said, this past month it rebounded quite well:

Up 2.3% YTD. Hard to complain.
Still 5% div.
I don't see the move away from RMBS Crash mentions.
@ MikeM. Yes, it's lumped in with MultiSector, but it's all about RMBS.
Tom Miner remains (a jewel). And Garrett. And Brian. And Jonathan.
Seems like nothing has changed in their thesis ... just the opposite I'd suggest, but I've not checked-in directly in a while (obsessed with making premium site priceless).
I remain heavy IOFIX. (FWIW, I was once heavy FAAFX!)
Hope all is well.
c

See last large paragraph below (I suggest you view image in separate page and magnify). It begins: Except as noted below, all data provided by Morningstar, Inc.
The exception is in the next (one line) paragraph: Market data for Daily Fund (NAVs) and charts provided by Markit on Demand.

I belatedly agree with @msf. I searched and couldn’t find where it’s illegal to access these sites through the back door. Nor has anyone alleged that it is. More of a personal comfort level I guess. I’d rather pay for the goods I consume.
Subscriptions to top quality publications are dirt cheap considering the quality of writing and analysis one can receive for $15-25 monthly. For around $40-50 monthly I receive 2 top quality national newspapers 7 days a week (ad free) delivered to my Kindle reader, plus 2 top-notch science magazines monthly, also on the Kindle, plus one free audiobook of my choosing every month (great for falling asleep at night). And my $$ goes to support good journalism. What a deal.
Tend to agree with @Sven on a couple points. Admire LB’s writing. And, I’ve little use anymore for Barrons. Received it for the past year for their $52 special rate and rarely picked it up. I suspect some of that may be a degradation of the content over the past 50 years and some of it a maturation of the reader over the same time span.

msf % of muni at dodix = 3.71 % via Schwab. Where did they get these #'s ? I just checked with Schwab & no mention of 'M'
5:38:18 PM : David M.: S&P Global, CFRA, Reuters and Markit Digital, which are not affiliated with Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. ("Schwab") or any of Schwab's affiliates
Have a good weekend, Derf

“did you perform your job for free?”
@Mark pretty much echos my thoughts. So, personally, for my own consumption, I make minimal, if any, effort to go around a publisher’s paywall. I want our free independent press to profit and flourish. I subscribe to the WP through Amazon’s Kindle services. But it doesn’t allow me access to their (identical) online stories.
There’s a gray area with the NYT and WP. Both use cookies that enable users to access a set number of articles monthly for free (typically 5 per month). So, when I come across a good story from one of them somewhere else, I’ll link the original from NYT or WP - thinking most might still be able to access it even if I’ve reached the limit. But I’ll often link a decent (possibly inferior) secondary source along side with a note telling readers they might not be able to access the original.
I don’t even attempt to link directly from those publications that allow no free access (WSJ, Barrons, Financial Times). It’s pretty clear they don’t want non-subscribers accessing their articles. However, I can usually find a decent substitute somewhere else (perhaps CNBC) which characterizes the original article and link it.
That approach seems fair to mfo readers and still complies with the wishes of the publisher. As far as simply directing (frustrated) mfo readers to “... Go do a Google search” - WTF?

FYI: U.S. stocks at the end of March posted their best quarter in nearly a decade, but they did so without help from investors in U.S. stock mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, which have seen sizable outflows since the start of the year, according to data from Lipper and EPFR global.
For the quarter, the S&P 500 SPX, +0.46% rose 14%, and added another 1.9% so far this month, putting the broad-market index just 1.3% shy of its Sept. 20 record, even as U.S. equity funds posted outflows of $39.1 billion, according to a Bank of America analysis of EPFR data.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-is-this-possible-analysts-puzzle-over-stock-markets-rally-amid-equity-fund-exodus-2019-04-05/print

No worries sir thx... With that high equity you may have gain 15s to 30s%at that time... Similar to mine previous holdings
Regards thx for the post

Here is an update for Old_Skeet's market barometer (which follows the S&P 500 Index) for the week ending April 5, 2019 along with my thinking and plan.
Old_Skeet being a retail investor provides this information for information purposes only. It simply reflects what I am seeing in the markets, my thinking; and, my plan of action along what has worked best within my portfolio for the past week. It should not to be taken as investment advice.
For the week Old_Skeet's market barometer closed with an overbought reading of 135 which is down from last week's overvalued reading of 141. Generally, a higher barometer reading indicates that there is more investment value in the Index over a lower reading. Short interest in the Index, for the week, remained at 1.8 days to cover. The yield on the US10Yr moved from about 2.4% up to just short of 2.5%. The 500 Index moved upward from 2834 to 2893 for about a 2.1% gain for the week as money has now begun to flow back into stocks as some investors sold bonds and bought stocks. Perhaps, some investors are just too optimistic about the upcoming first quarter earnings reporting season that soon begins. For Old_Skeet, I'm not presently putting new money to work in either my stock or bond funds while I await a higher barometer reading indicating a better investing climate for stocks; and, I'm also awaiting better yields from bonds.
For the week my three best performing funds were all found in the Growth & Income Area of my portfolio. They were DWGAX +3.05% ... FDSAX +3.03% ... and, EADIX +2.56%.
I am invested in what I call an "all weather" asset allocation which consist of about 20% cash, 40% income and 40% equity. The benefit of this asset allocaton, with me being in the distribution phase of investing, is that it provides sufficent income, maximizes diversification, minimizes volatility, and provides long-term returns.
I most likely will add to the equity side of my portfolio during the next good stock market meltdown as I can tactically overweight my equity allocation by up to +5%. Before overweighting equities, with a special investment position (spiff), I'll need to see a sizeable rise in my barometer reading as a higher barometer reading indicates there is more investment value in the 500 Index over a lower reading. Currently, by the metrics of the barometer, stocks are overbought. And, if corporate earnings and revenues disappoint a sizeable pullback in stocks most likely will be coming.
I'm also thinking that most of the gains have already taken place, for stocks, with the Index being up thus far this year by 15.4%. My target for the S&P 500 Index, before year end, is somewhere around 3,000. This will only add about another 4% of gains from the present level ... and, we've got nine more months to go before year end. So, a lot can happen.
For now, though, I'm in a plain old just sit back and watch "the action" mode. I'm thinking big money has run stock valuations upward so they can cut and run ... book some profit in the process ... and, then buy the market again at better prices as the weaker investor begins to sell during the anticipated stock market downdraft. Hey, this has happened many times before as it seems to be part of many investor's reactions to stock market declines. Naturally, it may take some time for this thinking and my plan of action to play out; but, I look to see it take place sometime during the year.
For me, I've got some dry powder while I sit, I watch ... and, I await for a good buying opportunity to open a special equity mutual fund "spiff" position.
Thanks for stopping by and reading.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet
Trailing Comment: For those that would like to reference the March Barometer Report along with my prior weekly comments just click on the below link. You can also view my weekly fund leaders. Interestingly, in most weeks something different lead although there were a couple of repeats.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/47961/old-skeet-s-market-barometer-report-thinking-march-1-2019-a-3-29-update#latest