@hank,
Yeah, with the 2020 runup in DSEEX I went and looked at total egg proportions and thought about dialing it back from 64% toward 60%.
But since I have ~5y' worth of bondy things, I then thought 'Why? Why not leave alone, what does it matter?'
So I am letting that winner run.
Bought some FAMEX at market height today, which will be a challenge to watch ....

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-funds-trounce-market-clients-210000727.html
China Funds Trounce Market, But Clients Are Still Leaving
(Bloomberg) -- A bumper year for stock pickers in China has come with a warning for active managers everywhere: even market-trouncing gains aren’t always enough to keep clients happy.

https://invest.usgoldbureau.com/news/rebalancing-your-portfolio/
Rebalancing Your Portfolio
As mid-February creeps near and the first quarter of the year officially reaches its halfway point, we’re feeling the urge to step back and take stock of how our 2020 goals are shaping up. While Americans love a good New Years’ resolution, it’s no secret that for most people, many of those well-intended aspirations that were so motivating in January tend to fall to the wayside come February.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4323075-data-update-3-for-2020-price-of-risk
Data Update 3 For 2020: The Price Of Risk
When investing, risk is a given, and if you choose to avoid it, at any cost, you will, and in the last decade, you have borne a staggering cost in terms of returns unearned.
If you want to earn higher returns, you have no choice but to expose yourself to risk, and when you do, the key question becomes whether you are being compensated sufficiently for taking that risk.
Since my market timing skills are non-existent, I prefer to stay market neutral and stick to valuing companies using the prevailing equity risk premiums.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/vanguard-research-finds-financial-advice-145000852.html
Vanguard Research Finds Financial Advice Improves Portfolio Diversification For 9 in 10 Investors
PR NewswireFebruary 11, 2020, 8:50 AM CST
VALLEY FORGE, Pa., Feb. 11, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- In a new Vanguard white paper, The value of advice: Improving portfolio diversification, researchers Cynthia Pagliaro and Steve Utkus demonstrate the material impact of financial advice on the construction of individual investors' portfolios. Analyzing the asset allocations of more than 44,000 Vanguard self-directed investors who adopted Vanguard Personal Advisor Services, the researchers found the implementation of advice improved portfolio construction for nearly 90% of the investors by addressing equity risk-taking, increasing international exposures, and reducing cash holdings.

The link includes a link to the interview....

That’s Yardeni pointing to the possibility of a 10% drop from recent market highs in an interview on CNBC on Friday.....
Yardeni, who says he’s going to keep cash on the sidelines until he gets more clarity on the coronavirus, remains bullish longer term.
“Interest rates are so extraordinarily low,” he said. “The central banks have basically provided no interesting reasons to buy in the fixed-income markets and lots of reasons to buy in the stock market.”

https://marketwatch.com/story/heres-why-one-longtime-market-bull-is-keeping-powder-dry-even-with-the-fed-giving-a-green-light-to-buy-stocks-2020-02-09

The link that the page gives for Treasury yields is correct, but the yields it quotes for January 30, 2020 are way off on the long end.
"The current rate of the 30-year T-bond as of January 30, 2020, is 2.33%."
According to the Treasury page, the 30 year rate was 2.04%, while the 10 year rate was 1.57%, not the 1.88% given in the article.
The figures it's giving are for Jan 2, not Jan 30. Which shows that in the past month or so the yield curve has flattened considerably. That in turn makes long bonds (always a play on rate movements) an even higher risk proposition.
Looking at 10 year and below, yields are mostly between 1.5% and 1.6%. Meanwhile, VUSXX has a 7 day SEC yield of 1.52% with no interest rate risk, unlike individual Treasuries.
If you expect Treasury yields to drop more, then locking in a slightly higher yield on T-notes may make sense. Otherwise, ISTM that it's worth a handful of basis points to have the stability of a MMF.
Or forgo Treasuries altogether and stick with CDs. Why invest in a 1 year Treasury yielding 1.49% (as of February 7), when you can get a no-penalty 11 mo FDIC-insured CD yielding 2.0%?

FD, I don't disagree with your statement above. The government bond oef category is a very high investment grade category, but within the category you do find some variance regarding duration and interest rate risk. Most of the intermediate duration bond funds above, had total return in 2019 in the 5.5% to 6+% range, but their 3 year performance is slightly below 3%. Interest rates have been very very low since the 2007/2008 financial crisis, and then we started seeing spikes in interest rates in the 2015/2016 period, and since then there has been a steady pressure to raise interest rates, with 2018 being a tough year. In 2019, we saw the Feds decide to take a "pause" in raising interest rates, and it appears they will continue that policy for most if not all of 2020. It is hard to predict rates, as you noted above, so I am of the general opinion that you need to know the difference between one year performance, and longer history of performance of at least 3 years.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2020/02/08/bond-fund-investors-face-rough-times-ahead/#12bf43581116
Bond Fund Investors Face Rough Times Ahead
Do you own one or more bond funds? If so, 2019 was a very good year, but don’t expect that to continue. You see, bonds do well when interest rates trend lower – as they did last year – but typically lose money when rates rise. And, with interest rates stuck at artificially low levels, at some point rates will rise, and bond funds will struggle to achieve a positive return. Here’s why.

