This was an excellent interview. Robert Kessler put forth a very intelligent, reasoned and logical case for Treasuries and his view on interest rates. The interviewer, Consuelo Mack, said that Kessler has been correct about Treasuries for the entire 15-year period she has been interviewing him on Wealthtrack

How will they do when rates start going back up in 2015?

@catch22: I adjusted the slider to show Dec 31 - June 30 (125 trading days), and I calculated the 3-ETF result to be a 5.466% gain - almost exactly what Derf said. I'd just like to be sure if this includes automatic reinvestment of the distributions. Stockcharts is a definite keeper!
Thanks,
Rick

Very good Catch. That site looks excellent.
Check out this site, it shows great promise. Let me know what you think.
http://longrundata.com/longrundata/index.php
You can enter a mutual fund or exchange traded fund symbol instead of a stock symbol. I always put in a starting investment amount of $100 to make the math easier.

Only on bank interest and you have to declare all foreign accounts over $10k. The rules change fast so I may be off on that. It might be one has to declare all accounts foreign.
Also, I have heard that I am exempt from O-care unless I spend more than 35 days in the states.
So far I have had no issues. I do my taxes each year when I am stateside or by TurboTax online.

Hi bee,
I noticed that too as I have a metals fund is my asset compass. However, I have become more income oriented, now being in retirement, and less apt to make special investmets in assets that don't produce income. Junkster made a good call at the first of the year about high yield muni's and form what I can tell he has done well with his position. However, its seems hi yield muni's have been meeting some headwinds during the past month. Now, I am not an unhappy camper with what my portfolio has done year to date being up 7.5% as I write. I have had some stull that has posted in the double digits but none that match the metals. My best performing sleeve within my portfolio during the past thirty days has been my small/mid cap sleeve which is up about 4.5% for the thirty day period.
Old_Skeet

@rjb112: Thanks for explanation of (diff).
I used Yahoo ending 2/nd quter.
VTI =7%
BND =3.84%
vxus=5.56%
Investing $100 in each = $16.40 return divided by 300 = 5.46 combined return.
Have a nice Sunday, Derf

This unloved asset class may have bottomed in December of 2013.
Article:
shortsideoflong.com/2014/07/metals-moving/
Some Equity PM I follow and the YTD, 1 YR and 3 YR Perfromance:

FYI: Just like toothpaste, new and improved, mutual funds come out every year. "Built It And They Will Come."
Regards,
Ted
http://wealthmanagement.com/print/mutual-funds/editors-letter-july-2014

@John Chisum: Let's see now, I think that's only the second mistake I have made in 15 years of linking. On second thought, maybe the third !
Regards,
Ted

