"But pension funds, endowments, and other institutional investors represent the vast majority of public company shareholders—and, according to a recent study, these investors view buybacks as among the best actions management can take when it comes to allocating capital."
I think this is a crock of crap. I contend Management uses this to line their nest.

Of course they do.

For most of the 20th century, stock buybacks were deemed illegal because they were thought to be a form of stock market manipulation. But since 1982, when they were essentially legalized by the SEC, buybacks have become perhaps the most popular financial engineering tool in the C-Suite tool shed. And it’s obvious why Wall Street loves them: Buying back company stock can inflate a company’s share price and boost its earnings per share — metrics that often guide lucrative executive bonuses.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/aalsin/2017/02/28/shareholders-should-be-required-to-vote-on-stock-buybacks
Also: Are Stock Buybacks Starving the Economy?, The Atlantic (July 21, 2018)
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/are-stock-buybacks-starving-the-economy/566387/

In an exhaustive financial analysis of buybacks [see link below], the consultancy McKinsey found that companies would generally be better off issuing dividends or increasing investment instead. Buybacks also might distort earnings-per-share calculations and other measures of profitability and value.

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/how-share-repurchases-boost-earnings-without-improving-returns

As market grows and my 65/35 starts to creep closer to 70/30, I take my largest funds VOO and VDGIX and have dividends and cap gains go to cash, such as market we are in right now. When market falters, and equity portion goes lower, i reinvest.

"But pension funds, endowments, and other institutional investors represent the vast majority of public company shareholders—and, according to a recent study, these investors view buybacks as among the best actions management can take when it comes to allocating capital."
I think this is a crock of crap. I contend Management uses this to line their nest.

FYI: ( While a couple of MFO Members who contribute little or nothing to MFO with a poor attempt of humor "Clean up in the condiment aisle" the Linkster's hard working staff searched to see which funds were major holders of KHC. That's why some of us lead and others follow. :) :) :)
Consumer foods giant Kraft Heinz (KHC) has taken quite a hit in the wake of its earnings announcement Thursday after the bell, which included news that the company was writing off $15.4 billion of the value of its brands and is facing a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation of its accounting policies and controls. The stock was down 27.27% at $35.04 at 12:45 p.m. ET Friday, not far from its session low of $34.51.
Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, which had a 26.71% stake in Kraft Heinz at the end of 2018, looks like the biggest loser. But which mutual funds and ETFs are likely to feel the pain from the packaged food company’s sell-off? Click through to see a list from Morningstar Inc. of the 10 funds with the biggest stakes in the company.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.investmentnews.com/gallery/20190222/FREE/222009999/PH
1. Eagle Capital Growth
2. First Trust Consumer Staples AlphaDEX Fd
3. Gabelli Food of All Nations NextShares
4. WestEnd Advisors Large Cap Core Eq- UBS
5. FT AQA (R) Large-Cap 2
6. Frontier MFG Global Equity Institutional
7. Oppenheimer S&P Ultra Dividend Rev ETF
8. Frontier MFG Global Plus Fund
9. FT AQA (R) Large-Cap 1
10. Sims Total Return Fund
M* Funds Holding KHC: (Click On Ownership)
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnas/khc/quote.html

FYI: Kraft Heinz stock (KHC) was down more than 27% on Friday after the company took a $15 billion asset write down, cut its dividend, and disclosed a regulatory probe into its procurement and accounting practices. The stock was downgraded by five Wall Street analysts, too.
That’s a bad day.
Some big names have been caught up in the Kraft vortex, including Warren Buffett and private-equity firm 3G Capital. But one fund manager steered clear of this week’s Kraft Heinz bloodbath: Nuveen Asset Management. Nuveen avoided the decline for a unique reason: It shunned Kraft Heinz stock because the company has weak scores in ESG, the sustainable investing philosophy that looks at, and is short for, environmental, social, and governance metrics. Kraft Heinz isn’t the only high profile stock debacle Nuveen has managed to avoid. Nuveen’s ESG philosophy should give investors something to think about when assessing corporate risk in the future.
Nuveen offers a few exchanged traded funds for U.S. investors, including the NuShares ESG Large-Cap Growth Fund (NULG) and NuShares ESG Large-Cap Value Fund (NULV). In those funds, Nuveen only invests in companies that are in the upper half of a sector based on Nuveen’s ESG scoring.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/esg-nuveen-asset-management-kraft-heinz-stock-51550862080?mod=djem_b_Weekly barrons_daily_newsletter

