I know David would love for us to get into a heated debate about the upcoming elections. :)
OK - Just kidding. But I think so much depends on which way the political currents blow in coming months. The party in power has great influence over Fed leadership, court appointments, budget, industry regulations, tax policies. etc. Unfortunately, our fiscal and other national policies often are short sighted as a consequence. Price we pay, I guess, for self government.
Tom Gallagher of ISS on the old Wall Street Week was the best I can remember at analyzing national & Washington undercurrents and translating those perceptions into actionable advice for investors.
Made many great calls over the years. He retired and than resurfaced again elsewhere. If anybody has anything by Gallagher in recent months I'd love to see it. For old-time's sake, here's a list of frequent cast members on the old Wall Street Week program. Best free investment advice under the sun. http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/wall-street-week/cast/205345

My equity exposure remains relatively low for many reasons - mostly personal factors. I'm however very curious about commodities because I feel they may represent a profitable short term trading opportunity (also one fraught with peril). Pundits like to cite $40 oil 10-15 years ago. Humm ... Do these guys seriously think $1.50 - $2.00 gas at the pump would be a sustainable price for very long?
FWIW

I think if oil goes much below $80 a lot of production will go offline and you will cause a sizable upset in a lot of the debt-ridden junior oil companies.
I mentioned this a few months back, but it is worth repeating:
"The U.S. drive for energy independence is backed by a surge in junk-rated borrowing that’s been as vital as the technological breakthroughs that enabled the drilling spree. While the high-yield debt market has doubled in size since the end of 2004, the amount issued by exploration and production companies has grown nine-fold, according to Barclays Plc. That’s what keeps the shale revolution going even as companies spend money faster than they make it." (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-30/shale-drillers-feast-on-junk-debt-to-say-on-treadmill.html)
One of Rice Energy's PRs ends with this: "Certain of our wells are named after superheroes and monster trucks, some of which may be trademarked. Despite their size and strength, our wells are in no manner affiliated with such superheroes or monster trucks." (http://www.bloomberg.com/article/2014-06-02/aHEbwYkhOK5s.html)
Is shale real? Absolutely. However, I think there's a line where production is no longer economical and, if crossed for a while, I'm curious how heavily indebted companies will fare.

@Ted, thanks, it's a reasonable choice and one I've added to my analysis. I'm not much of an indexer in most cases but this might be a reasonable exception. It worries me a little to read that IJH is 96% correlated with the S&P 500 and 98% correlated with M*'s small cap index over the last decade and maybe that adds a new question to the thought process.

I think one lesson of the bond market hiccup of recent days is that, despite the many months now that the Fed has clearly signaled gradual tightening, it's so NOT priced into the market that a rumor of a relatively minor shift in language produces a quick uptick in T rates. So, there could be a period of Rate Rage ahead, probably in 2015, something like the Taper Tantrum of 2013, despite the usual expectation of security markets as being forward looking.

XX beats XY.
St. John Bogle says Social Security is your bond fund.
...
I do like the EM bonds, tho, but most of your bond funds are for geriatrics. We pay 20 to 40% of our return in expenses for security, which you don't need unless you will really pull the trigger and sell them all and buy stocks at the next correction, if you recognize it in time. Those funds are for fifty-somethings.
High yield with a low ER is probably OK, but they act like stocks in the crash, but recovered faster last time. (Of course, if you are in them, you might have trouble making yourself sell after a loss to buy stocks.)
...
15 to 20 years from retirement, I'd start looking at bonds in moderation, but you might be so rich by then that it wouldn't matter.
Be sure you marry the girl.

I'd be interested to hear what are your list of less geriatric bond funds to check out, In my musings since posting this I noted PONDX, but I'm not sure if that fits your criteria. I'm comfortable with and aware of the SS argument of Bogle, but am not investing here for income, just mild diversification. As you suggest I've been thinking of staying 85-90% equities - currently in a 3:2:1 ratio in US:Developed:EM - until I'm 45-50 or so.
As for DNA sequencing I have some family involved in the business so it's been done. I'm a bit special, but not enough to worry about an early death.
And yes, I shall marry the hell out of the girl.
@AndyJ Agreed about ARTFX and high yield in general, makes an EM bond fund seem maybe a better play for diversity.
@Junkster Hiking in the Sierras is one of our favorite weekend past times. Thank you for the good wishes.