FYI: Copy & Paste 7/1/14: Laura Saunders: WSJ:
Prohibition Applies to Both Fidelity and Non-Fidelity Mutual Funds
Fidelity Investments and other asset managers are telling U.S. clients who live outside the country that they can no longer buy or trade mutual funds in their brokerage accounts.
Stephen Austin, a spokesman for the financial-services firm, said the change, effective Aug. 1, was prompted by "today's continually evolving global regulatory environment," but he said it wasn't in response to a specific issue.
The change will affect about 50,000 accounts, or less than 0.3% of Fidelity's 20 million accounts, he said.
"Customers will not be forced to sell holdings simply because they live in a foreign country," Mr. Austin said.
Observers said fund managers are becoming more conservative in the wake of global developments such as the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and other U.S. efforts.
Following large settlements paid to the U.S. by Credit Suisse Group AG CS +1.66% and BNP Paribas SA, BNP.FR -2.05% "Other countries are getting angry about the size of the fines and are grumbling about retaliation," said Jonathan Lachowitz, a cross-border investment adviser based in Lexington, Mass., and Lausanne, Switzerland.
Mutual funds are regulated differently from other investments and could be a target, he said.
David Kuenzi, an investment manager in Madison, Wis., who works with Americans abroad, said that selling U.S. mutual funds to those investors had long been prohibited. "But it was matter of 'Don't ask, don't tell.' Now the firms are getting more aggressive about compliance," he said.
Other fund companies also are changing policies for investors who live abroad.
A spokesman for Putnam Investments said the firm is no longer accepting additional investments into existing accounts held by non-U.S. residents.
The spokesman said the changes were made "in accordance with U.S. anti-money-laundering and 'Know Your Customer' policies" and in response to recent tightening of European laws limiting sales of funds not registered in their jurisdictions.
A spokesman for Charles Schwab Corp. SCHW +2.55% said the firm "has made changes and will continue to make changes to our policies" in reaction to regulatory changes but declined to specify them.
In a recent letter to overseas clients, Fidelity said that its prohibition would apply to both Fidelity and non-Fidelity mutual funds, and to exchanges between funds.
However, account holders still will be permitted to reinvest dividends in additional shares of a fund.
Employer-sponsored plans such as 401(k) and 403(b) plans aren't affected by the prohibition, but individual retirement accounts and Roth IRAs are, the spokesman said.
The letter also said that if an investor has an automatic investment plan with periodic deposits of cash, then the additions can continue but the money won't be invested in mutual funds. Instead, the funds will be added to the investor's other "core position," such as a money-market fund. The letter added that additions to such funds will still be permitted, but that this could change in the future.
The Fidelity spokesman said that account holders' ability to purchase individual securities or exchange-traded funds varies from country to country.
A spokesman for the Investment Company Institute, a fund industry group, declined to comment.
A spokesman for Vanguard Group said its funds are typically only for sale to people who live in the U.S., although there are some exceptions for investors residing abroad, for example, some people with inherited accounts.