FYI: When it comes to companies deploying capital, allocators say one of their top choices for management is to buy back shares, flying in the face of a recent Senate proposal to limit the practice.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1d7h46qbdj7z4/Politicians-and-Twitter-May-Hate-Buybacks-But-Institutional-Investors-Don-t

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1689322/000117120019000065/i19086_mft-497.htm
497 1 i19086_mft-497.htm
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
Securities Act File No. 333-214468
Investment Company Act File No. 811-23213
USCF Mutual Funds Trust (the “Trust”)
USCF Commodity Strategy Fund (the “Fund”)
Class A Shares (USCFX)
and
Class I Shares (USCIX)
Supplement dated February 21, 2019 to the Prospectus for the Fund dated October 30, 2018. This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Prospectus. Please review this supplement carefully.
After careful consideration, USCF Advisers, LLC, the Fund’s investment adviser, has recommended, and the Board of Trustees of the Trust has approved, the liquidation and termination of the Fund pursuant to a Plan of Liquidation. Shareholder approval of the Plan of Liquidation is not required.
Pursuant to the Plan of Liquidation, the last day on which orders will be accepted for the sale of Fund shares will be February 22, 2019. Shareholders may continue to redeem shares of the Fund as described in the Prospectus until the Fund has been liquidated.
The Fund will liquidate on or around March 21, 2019 (the “Liquidation Date”). In connection with the liquidation and termination of the Fund, the Fund’s wholly-owned subsidiary incorporated in the Cayman Islands shall also be liquidated in a manner necessary to effectuate the Fund’s Plan of Liquidation.
On or about March 14, 2019, the Fund will begin converting its portfolio assets to cash and cash equivalents. This will cause the Fund to increase its cash and cash equivalent holdings and deviate from its investment objective and principal investment strategies stated in the Prospectus.
On or about the Liquidation Date, the Fund will distribute its holdings pro rata to all remaining shareholders of the Fund. These distributions are taxable events for shareholders investing through taxable accounts. In addition, these payments will include accrued capital gains and dividends, if any. You should consult your personal tax advisor concerning your particular tax situation. As calculated on the Liquidation Date, the Fund's net asset value will reflect the costs of liquidating the Fund. Once the distributions are complete, the Fund will terminate.
If you would like additional information, please contact Shareholder Services at 1-844-312-2114.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

Hi Guys,
The only time that I'm the smartest person in the room is when I'm the only person in that room. Even then, I'm not all that smart by any measure. Being smart is a very subjected judgement and is likely to change over time and circumstances. What's smart to someone might well be stupid to someone else.
It's a complex, interconnected world. What happens somewhere is quickly known everywhere and potentially impacts some of us in unpredictable ways. Investing is even more complex with unknown interactions. These interactions are very volatile and change over time. That makes accurate and repeatable market forecasting an impossible task.
That's why I don't invest based on predictions. I only invest on what actually has happened. That surely limits my potential gains, but most importantly, it limits my loses. I'll never be at the top of the investment success ranking, but I'll never be at the bottom. I'm satisfied and content with a more modest outcome that that strategy produces. I'm not being especially smart, but I believe I'm not being stupid either. This less aggressive approach has worked for me.
Best Wishes