Paul McCully of PIMCO made a curious statement late Thursday (CNBC) that may help answer Catch's question. Essentially, he believes the Fed is concerned that by withdrawing the "foreseeable future" clause they will: "... likely initiate a sizable stock market correction."
I think Fed watching is way overdone and don't pay any more attention to McCully than the other blow-dry pundits. Most of the time in recent years markets have simply "gagged" for a few hours or days following changes in Fed language and than resumed their prior trend.
The recent uptick in long term rates is however very significant and probably a big factor in the commodities slide. Many media pundits grossly oversimplify the relationship between the Fed and longer term rates. While the two are intertwined, markets in the end set long term rates. The Fed's authority to "set" rates is at the very very short end. What "QE" did was give them some badly needed (and artificially induced) leverage at the longer end. With QE coming to an end, I guess it's natural for longer rates to react more to economic conditions.
My equity exposure remains relatively low for many reasons - mostly personal factors. I'm however very curious about commodities because I feel they may represent a profitable short term trading opportunity (also one fraught with peril). Pundits like to cite $40 oil 10-15 years ago. Humm ... Do these guys seriously think $1.50 - $2.00 gas at the pump would be a sustainable price for very long?
FWIW
PS: OK - Bit the bullet today and made a small speculative wager in the commodities pond - which is in addition to my typical static weighting in that area. Left some room to add a little more if they go lower. I expect that the next time the thermometer hits -40 in Minneapolis, should be be to unload these positions for a small gain:-).

Markets still have that sucking sound as of 10am, September 12.
VWO 44.41 -1.03%
ITOT 91.24 -0.30%
EMB 113.94 -0.32%
IBB 271.53 -0.67%
TIP 112.84 -0.24%
LQD 117.93 -0.23%
IEF 102.91 -0.20%
IWM 116.14 -0.38%
IYR 72.25 -1.50%
HYG 92.65 -0.15%

What do you guys think of TEI (Hasenstab's CEF) as opposed to DBLEX for a buy, hold, and forget about it EM debt fund? It's got terrible momentum but a great long-term record and is trading at an usually large discount for it (-7.5% vs. 3 year avg of +0.55%, according to M*.)

I believe the reason it's trading at such a large discount is that TEI cut its monthly yield 20% ($.25 to .20 p/s) a couple months back. GIM cut its yield even further. Long term you're probably fine, but you might want to dig around Franklin's site first.

The indexes keep going up and up but the fear and worry of most investors is still low. Should we worry?
This is an original preface.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101991855

Conversant (CNVR), formerly Valueclick, largest SCMFX holding as of 6-30, +31.45% pre-market agrees to be acquired by Alliance Data. Yes, I do own SCMFX.

VF: You now have won this title for your constant use of low class, uneducated, toliet language.
https://www.google.com/search?q=potty+mouth+image&newwindow=1&biw=1600&bih=731&tbm=isch&imgil=Tl4X4P9hJi-B8M%3A%3BmcmwCCl7LbUsDM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.petco.com%252Fproduct%252F105487%252FFour-Paws-Potty-Mouth-Tablets.aspx&source=iu&pf=m&fir=Tl4X4P9hJi-B8M%3A%2CmcmwCCl7LbUsDM%2C_&usg=__POetfwYzi-6twYOZLIs9YIiLn40=&ved=0CDkQyjc&ei=dOkSVIXPB4uoyATDnID4Ag#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=Tl4X4P9hJi-B8M%3A;mcmwCCl7LbUsDM;http%3A%2F%2Fwww.petco.com%2Fassets%2Fproduct_images%2F0%2F045663150624C.jpg;http%3A%2F%2Fwww.petco.com%2Fproduct%2F105487%2FFour-Paws-Potty-Mouth-Tablets.aspx;350;350

What do you guys think of TEI (Hasenstab's CEF) as opposed to DBLEX for a buy, hold, and forget about it EM debt fund? It's got terrible momentum but a great long-term record and is trading at an usually large discount for it (-7.5% vs. 3 year avg of +0.55%, according to M*.)

XX beats XY.
St. John Bogle says Social Security is your bond fund.
Check the ER of your bond funds against yearly return and quit investing like a geezer (unless you have some chronic illness or a bad genome - I think you can get your DNA sequenced for less than a grand now, so it might be a good investment or cost you the XX, if the results are bad).
I do like the EM bonds, tho, but most of your bond funds are for geriatrics. We pay 20 to 40% of our return in expenses for security, which you don't need unless you will really pull the trigger and sell them all and buy stocks at the next correction, if you recognize it in time. Those funds are for fifty-somethings.
High yield with a low ER is probably OK, but they act like stocks in the crash, but recovered faster last time. (Of course, if you are in them, you might have trouble making yourself sell after a loss to buy stocks.)
If I had known at 30 what I know now....
But I didn't.
Now, I'd either sequence my genome (or not, if that's too deterministic), invest in a total US stock index for 50%, non-US world index for 30%, EM (probably managed funds) for 10%, and allow myself 10% to chase fads. If you believe that small caps add value, you can adjust the recommendations by 5 -10% in the first 2 categories, but the ER increases. 15 to 20 years from retirement, I'd start looking at bonds in moderation, but you might be so rich by then that it wouldn't matter.
Be sure you marry the girl.