This post is about Government Bond OEFs. Historically, this has been a very popular choice for safe haven, ballast, and alternative to cash roles. These are dominated by AAA and AA investment grade bonds, so they are excellent for avoiding credit risk. The real variable is that longer durations are doing very well, as the Feds appear willing to keep interest rate risk stable--as a result longer duration government bonds are having record total return years, compared to their longer term histories. Here are a few funds that are very good options, some of which you might not have heard of:
1. FSTGX: Standtard Deviation 2.28, Duration 3.79, Credit Rating AAA, M* Risk Average,
1/3 yr Total Return 5.78/2.58
2. CRATX: Standard Deviation 2.18, Duration ? , Credit Rating AA, M* Risk Average,
1/3yr Total Return 6.21/2.94
3. SNGVX: Standard Deviation 1.33, Duration 2.4, Credit Rating AAA, M* Risk Average,
1/3yr Total Return 3.88/2.37
4. LEXNX: Standard Deviation 1.96, Duration 3.21, Credit Rating AAA, M* Risk Low,
1/3yr Total Return 5.22/2.65
5. FGMNX: Standard Deviation 2.93, Duration 2.93, Credit Rating AAA, M* Risk Average,
1/3yr Total Return, 5.55/2.75
6. EALDX: Standard Deviation .47, Duration .33, Credit Rating AAA, M* Risk Average,
1/3yr Total Return 1.45/1.74
Comments: FSTGX, CRATX, LEXNX, and FGMNX had 1 year total returns in the 5% to 6% range which is a pretty good return for a safe haven option. Their longer term Total Return performance is traditionally in the 2+% range, but there is no fear of interest rate increases 2019 and apparently not for 2020. EALDX is the ultra short duration fund, that has lower total return, because interest rate risk is not a concern right now. LEXNX is the only M* Low Risk fund but it still has excellent total return performance.

I don’t whose decision at TRP made the call, but they didn’t distribute any LT Capital Gains in 2019. Only short term came out. I moved what I had back into PRMTX.

Yeah - I don’t think I was reading it very clearly. Apologies @mcmarcasco. But I’ve taken the liberty of restating the question in a way that’s easier for me to comprehend. Hopefully, it hasn’t substantively altered the essence of the original question.
-
Question: I am trying to decide how best to repay a fairly new 30-year (4% fixed) mortgage. If I continue on my current path, I will incur $50,000 in additional INTEREST.
Here are the three options I’m considering :
(1) Pay off the mortgage now ... If I pay off my $150,000 mortgage balance, I then free up $1,500/mo and $18,000/yr. Over 10 years, that's $180,000 I can DCA invest (assuming no gains or losses).
(2) Ride it out the term, investing the $150,000. Using the rule of 72 and historical 7% return, then at the end of 10 years I would have doubled my investment to $300,000 gross, NET $150,000 profit. ... Less the $50,000 of Mortgage INTEREST, I am left with $100,000 net gain after 10 years.
(3) Pay additional principle and reduce the payoff time ($150,000 balance / $1,500 P&I / plus a little extra for about a 10-year payoff.
-
That’s how the question appears to me. (Hopefully close to the original intent.) I’ll leave the math here up to @msf or others with stronger math skills. Restating my original reaction: Paying off a 4% mortgage early strikes me from an investment standpoint as quite similar to purchasing a very high quality bond having a 4% compounded yield. You’ve effectively sacrificed the liquidity the loan provided in return for that guaranteed 4% compounded interest you would have paid the lender. For defensive positioning in a down market, a fixed rate long duration bond is beneficial. But in a “heady” equity market environment or a period of rapidly rising interest rates, a 4% bond would look lousy.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1116626/000111662620000006/gtfstatsticker2720-20202.htm
497 1 gtfstatsticker2720-20202.htm
T. Rowe Price Global Technology Fund
Supplement to Prospectus Dated May 1, 2019
Effective April 1, 2020, the T. Rowe Price Global Technology Fund, which was closed to new investors on September 29, 2017, will resume accepting new accounts and purchases from most investors who invest directly with T. Rowe Price.
Accordingly, effective April 1, 2020, the first sentence under “Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” in Section 1, and the first four paragraphs under “More Information About the Fund and Its Investment Risks” in Section 3, are deleted in their entirety from the prospectus.
Financial intermediaries and other institutional clients should contact T. Rowe Price Financial Institution Services or their relationship manager to determine eligibility to open new accounts and purchase shares of the fund.
The date of this supplement is February 7, 2020.