Hi @BrianW: Thanks for making comment.
There are two school of thoughts on this. Now that we are at (or towards) a market top ... Well, I'm thinking ... In holding a capital appreciation fund there is no dividend or income generation that can be used to buy more shares should the market tank. In the route I went, with three growth & income funds plus one growth fund, there is dividend generation that gives the portfolio some buying power should the market pull back. Needless to say, I'm looking for a pull back in the stock market since I went the second route with some dividend generation with the opening positions.
In addition, as additional gifts are made to the custodial account this money can be positioned accordingly. By using American Funds A shares they have a nav exchange program where an investor can make nav exchanges between their A share funds commission free. So, just because the portfolio started in this configuration does not mean it will always be this way.
Also, there are no wrap fees on this account and Morningstar estimates the total expense ratio on this portfolio at 0.69%. In back testing this portfolio it had a three year total return of 12.67% and a ten year total return of 12.2%. While this is back of the returns of a S&P 500 Index fund that I sometime use I am happy with what is projected for this portfolio in its current configuration which offers greater global exposure than the 500 Index fund.

Trade talks will likely be resolved with little to nothing accomplished accept that it will be used as a "great' campaign tool in the next election. What can't happen for the Trump 2020 campaign is for the economy to slip into recession because of a trade war. Be assured, the Chinese know this too. Problem is holding out would be a disaster for the Chinese economy also. Nobody can win, only lose, but that doesn't mean it can't be spun into a winning tweet.

@shipwreckedandalone: The below link just might be what your looking for about the pros, cons and benefits of an equally weighted index fund along with the performance details you seek. The reason I favor an equally weighted S&P 500 Index fund is because it provides good exposure to both large and mid cap stocks. I do not use VADAX for a complete investment strategy but I use it when I feel equity ballast is warranted on the equity side of my portfolio along with also using it as a special investment position (spiff) from time-to-time.
https://www.lynalden.com/equal-weighted-index-funds/
From the link here is a recap of the Pros & Cons of Equal Weighted Indices
Although equal weighted ones may or may not have truly better performance, especially when you stick to the broad market or the S&P 500, there are definitely some trade-offs.
Pros:
Under the largest sample sizes, their long-term performance appears to be superior.
They’re more diversified, rather than heavily concentrated into just the largest companies of the index.
They naturally take a value-approach, which some investors prefer.
Cons:
They have higher turnover, which leads to higher expense ratios and generally higher capital gains taxes.
They’re more volatile, and can fall more sharply during recessions.
They’re only available for certain indices, because they’re not as popular yet.
There are some interesting anomalies. For example if Apple were to split into two companies, a cap-weighted index would still have the same amount in it because the two parts would have about the same market cap when added together, while an equal-weighted one would double its exposure to it because it’s now two names and would invest in each equally.
Neutral:
Changing the way the index is weighted changes the sector balance.

@FD1000 what is your upper limit of stocks since you are in preservation mode? If MA goes below 50-200 day you toggle from 5 to 2%AA in stocks? 2-5% seems like it may as well be 0%. Of course if those are individual stocks...something with large upside or large capital gains I can see holding on. I am interested in trend following so using MA is interesting to me. Regards,Mike

I like listening to the bond king but Mr G was wrong so many times, it's embarrassing...and he was wrong about bonds too because nobody can predict what markets will do in the next 3-6 months. His biggest dare prediction is for the 10 year treasury to be at 6% by 2020-1(link), I predict he will be way off.

This 10 minute video reviews some of Gundlach's major market calls, his new fund offerings, the recent stock market selloff, parallels between market conditions now and market conditions a decade ago, and why he thinks now is a good time to buy two year treasuries rather than US stocks or corporate bonds.....

"A bear market has nothing to do with this 20% arbitrary thing," Gundlach, the CEO of $121 billion DoubleLine Capital, told Yahoo Finance in an exclusive interview. "It has to do with something crazy happening first, and then the crazy thing gives it up. And yet more traditional things continue to march on. But one by one they give it up."