FYI: Copy & Paste 7/4/14: Brendan Conway: Barron's:
ETF providers are looking for the next big thing -- and they're zeroing in on fixed income. Expect lots of new products, most of which you should ignore.
The never-ending search for the next big thing. Yet those efforts bear an imperfect relationship with what consumers truly want: For every iPad, there's a New Coke. Now, for every Standard & Poor's 500 exchange-traded fund, there's a "New! And Improved!" ETF being launched.
Fund companies are ardently searching for their next big success, and they're increasingly focused on fixed income for their big break. There are 270 bond ETFs on the market today, nearly 40 of which were launched in the past year, and another 160 in the pipeline. But for most investors, it's just a whole lot of New Coke. Or Coke with lime. Or some other unappealing configuration.
Investors know that simpler is better. Nearly half of the $370 billion in bond ETFs is in just 10 broad and straightforward funds like Vanguard Total Bond Market (ticker: BND) and iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond (AGG).
Providers are coming up with ever-more-clever ways of constructing bond ETFs. But for most investors, simpler is better.
The new ETFs come in several flavors: Some are narrow slices of the fixed-income market, like subordinated debt and senior loans; some are actively managed; and some are intended for very specific strategies, such as owning corporate bonds minus the interest-rate risk.
Many pros aren't impressed with the new offerings. Bob Smith, president and chief investment officer of Austin, Texas-based Sage Advisory, is particularly skeptical about so-called fundamental indexing, which favors attributes like cash flow or book value over the size of bond issuances: "If it was easy to do, they would have already done it."
The same can be said for active management, and yet investors will see more managers launching actively managed ETFs that essentially compete with their mutual fund. Next up: Jeffrey Gundlach's DoubleLine Capital, which is planning its first ETF with State Street's SPDRs. The DoubleLine ETF will have a broad reach across fixed-income markets, including mortgage- and asset-backed securities. The ETF isn't going to mimic the strategy of the popular DoubleLine Total Return Bond (DBLTX), so it will be free to generate returns from other bond-market corners. "I suspect the DoubleLine bond ETF will likely outperform the Barclays Aggregate and Pimco's total-return funds," says Claude Erb, a former portfolio manager for Trust Company of the West who now researches ETFs. But, Erb says, it is also likely to lose mojo the older it gets.
Erb's research shows that once an ETF reaches just 2% of the asset size of a manager's existing mutual fund, performance slows. Trading costs are one reason, but Erb sees something more important: Managers tend to use ETFs in a way that lends them to a burst of early outperformance. They're very much "best ideas" funds, since the manager can start from scratch with no legacy positions to contend with. So they work wonderfully for a period—and then they don't. That, Erb theorizes, is because great ideas are hard to come by, and the honeymoon eventually ends. That doesn't bode well for the best-known active ETF, the $3.4 billion Pimco Total Return ETF (BOND), which has soundly beaten its older sibling, the $225 billion Pimco Total Return (PTTAX), since the ETF's February 2012 inception. Sure enough, the ETF has slowed its advance; its assets are about 1.5% of its giant older brother's.
SO MAYBE PASSIVE IS BETTER. But just because an ETF is based on an index, doesn't mean it represents the market. Many new ETFs are aimed at solving a problem, rather than delivering the returns of a sector. These "precision" ETFs are tailored for specific uses in your portfolio—many are aimed at somehow hedging interest-rate risk or preserving your initial investment. Two good options are the defined-maturity bond ETFs offered by Guggenheim Investments and BlackRock's iShares. These ETFs own bonds that mature at a specified date, making them good tools for people who need steady income or are interested in laddering. Another example are short- and ultrashort-term bond ETFs, which last year helped investors weather fears of rising interest rates. The $300 million iShares Short Maturity Bond (NEAR) launched in September with an average duration of less than a year. Its 1% yield is relatively rich for short-term bonds.
This precision ETF-making, though, has its dangers, and some companies are willing to go further than others in terms of how fine they'll slice the market. One example is the push by leveraged ETF maker ProShares to launch as many as eight credit-default swap ETFs. What has been turning heads lately are bank loans. In May, Larry Fink, chief executive of BlackRock, grouped bank-loan ETFs with leveraged ETFs as products his firm won't create—they're too risky, and he fears how they'll behave in a steep selloff. "There is an underlying liquidity mismatch," says Matthew Tucker, head of iShares fixed-income strategy at BlackRock, who chose his words carefully as he told Barron's, "We think it could result in an outcome that's different from what investors expect."
Here's what Tucker wouldn't say: If the bank-loan market sells off, a fund like the $7.2 billion PowerShares Senior Loan Portfolio (BKLN) could plunge sharply, as weeks-long settlement procedures inject added risk. Though a spokeswoman for PowerShares says the ETF is an "appropriate vehicle for investors and advisors who understand the senior loan market," it seems clear that in a steep selloff, investors could be surprised at how hard and fast the ETF falls. A Vanguard executive, speaking at an industry conference last year, singled out bank-loan ETFs, saying that Vanguard wouldn't build a "faddish" ETF that risks trouble for investors. A fund of bank loans is a thinner slice of the market than most investors need.
Instead, most investors would do well to follow the lead of Smith from Sage Advisory, who says, "Just because they launched it, doesn't mean I'm buying."
The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly Theme:

