Hi @Derf. The robo is down -1.3% YTD. My self managed is -.6%. Over all down -.9%. Not apples to apples though because the robo is about 60/40 mix of eq/bnds+cash with about 5% gold sprinkled in. Where as I'm more conservative in my self managed portfolio, somewhere around 45% equities.

Not that the tail of taxes should wag the dog of returns, but FWIW: for short term (1 year or less) CDs paying interest at maturity and for short term zero coupon Treasuries, the interest isn't taxable until maturity. So you can often defer taxes on interest for a year.
Also, interest paid by Treasuries is state-tax-free. That can make Treasuries look more attractive than CDs in states with higher income tax rates.
Current rates (per Fidelity):
https://fixedincome.fidelity.com/ftgw/fi/FILanding

Well, NYT Maureen Dowd in a love note today also lists just some of the serious shortcomings:
... he beat Michael Dukakis with the race-baiting Willie Horton campaign designed by Lee Atwater and Roger Ailes. ... sent his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, to Beijing for a secret midnight champagne toast with the leaders who perpetrated the Tiananmen Square massacre. ... didn't do nearly enough to combat the AIDS epidemic. ... his White House directed the defense of his Supreme Court nominee, Clarence Thomas, that tried to discredit Anita Hill.
Otoh he did vote for HRC, so there is that, saying publicly he did not like the "blowhard Trump."
Yet too late:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/george-hw-bush-was-the-accidental-catalyst-that-built-the-new-republican-party/2018/12/02/2a4adaf8-f659-11e8-8c9a-860ce2a8148f_story.html

I've read somewhere that, on average, for every 3 (or 4?) up-years for stocks there is one down-year.
The total market has been up every year (including this year, so far) since 2008.
And checking "BND" at M*, the total bond market is down 1.95% YTD, and the only time since BEFORE 2008 (which was an up-year) bonds were down was in 2013 at -2.10%.
I'm not sure what the concern is. Do most people really think that markets should only go up every year?

Just doing a little research on the RiverPark CMBS fund David profiled under "Your 2019 funds watchlist," and the fund history seems a little sketchy, or maybe just poorly reported/covered by the usual online suspects.
The fund's own fact sheet shows performance back to 2010, with a footnote saying that from mid-2010 thru Q3 '16, it was an interval (private) fund. So far, so good. Then, from the beginning of Q4 '16 to to Nov. 12, 2018, when it "was reorganized as an open-end mutual fund," it was something else. Per a brief mention in David's profile, it was apparently a CEF (?).
But M* reports results back to 2016 as if it had been an OEF all that time, but shows zero portfolio info on it, as if it's not a fund they covered until just recently. MarketWatch shows nothing but a current price, no history whatsoever, and Yahoo shows prices as an OEF back to Dec. 4, 2017 (huh?). I web-searched for a CEF that may have existed for the "missing" two years (Q4 2016 to Nov 12 this year) with no luck.
A mystery, then, at least to this kid.
Edit: okay, finally found a reference to what happened in 2016. RiverPark took over the private interval fund (technically closed-end, but not a publicly traded closed-end fund as most of us think of the term) and kept it going as a private interval fund until Nov. 12 this year.
I can't reconcile M* or Yahoo's coverage with the apparent reality, but then that's not an unusual thing. Suffice to say, the fund is now in a format that exposes the investor to liquidity risk, but with an attempt to provide a "quality" overlay to limit that risk. However, I'd think the history as a private fund is not 100% transferable to expectations for the brand new open-end fund.

One recent development is encouraging: at least something approaching the 'normal' negative price correlation between safer rate-sensitive debt and equities is back, as is the positive correlation between risky credit and equities. (No telling how strong for how long.) So at least for now, we can make a halfway intelligent guess that if xxx, then my portfolio will xxx.
At this point, this year's results don't look all that different from 2015-16, well, except for the lurking probability that we're getting close to the end of a major cycle.

Hello all.
For me my near term retruns are much like those that have shared their results. My bogey the lipper balanced index is fairing much like myself and what the others have stated.
Another bogey that I picked up to mark against is Franklin LifeSmart Retirement Fund A (FTRAX). One of the reason I chose this fund for a bogey is that it sports a 4.1% yield which is a little higher yield than my master portfolio at 3.1% but higher than other retirement funds I looked at. As I write, the one, the three, the five and the ten year rolling periods FTRAX has returned 0.52%, 2.83%, 2.42%, and 7.32% respectively. Notice that the funds total return does not cover its yield for the 1, 3 & 5 year periods. This is not good from my perspective; but, it is still a bogey because of its yield. In compairson, my master portfolio sports a current 3.1% yield and its 1, 3, 5 & 10 year rolling total returns are 0.32%, 6.10%, 4.71% & 8.98%. In review, the only period that I have not covered my yield is for the 1 year period.
So if you are in retirement you might wish to review how the portfolio you have assembled is fairing against the tatget-date retirement class of funds. As I write, Morningstar list their collective performance at -0.84%, 3.65% and 3.06% for the rolling 1, 3 & 5 year periods.
Take care,
Old_Skeet

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcarlson/2018/11/28/todays-surprising-best-income-investment/#65fb31314836
Near-zero interest rates in the U.S., and negative interest rates in a few countries, sent investors searching the global markets for alternatives.