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gundlach-last-years-market-selloff-was-just-a-taste-of-things-to-come-133019690.html

The advisor, New York Alaska ETF Management, seems to have two employees, offices on the third floor of a nice though anonymous Las Vegas building (5550 Painted Mirage Rd) and about $90 million in assets. The founder's, Ofer Abarbanel, Linked In profile identifies him as "Founder, Prime Brokerage Ltd, Aug 2000 – Present. Contact Prime Brokerage Ltd is Israel's No.1 ranked Non-Bank Secured Credit Brokerage firm which specializes in Securities Lending, Covered Bonds, TRS, CDS and Repo transactions."
The manager, Nicholas Abbate, "has significant experience in capital markets [through] various roles at Knight Capital Group," but extensively as "a market maker in NASDAQ securities and Over the Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB)/OTC Pink Securities in various sectors." He left KCG in 2010 and, for four years, was an independent real estate investor and developer.
As I charted STATX against RPHYX, ZEOIX and MINT, I noted a supernatural steadiness to its returns. It has returned 6.5% since inception, over the same period the others have returns something in the 3.5 - 5.5% range.
No opinion or recommendation, just a bit of additional data.
David

Dear friends,
In an interesting development, Eric Cinnamond (ex of Intrepid Endurance ICMAX and Aston/RiverRoad Independent Value ARIVX) and Jayme Wiggins (ex of Intrepid Endurance ICMAX) are joining forces to launch the Palm Valley Capital Fund. A small cap absolute value fund. 1.25% expenses (undercutting ICMAX on price), $2,500 minimum. ICMAX has a cluttered manager history with both guys on the fund from 2005-08, then Wiggins leaving in 08, Cinnamond leaving in '10, Wiggins returning in '10 and leaving in '18. Mark Travis, the firm's founder, helped manage the fund from 2005-17, left, then returned for about four months after Mr. Wiggins' sort of sudden departure. ICMAX is now managed by three guys who I don't particularly know.
Messrs Cinnamond and Wiggins are both excellent stock pickers, a fact mostly masked by their absolute value orientation. At base, absolute value investors believe that stocks are sometimes insanely profitable but are always insanely risky. The only rational time to buy is when you can buy them at a 50% discount to what they're worth. In most markets, there are dozens of stocks, especially the stocks of tiny firms, that are massively undervalued. In part of every market cycle, though, such bargains disappear as momentum investors and froth fiends pile in. When that happens, absolute value guys run out of stuff to buy and begin building cash. Later still, their holdings become uncomfortably expensive (that is, risky) and get sold one by one; if there's nothing to replace them, cash builds further. Somewhere in there investors with short memories are seized by FOMO and flee from the absolute value funds to the funds that have made the most profit during the market's frothy phase. Somewhere thereafter, the market collapses, the folks in the riskiest funds get burned the most badly and the absolute value investors make a mint for their remaining investors. Shortly thereafter, panicked people fleeing the high growth funds rush in the door, assets soar and the cycle begins anew.
Market cycles usually run around seven years, but the intervention that probably saved the economy in 2008 kept market valuations from plumbing their normal bear market lows and a decade of effectively zero interest rates have prolonged the current one. As a result, absolute value guys were holding historic levels of cash for historic periods; in consequence, they became historically unpopular. In 2016, Mr. Cinnamond decided to liquidate ARIVX which was sitting at about 90% cash; his argument was that he didn't see an immediate prospect for a return to normal valuations and he wasn't willing to indefinitely charge his investors equity fund fees for something close to a money market. In 2018, for reasons not made public, Mr. Wiggins left ICMAX which was sitting at about 85% cash.
The launch of Palm Valley, likely at the end of April, raises interesting questions (what led the managers to decide that this was the time to beginning raising capital which will only be useful after a really substantial correction?) and will offer a really interesting opportunity for small cap investors who are intensely aware of the need to manage the enormous extremes of such stocks.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1650149/000089418919000884/spt-palm_485a.htm
David