I hold a larger position in this fund and established it almost at its inception. I understand the reason holding large cash position, and also understand that we should consider this fund as a conservative allocation fund with cash as the other alternative asset. But with 75% in cash, this fund still lost .53% today in a slightly down market. Did I miss anything here with this fund, or should I move on to other real SCV funds?

Look at ARTVX year to date to get some perspective. It is good ARIVX is in 75% cash. If you are fundamentally still okay with Cinnamond still invests, and still looking to switch, one option is his old charge ICMAX. PVFIX also cut off the same cloth. Also compare with BRSVX. Going into ARIVX we need to accept how the manager is investing. He is doing what he said he would do all along.

I don't know why we are complicating this.
Microsoft goes down 50%, Goes up 100%. Back to square one. Volatility High. NOT RISK.
Enron goes down 50%. Goes down another 50%. Goes down another 50%. Goes Bankrupt. Volatility High. Permanent Loss of Capital. RISK

Could an investor think of the commodities sector as an inflation hedge?
Companies like Rio Tinto (RIO) or BHP Billeton (BHP) pay an solid 4ish% dividend.

I like anything that resembles a toll road - railroads

CSX raising guidance after hours. Note the bold.
"Economic trends and the company's continued commitment to leveraging high-growth opportunities underpin confidence in its ability to return to generating double-digit earnings growth and margin expansion beginning in 2015. Longer term, the company continues to target an operating ratio in the mid-60s, and will continue generating shareholder value by maintaining its focus on inflation-plus pricing, continually improving efficiency across the business, and capitalizing on economic trends."

@Junkster That's kind of what I'm thinking. Not aware of tons of emerging market funds. DBLEX and FNMIX I'm familiar with, looks like there are 5 other Great Owl options in the category.
Edit: I'd guess MAINX counts to this idea too.

jlev, were I not in junk munis would be in DBLEX (and actually was in it a time this year)
Great fund. MAINX a good fund but too stodgy for my tastes and not in the emerging markets bond category. Over the past 3 and 5 years junk corporates have outperformed their emerging markets counterparts but the later shined over the past 20 years. I always worry though and one fear is the great bond rally in so many sectors that has been running for decades may someday come to an abrupt end. But then we have been hearing that for awhile now and demographics may provide more of a tailwind than some of the bond bears suspect. Good luck and enjoy the long years of life you have ahead of you. I lead hikes in my local area over the winter and have lots of 20 and 30 somethings in my group. Real refreshing people to hang around.

http://seekingalpha.com/news/1977095-end-of-the-iron-age-as-iron-ore-prices-slide-to-five-year-lows

Thanks for the article...some comment quotes:
"strong companies that control metal deposits are a good place to be. Strong means with manageable debt they can survive and enough commodity to use as currency, if necessary."
"This is not overcapacity, it is misallocated usage by China. They have cut there own throats and worse they created a shadow banking system based on that crummy Chinese ore, causing prices over the last four years to skyrocket. But that has no bearing on the real price of ore, the long term price of ore which has been commodity equivalent of 80 a ton for sixty years. The actual prices paid were lower but in comparison to buying power and other commodities, 80 is an agreeably number."
"The point is VALE and company are priced to BUY...not sell. They have spent gazillions of dollars improving their efficiency and are RAISING [not lowering] production to squeeze out higher cost producers. I personally like VALE for my own reasons, am long, am down and will continue to buy more...likely here. Vale's big advantages are it's ore which is high in quality and low in impurities such as alumina. The low levels of alumina necessitate LESS coke consumption by blast furnaces thus raising productivity. So while one can make the very valid argument that BHP and RIO have closer proximity to Asian customers, which is true, VALE has better quality ore. VALE has also built a massive logistics and energy infrastructure around their ore systems to increase reliability and lower costs and to the one poster who said or hinted that BHP is getting into the energy business...I'm not exactly sure that's the right way to look at it. VALE and BHP are massive companies and the energy and infrastructure businesses they run are really there to lower the costs of delivering their iron ore products. One company that I would say is probably moving MORE towards energy is Canadian Metals Producer Sherritt International. "

@Junkster That's kind of what I'm thinking. Not aware of tons of emerging market funds. DBLEX and FNMIX I'm familiar with, looks like there are 5 other Great Owl options in the category.
Edit: I'd guess MAINX counts to this idea too.

I also try to chart a fund's NAV. With daily price changes an investor can monitored the trending of the price (calculated with dividends) and determine whether their investment is either making "new higher lows" (trending upward) or making "new lower lows" (trending downward).
Here's an example of both conditions in a fund I own, BUFOX.

Here's a 5 year chart of USBLX and PONDX that speaks for itself:

Or, one of Ted's favorites, PRHSX, in a three year chart (this fund's chart is "pretty" all the way out to 20 years):