FYI: We're asking everyday investors like you what you think about how funds disclose important information - and how it could be better.
It's important to us at the SEC to hear from individual investors so we can make it easier for you to choose the investments that are right for you.
Please take a few minutes to answer any or all of these questions - and thank you for your feedback!
Regards,
Ted
https://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2018/33-10503-feedback-flier.html

I think Boston Partners Long/Short Equity BPLEX has been the poster child for comparisons in this fund realm. It seems to do it's very best when the market falls down and goes boom but nothing spectacular otherwise. A quick look at M* shows a somewhat enviable 10-yr return but not much over the last 5 years. Still, it's good to be positive than otherwise.

The article leaves me wanting more. How about comparing to 6 month treasuries or one year treasuries or bond index fund. Also instead of using may 1 how about comparing to picking the 15th or the best day in any given year/
anymaybe the best strategy would be to sell the s+p 500 and owna balanced fund for the period. .

FYI: George Herbert Walker Bush led the U.S. to a swift and decisive victory in the first Persian Gulf War and presided over the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union and unification of Germany, before a painful recession cost him a second term as president.
He died on Friday at age 94. His wife of more than 70 years, Barbara, died at the age of 92 earlier this year.
Mr. Bush was the last American president to serve in World War II, a fight that helped shape his life and the lives of many in his generation. He went on to build a sterling resume—businessman, member of Congress, envoy to the United Nations and China, head of the Central Intelligence Agency—before becoming Republican Ronald Reagan’s vice president in 1980 and then succeeding him in the White House in 1988.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/george-h-w-bush-americas-41st-president-and-father-of-43rd-dies-1543641078?mod=hp_lead_pos1

FYI: Stocks have rallied lately and could end 2018 with modest gains. But it has been a tough year across the asset-class universe: Bonds are in a rut, and losses have piled up in oil, gold, and emerging markets—just about everything.
The scope of negative returns is unusual. According to Deutsche Bank, 89% of the global financial indexes it tracks were negative for the year in dollar terms, through the end of October. On average, 29% of financial markets finish a year with losses. In 2017, a dart-throwing monkey could have made money. Of 71 stock, bond, currency, and commodity indexes tracked by Deutsche Bank, only one ended in negative territory in dollars: the Philippine bond market.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/last-year-investors-couldnt-lose-this-year-they-cant-win-whats-next-1543617074

I received this email from Vanguard yesterday concerning the conversion of my S&P index investor class taxable account with Vanguard (I submitted my request for the conversion):
Our index funds changed investing forever. Now we’re making them even better.
Fund newsNovember 19, 2018
1805
234
link to comment section
More controls (activate to access)
If you’re like many successful investors, you like to keep it simple. That means saving consistently in low-cost, straightforward investments like index funds. We get it. We pioneered index investing for individuals. Simplicity, transparency, and low fees are core to who we are. And we’re constantly looking for ways to build on those values.
That’s why we’re making a change.
We’re lowering costs for more than 1 million current index fund investors and giving new investors one more reason to choose Vanguard. To do that, we’re dropping the minimum investment for Admiral™ Shares on 38 index funds.
Our Admiral Shares were previously available to investors with over $10,000 per fund. Now you’ll only need $3,000 to take advantage of the low expense ratios Admiral Shares offer. In turn, we’re eliminating higher-cost Investor Shares of those same index funds for individual investors.*
What this means for you
Whether you’re just starting out, adding to your portfolio, or catching up, this change can help you:
Reach your goals faster. Lower expense ratios mean more of your returns stay in your account, so it can grow faster. For example, $50,000 invested in Investor Shares might cost an average of $90 per year versus $55 per year in Admiral Shares. A $35 difference might not sound like much. But when it’s compounded over 10 years, it can add over $600 to your bottom line.**
Diversify your portfolio. When choosing how to allocate your money, you’ll have more flexibility to diversify. For example, if you have $10,000 to invest, you can still put it in a single index fund. Or you can split it up into 3 different index funds and get the same low-cost benefits.
If you currently own Investor Shares of any affected funds, you don’t have to do anything. We’ll convert them to Admiral Shares over the next year. Or you can immediately and easily convert your shares using our online process.
Already own Admiral Shares? The change doesn’t affect your current investments. But if you choose to purchase a new fund in the future, you don’t need $10,000 to get the same low expense ratio you’re used to. And you can be sure we’ll continue to look for the best ways to lower costs and help you meet your investment goals.
On a mission to give investors the best chance for success
Vanguard’s story begins with low costs but it doesn’t end there. Vanguard is built for investors. As a client-owned† firm, everything we do is because we care about our clients, want them to succeed, and have no competing loyalties.
This change is one more way we’re looking out for investors. It will allow us to deliver an estimated $71.2 million in savings to clients.††
“No other firm in the industry has demonstrated Vanguard’s track record of delivering cost savings and value to its clients,” said Vanguard CEO Tim Buckley. “Our unique, client-owned structure enables us to consistently pass along economies of scale and lower the cost of investing for our clients, so they keep more of their returns.”
See which index funds now offer $3,000 minimum investments for Admiral Shares
*Investor Shares will still be used in certain situations, such as in retirement plans and fund-of-funds investments.
**Vanguard Investor Shares average expense ratio: 0.18%. Vanguard Admiral Shares average expense ratio: 0.11%. All averages are asset-weighted. Source: Vanguard, as of December 31, 2017. This hypothetical example assumes a $50,000 investment held for 10 years, with an average return of 6%. It doesn’t represent any particular investment. Your actual savings could be higher or lower. The rate is not guaranteed.
†Vanguard is client-owned. As a client-owner, you own the funds that own Vanguard.
††Estimated savings for the identified funds is the difference between the Investor and Admiral expense ratios multiplied by eligible average assets under management (AUM). Eligible average AUM is based on the daily average assets over the past 12 months (November 2017 to October 2018).