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
February 14, 2019
Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
18th century British nobleman Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild is alleged to have said: “Buy when there is blood in the streets.” He supposedly made a fortune speculating when Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo. We know for a fact that legendary 20th century investor Sir John Templeton followed his: “Buy in periods of maximum pessimism” principle to great success.
If you were to name places in the world where you wouldn’t consider investing today what comes to mind? How about Venezuela where the economy is in ruins, the president discredited and the opposition mounting? Or a specific company in this country like Pacific Gas and Electric, PG&E for short, the California utility that filed for bankruptcy and bore the physical and legal brunt of the recent devastating California wild fires? Those are fertile ground for contrarian investors, or just traditional value investors who look for opportunities where others fear to tread.
This week’s guest is just such an investor. Her specialty is fixed income but she has the latitude to invest around the world, anywhere in a company’s capital structure and she revels in the hunt. She is Kathleen Gaffney, Director of Diversified Fixed Income at Eaton Vance where she is also the lead portfolio manager of the Eaton Vance Multisector Income Fund, which she launched as the Eaton Vance Bond Fund when she joined the firm in early 2013.
The fund is known for its flexibility to seek higher total return opportunities wherever available in the world and the capital structure of the companies chosen. That approach has also meant “significantly more volatility” than its peers in Morningstar’s Multisector Bond category. It carries a 3-star rating but is ranked in the top one percentile for the last 3 years, the middle of the pack for the last 5 and has beaten its benchmark since inception.
Gaffney is also lead portfolio manager of the somewhat more traditional Eaton Vance Core Plus Bond Fund. It carries a 5-star rating and has ranked in the top performance percentiles for the last 3 and 5 year periods under her leadership.
The last time I sat down with Gaffney in late 2017 she told us we were at an important inflection point, shifting from a secular decline in interest rates to a gradual rise. She will share her views of where we stand now.
If you’d like to watch any of our programs ahead of their official broadcast they are available to our PREMIUM viewers on our website about 24 hours before. You’ll also find the EXTRA interview with Kathleen Gaffney about her technique to keep mentally fresh.
If you would prefer to take WEALTHTRACK with you on your commute or travels, you can now find the WEALTHTRACK podcast on TuneIn, Stitcher, and SoundCloud as well as iTunes and Spotify.
Thank you for watching. We hope you had a happy Valentine’s Day. Make the week ahead a profitable and a productive one.
Best regards,
Consuelo
Video Clip:

M* Snapshot EVBAX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/EVBAX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot EVBAX:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/evbax
EVBAX Is Unranked In The (MB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/multisector-bond/eaton-vance-multisector-income-fund/evbax

Taken to its extreme, the argument that owning multiple funds in a category is no different than buying an index fund (albeit at higher cost) leads one to say that a fund with multiple managers is like an index fund.
Okay, that's a little harsh because funds can be run where managers must agree on investments, thus there are not multiple "portfolios" at work in these funds. But in many cases, team managers may run separate portfolios. For example, Capital Group (American Funds) teams "Divid[e] each fund into independently run sleeves ..."
https://www.americanfunds.com/individual/our-company/capital-system.html
Other funds are explicitly run by multiple management companies (with their own sleeves) for the purpose of providing different approaches. For example, VWILX is run by two management companies, Schroders with a GARP approach and Balllie Gifford which is more growth oriented.
Investing in complementary styles doesn't mean buying everything. Different managers have different skills and may add value in different parts of the market (e.g. large cap and small cap). Likewise, multiple managers may add value even within what one might consider the same part of the market, as with VWILX.
That said, someone who collects lots of funds in one section of the market simply because they are good funds is likely to be getting close to buying that whole section of the market. I agree that looks a lot like buying a high priced index fund. I try to keep the number of funds I use in any part of the market down to a couple. I don't feel that constitutes a "collection".
I fundamentally disagree with the premise that zero cost index funds are better than low cost index funds. When I buy index funds, I look at how the index is constructed and how well the management company executes. I feel these factors are much more significant than a few basis points.
To be blunt, IMHO zero cost is more sizzle than steak. The zero cost index funds that are offered for retail purchase are untested and proprietary, making examination of their construction virtually impossible.
M* shows 22 zero cost index funds: the four Fidelity ZERO funds (FZROX has underperformed FSKAX by 66 basis points over the past three months ending Feb 13); seven Fidelity Flex or Series funds (not available to retail investors); three class W TIAA funds (not available to retail investors except via non-zero ER shares), and a slew of Wells Fargo factor based funds (available only through managed advisory programs).
So it looks like we're talking about just four funds (or three if we restrict to domestic equities). I prefer to think outside this (extremely small) box.