FYI: Copy & Paste 7/4/14: Amy Feldnan: Barron's:
I will ask some same question that I have several times in the past, do you own a health care fund ? If you don't you should.
Regards,
Ted
It has been 11 years since the human genome was first mapped, at a cost of $2.7 billion. Since then, the cost of DNA sequencing has dropped to about $1,000, and our understanding of the nature of disease has expanded exponentially. This has created a land rush for biotechnology companies, which use living organisms to develop medical treatments. For the past three years, biotech stocks have risen spectacularly, though this year things have been bumpier.
Eddie Yoon, manager of the $6.3 billion Fidelity Select Health Care Portfolio (ticker: FSPHX) and leader of Fidelity's 12-person health team, compares the innovations in biotech -- and the new companies being created -- to the explosion in technology and digital businesses that happened after Netscape's 1995 initial public offering. "The price point of sequencing the human genome has fallen so fast, and the early-stage pipeline for biotech is exploding right now," Yoon says. "That's what is driving innovation.
There are many ways to invest in that innovation, and the pros take very different views in terms of assessing value and risk. New drugs are altering the way we live, and areas like immuno-oncology hold enormous promise, but getting drugs to market is expensive, time-consuming, and far from a sure thing. With risks high, and valuations no longer cheap, minefields abound.
The best of the health-care funds (and funds with large stakes in health care) all have investments in biotech, but their strategies differ. At one end of the spectrum, Vanguard Health Care (VGHCX), the granddaddy of health funds with $37.7 billion in assets, takes a more conservative approach: It has just 12% in biotech -- a smidge less than the MSCI ACWI health-care index -- while its No. 1 holding is Merck (MRK), the global drug company with a strong pipeline. The fund rarely leads during market rallies, though it suffers less on the downside.
By contrast, the $2 billion Janus Global Life Sciences (JFNAX) has 32% in biotech, including three of its top five holdings: Gilead Sciences (GILD), a leader in HIV drugs, which has recently launched the hepatitis C blockbuster Sovaldi; Celgene (CELG), whose flagship product, Revlimid, fights blood cancers; and Biogen Idec (BIIB), which specializes in drugs for neurological disorders, autoimmune disorders, and hemophilia. Says Janus Global Life Sciences' manager Andy Acker: "We've seen an acceleration of innovation. More drugs are getting approved more rapidly at lower cost." In fact, he adds, since 1999, biotech-drug sales have soared from $5 billion to more than $100 billion, and the number of blockbuster biotech drugs has risen tenfold, from three to more than 30, a level of innovation that he expects will continue.
Matt Kamm, lead health analyst at Artisan and co-manager of the $1.1 billion Artisan Global Opportunities (ARTRX), which has 19% of its assets in health care, sees similar opportunities. He points to Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (REGN), whose drug Eylea treats macular degeneration, and which is the fund's No. 3 holding. As the lines blur between biotech and big pharma, Regeneron has set up a partnership with Sanofi (SAN.France), the Paris-based drug giant, also a holding. "It has allowed Regeneron to act like it has a giant balance sheet and build a pipeline, and it gives Sanofi growth and products for the future," Kamm says. In addition to Eylea, Regeneron (which trades at 26 times next year's earnings) has three drugs in Phase 2 and 3 trials, for cholesterol, rheumatoid arthritis, and atopic dermatitis, and another 11 in development. That diversified drug pipeline appeals to Kamm: "This is a risky business, even for the best companies, so it's important that companies make good, risk-adjusted decisions about research-and-development spending and have multiple shots on goal."
For similar reasons, Kamm likes Biogen Idec, which trades at 23 times next year's earnings. It has a new oral medication for multiple sclerosis, Tecfidera; a new product launching for hemophilia; and other treatments in the pipeline for MS, spinal muscular atrophy, and Alzheimer's -- all squarely part of the firm's focus on neurological disorders. "They're all high-risk as stand-alone opportunities," Kamm says. "But we think it's a broad enough pipeline."
WHAT OF THE WAVE of biotech IPOs earlier this year? Those are riskier. Janus' Acker, who invests in small-company biotech, keeps the holdings to small pieces of the portfolio. "Some of these are pretty early stage," he says. "We saw some frothiness in the market." Artisan's Kamm is steering clear completely. "They're coin tosses or lottery tickets," he says.
The Best Defense Is a Good Offense
With health-care funds returning 37% in the past year, the sector's no longer a defensive strategy. Below are five good options.
Assets Total Return*
Fund/Ticker Manager (bil) 1-Year 5-Year Top 3 Holdings**
Fidelity Select Health Care Portfolio/FSPHX Eddie Yoon $6.3 50.3% 27.6% Actavis, Biogen Idec, McKesson
Janus Global Life Sciences/JFNAX Andy Acker 2.0 45.0 25.7 Gilead Sciences, Aetna, Celgene
Prudential Jennison Health Sciences/PHLAX David Chan 2.5 36.6 28.4 Alexion, Biomarin, Vertex
T. Rowe Price Health Sciences/PRHSX Taymour Tamaddon 9.1 39.8 29.1 Aetna, Agilent Tech, Alexion
Vanguard Health Care/VGHCX Jean Hynes 37.7 37.9 22.4 Merck, UnitedHealth, Forest Labs
*Returns are annualized as of 07/02
**As of 05/31 Sources: Morningstar; fund companies
Fidelity's Yoon trimmed his fund's exposure to small biotech stocks early this year when he saw stretched valuations and decreasing quality. His fund now tilts its biotech holdings toward larger companies with stable free cash flows and encouraging pipelines. Plus, he has been diversifying holdings to areas such as medical devices, specialty pharmaceuticals, and life sciences. Where Gilead was once Fidelity Select Health Care's top holding, for instance, now it's Actavis (ACT), a global drug company with a huge business in generics. It may not be a sexy business, but Yoon argues that its global footprint in more than 100 countries, and its ability to leverage its sales force across multiple categories, gives it advantages. The shares, recently at $222, trade at 13 times next year's earnings estimates. "They are an innovator; they are a consolidator; and they are accessing the global market," Yoon says.
Regardless of the broader economy, Yoon argues, the rising demands of an aging population and an emerging middle class worldwide will continue to drive health care. "Just because the health-care space is up a lot," he says, "doesn't mean there aren't a lot of good opportunities in this business."