FYI: Lately, commodities have performed so poorly investors would be forgiven for thinking people no longer need anything to eat, drink, or fuel their cars—just iPhones and subscriptions to Amazon Prime. In the past five years, the average commodity mutual fund has lost 8% a year, while the S&P 500 has gained 10%.
Worse, even when commodity prices have gone up, most commodity funds have failed to fully capture those gains. A phenomenon known as “contango” has been a drag on fund performance. Investors rarely buy commodities directly, instead favoring futures contracts, which are derivatives with expiration dates. Contango occurs when a commodity future’s price is above the current or spot price, so that every time a contract expires, investors must pay more for a new one.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/if-commodities-day-has-come-this-fund-should-be-a-winner-1543496400?refsec=funds
M* Snapshot JCRAX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/JCRAX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot JCRAX:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/jcrax
JCRAX Is Unranked In The (CBB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/jcrax

FYI: There no longer can be any doubt that the creation of the first index mutual fund was the most successful innovation—especially for investors—in modern financial history. The question we need to ask ourselves now is: What happens if it becomes too successful for its own good?
The First Index Investment Trust, which tracks the returns of the S&P 500 and is now known as the Vanguard 500 Index Fund, was founded on December 31, 1975. It was the first “product,” as it were, of a new mutual fund manager, The Vanguard Group, the company I had founded only one year earlier.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bogle-sounds-a-warning-on-index-funds-1543504551

FYI: Investors may be thrilled that U.S. stocks have rallied, pushing the S&P 500 to a 4.4% total return for the year, including dividends, as of the close on Wednesday. But the good times probably won’t last, according to Rob Arnott, founder of the investment research firm Research Affiliates and co-manager of funds such as Pimco All Asset All Authority (ticker: PAUAX).
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/sell-u-s-tech-stocks-buy-emerging-markets-says-rob-arnott-1543516901?mod=djem_b_Weekly barrons_daily_newsletter
M* Snapshot PAUAX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/PAUAX/quote.html

FYI: Over 70% of financial advisors surveyed believe it's going to take a significant correction in the equity markets to wake all investors up to the portfolio benefits of fixed income investing, according to a new survey released today by Incapital LLC, a leading underwriter and distributor of fixed income securities.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20181129005552/en/Significant-Correction-Equities-Wake-Investors-Benefits-Fixed

"Most brokerage firms have found a subtle way to squeeze money out of their customers. The trick: switching their sweep accounts from higher-yielding money market mutual funds to lower-yielding bank accounts."
Kathleen Pender has an interesting article in the San Francisco Chronicle on yet another way many brokerages have found to short-change you.

How can a strategy said to be market neutral plunge 13-15% YTD?

It’s been an especially rocky and nasty year for most hedge-type funds. In fact, they haven’t done well for many years. And the big hedge funds have experienced huge outflows this year. I don’t pretend to understand it. But there might be more at work here than simply “stupid managers.” High fees for sure. But, possibly, “insane” markets as well based on unsustainable increases in a few large indexes (ie - the elephant chasing his tail).
-
Edit: A couple added late-night thoughts:
- Some hedge funds (including so called market neutral funds) may be betting on an eventual break in the unusually strong Dollar. This might involve holding gold or EM bonds - both of which have slumped sharply since the beginning of the year (explaining some of their dismal showing). The reasoning behind this is that the Fed will “blink” after U.S. equity markets have turned down and stop raising rates. I think they’re right in that assumption - but it’s hard to say when that will happen. BTW - Ray Dalio of Bridgewater is one hedge fund manager who is hedging with gold.
- I think the term hedge fund as a style makes more sense than market neutral. If you want a truly “market neutral” approach - go 100% cash. Excepting that extreme, don’t know how you can remain truly neutral.