T. Rowe Price Global Technology Fund, Inc.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1116626/000111662619000004/gtfstatsticker-february20193.htm
497 1 gtfstatsticker-february20193.htm
T. ROWE PRICE GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY FUND
Supplement to Prospectus Dated May 1, 2018
On page 6, the portfolio manager table under “Management” is supplemented as follows:
Effective March 31, 2019, Alan Tu will replace Joshua K. Spencer as the fund’s portfolio manager and Chairman of the fund’s Investment Advisory Committee. Mr. Tu joined T. Rowe Price in 2014.
On page 9, the disclosure under “Portfolio Management” is supplemented as follow:
Effective March 31, 2019, Alan Tu will replace Joshua K. Spencer as Chairman of the fund’s Investment Advisory Committee. Mr. Tu joined the Firm in 2014 and his investment experience dates from 2010. Since joining the Firm, he has served as an equity investment analyst covering the technology sector. Prior to joining the Firm, he was an associate at Huron Consulting and then an investment analyst at Ananda Capital Management (beginning 2010).
The date of this supplement is February 14, 2019.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/80248/000008024819000003/nhfstatsticker-february20192.htm
T. Rowe Price New Horizons Fund, Inc
497 1 nhfstatsticker-february20192.htm
T. ROWE PRICE NEW HORIZONS FUND
Supplement to Prospectus Dated May 1, 2018
On page 5, the portfolio manager table under “Management” is supplemented as follows:
Effective March 31, 2019, Joshua K. Spencer will replace Henry M. Ellenbogen as the fund’s portfolio manager and Chairman of the fund’s Investment Advisory Committee. Mr. Spencer joined T. Rowe Price in 2004.
On page 8, the disclosure under “Portfolio Management” is supplemented as follow:
Effective March 31, 2019, Joshua K. Spencer will replace Henry M. Ellenbogen as Chairman of the fund’s Investment Advisory Committee. Mr. Spencer joined the Firm in 2004 and his investment experience dates from 1998. He has served as a portfolio manager with the Firm throughout the past five years.
The date of this supplement is February 14, 2019.
F42-042 2/14/19

This article is actually comparing two forms of lump sum investing: invest now, or invest when the market is next at a low point. (It just does this repeatedly and averages out results.) The low point is defined as the minimum point between two all time highs. Therein lies the problem.
If the market is on an upswing (much of the time), you're waiting until the next all time high (which by definition is higher than now), and then waiting for it to reach its next minimum (which is likely to be higher than now).
Tweaking the timing slightly and buying at a redefined "dip" should do better. As in the article, assume omniscience but buy at the lowest point between now and the next all time high. If the market is on a downswing toward that minimum, you'll win by waiting and buying at a lower price than now. If the market is rising toward that next all time high, you'll win by buying now and catching the wave. (That is, unless the market really swoons after that high and winds up lower than it is "now".)
But that's if you're omniscient. I for one am not. I don't know when the market is at an all time high (when to raise cash) and when it will hit its next low (to buy) before going to its next high.
At best, I might smooth returns a bit by trying to sell when the market is up (but not at a high, which I can't know psychically), and trying to sell near a bottom (but not at the actual bottom). I'll miss some losses this way but also miss some gains, thus smoothing results (with possible tax consequences), but likely not helping returns.