reply rjb112: I used yahoo finance. Average of equal amount invested in each fund, app.5.46 % combined return. Investment $1000 = $ 54.60 return. I see catch 22 came up with a different figure , 6.17 % .

@Derf: can you describe exactly what you did on Yahoo Finance to come up with those figures? What data did you enter in what part of Yahoo Finance, etc?
Thanks

I tried viewing it "incognido" (in both Chrome and IE), but WSJ still wouldn't show it!!

But it's OK. The one time it did let me in was enough. Surprised I even got in that one time.

@catch22: Thanks, that site seems good enough to work with. How did you get 6.17%? I chose the six-month period through 7/3 and switched to the bar graph. It showed 9.25%, 3.13%, and 8.99% for the three ETFs. Using my calculator and a hypothetical $100K with 33.33% in each, I got $3,083.33, $1,043.33, and $2,996.67 for a total of $7,123.33 or a gain of 7.12%. I probably overlooked something that you did. I understand "total return" means the distributions were reinvested.
Thanks for all your help!
Rick

reply rjb112: I used yahoo finance. Average of equal amount invested in each fund, app.5.46 % combined return. Investment $1000 = $ 54.60 return. I see catch 22 came up with a different figure , 6.17 % .

On the Wall Street Journal articles: try Googling the article title. Often the Google link works fine but my attempt to republish the link fails miserably.
David

Yeah, I always use that 'technique'......googling the article's title, and it usually works. Sometimes I have to try several different links from google.
This time was odd: I tried to access the article several times by using a google link, and was blocked each time. Just now I tried the same exact google link and was successful. Got in.
Here's the link that got me in.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/mutual-fund-king-bill-miller-makes-comeback-1404095931
However, I just tried this link again as an experiment....and it blocks me again!

By squinting carefully, a writer for the WSJ was able to conclude that Bill Miller's Legg Mason Value Trust had the best performance of any fund for the 15 years before the market's crash and the fund's ultra-crash. The fund flopped around like a fish tossed on the pier, investors left, Miller left, and the fund was rechristened. Now, because Miller is more talented and sees more deeply than any other, his Legg Mason Opportunity fund has the best record of any comparable fund over the past several years. That's the story told in "Mutual-Fund King Bill Miller Makes a Comeback." (Note: not my hyphen.)
David

I don't have access to this WSJ article using the above link.
Does someone have another link? Or can someone copy/paste?

VTI,VXUS,BND returned App. 5.461% with equal amounts invested , ending 30/th June.
Have a nice wked, Derf

@Derf, appreciate if you will provide your sources and methods for coming up with this.