M* seems to have the value factor backward for all funds (or at least the few funds I spot checked). Evidence can be found by comparing the example for Brown Capital Management Small Company (BCSIX) in their Factor Analysis User Guide with the factor analysis for this fund shown on its fund page.
https://www.morningstar.com/content/dam/marketing/shared/pdfs/Research/Morningstar_Factor-Profile-User-Guide.pdf
The former shows the fund as nearly pure growth as does the fund's style chart, while the fund page factor analysis reports the fund to be nearly pure value. Of course the reporting dates are different (Oct 2019 vs. Dec 2019), but with a 17% turnover, it's not likely that the fund converted suddenly from a growth fund to a value fund.
It appears that either no one looks at M*'s factor analysis (so no one has reported an error), meaning the factor analysis is not something readers care about, or as @sma3 suggests, M* has been informed and just doesn't care. Either way, M* is not meeting the needs of its retail subscribers.

@msf - I was way off in my last post. I failed to take into account that mcmarcasco would still have 100% of his loan (the leveraged amount) left after 10 years. So by applying all of that toward the balance, his gains over the 10 years it was invested would need to be only enough to cover the accrued interest - which shouldn’t be hard in a strong equity market. All boils down to what the markets do.

@mcmarasco said: “ ... whether to pay off a fairly new 30-year (4% fixed) mortgage ...”
@msf said: “Either way, At the end of 10 years you'll have your home free and clear”
What am I missing here?
Admittedly, I struggled to get a C in high school Algebra half century ago (my last math class).
I can see how paying off a longer duration mortgage (let’s assume with 25-years remaining) in only 10 years might work if one invested that loan (ie the leveraged sum) in a strong equity market and than rolled all that plus market gains into paying off the mortgage with 15 years remaining after just 10 years.
Might make a good plot for a new Disney production. :)

@mcmarasco ISTM you're overthinking this.
The 30,000 foot view: What your are considering (investing the $150K) is a form of leveraged investment. It's as if you started with nothing in your pocket and your home paid off, and then you borrowed at 4% (the mortgage) to invest the borrowed $150K at 7%.
That's a net gain of 3% (less after taxes), but as with most leveraging, increased risk. (This also addresses @davidrmoran's question: what happens if you reduce the assumed rate of return.)
A little more detail: You want to compare two outcomes. The inputs are the same either way are: $150K cash and a 10 year cash flow of $1500/mo. Either way, at the end of 10 years, you'll have your home free and clear. So the only difference between the two paths you suggested is the value of your investment at the end of 10 years.
Path 1: Invest the $150K @7% rate of return. As you noted, you'll have $300K at the end. (You'll also have paid $180K over the ten years to reduce your mortgage debt by $150K, so you'll have paid in $30K in interest.)
Path 2: Invest $1500/mo @7% rate of return. At the end of 10 years, with incremental investments, you'll have about $258K. A lesser result.
Taxes are where one gets into the weeds:
Path 1: The net income of $150K will presumably be taxed at cap gains rate. But you'll also be able to deduct the $30K in interest against ordinary income. We'll assume a 22% rate here.
Your net taxes will be around 15% x $150K - 22% x $30K = $22.5K - $6.6K, or about $16K.
Your total after tax value will be around $300K - $16K = $284K.
Path 2: Your net income is $258K - $180K (the cash flow it cost you) = $78K. Again assuming this is all cap gains, the tax is 15% x $78K or about $12K.
Your total after tax value will be around $258K - $12K = $246k.
[The $258K result came from using a calculator and investing $1500/mo at 7% annual compounding for ten years.]

What nonsense. If you're going to go there buy VNQ and go about your business. Alternately, if you're willing to take on a little more risk via a CEF then take a look at RQI. Where do they come up with these best lists?
Finally, if you'd really like to learn more about investing in this sector overall then do yourself a favor and read the articles by Hoya Capital Real Estate on Seeking Alpha. This individual has some pretty in-depth articles and knowledge.
Hoya on Seeking Alpha

To answer your first question Hank, the money to pay off the mortgage would come from a taxable account. Yes, I would incur some cap gains, but not too much that would put me into another tax bracket. I have a fair share already in cash doing 2% or so.
I'm probably a little more aggressive than you with my investments, so a 20%-25% decline is not desirable. With "cash" paying about have of my mortgage rate, i am losing money on that end.
Anyway Hank, thank you for your observation and insight!
I hope others will share their thoughts as well.
Matt